"Bush vs. Obama: Perhaps lost in the news of Obama’s weekend victories and Solis Doyle stepping aside was President Bush’s broadside against Obama. “I certainly don't know what he believes in,” Bush told FOX’s Chris Wallace. “The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad. I think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about that.” Whoa, Nelly. Obama spokesman Bill Burton fired back with this statement: “Of course President Bush would attack the one candidate in this race who opposed his disastrous war in Iraq from the start. But Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation.” Talking to folks who know Bush well say he just doesn't believe Obama's earned it; that he's worthy. He has a lot more respect for Clinton and apparently would be more comfortable seeing her or McCain as his heir than Obama."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/11/654870.aspx

Bush doesn't think Obama's earned it. Nice!

Usually I listen to NPR in the morning. When I used to have a car I'd listen in the car and try to find out what was going on in the world, although BBC has better coverage of world events. I know that MSNBC has been driving many viewers here crazy with its Hillary bashing (I'm an Obama supporter but I stay away from that kind of punditry because it offends me so much I worry that it would push me into her camp if I tuned in!) but on NPR I cannot help but notice the killing him softly with polite political disdain treatment of Obama.

For example, this morning they were again talking about the racial breakdowns of voters, and wanting to ask him about Lousiana. Never mind the other states he won this weekend where blacks are not a majority by a long shot (like Washington State where I'm from). They asked him if he was "concerned" about racial divisions. And he said that he objected to the question because in many of the states where he's won by a wide margin that was not the case--like Nebraska or Idaho for example, or Iowa. The interviewer sort of treated his answer with disdain, and then said basically that he's trying to have it both ways. I wonder though why Barack isn't questioned more about his conerns about sexism--and why Hillary isn't questioned more about her concerns about race? Why are race divisions the responsibility of the black man and sex divisions the responsibility of the woman? Doesn't this only contribute to the stereotyping and belittling of both candidates?

One final aspect to the story that bothered me: the story ended by commenting that the consolidation of the "black" vote behind Obama is giving him his "leverage" in this campaign. They are partially correct. As Clinton's base among large groups of women creates leverage for her. But the way they said it about Obama--it was as if this is his only leverage. They failed to mention that he is currently ahead in the delegate count. Doesn't that also create leverage--regardless of one's race or gender?

I've been gratified to see in this election so many voters choosing a candidate based on their understanding of the issues, beyond race or gender, voting for the human being and the candidate. And yet NPR will not stop trying to box Obama in as that black guy with scary--yet more easily quantifiable-- black voter leverage, and MSNBC will not stop trying to box Hillary in as the chick in bad pantsuits with menopausal female harridans as her base who doesn't quite deserve to play with the big boys on capitol hill.

Our media need a collective spanking!

"It was a formerly anorexic friend of mine who nailed it when she read excerpts from the book. "When you have an eating disorder," she told me, "that's the voice you hear in your head all the time."

* * *

I think the really good book about women and food has not yet been written. Maybe fat is a feminist issue comes close. But there's a dangerous tendency of dieting books to bully women into an unhealthy self-conscious, self-hating relationship with food. The dieting industry thrives on the fact that women feel bad about their bodies, because only when women feel bad are they sure to spend more dollars on the latest dieting books.

I think it was on sixty minutes last night that Hillary Clinton talked about breaking her Diet Soda habit and I thought my God, even women who are successful and hardworking think that they don't deserve anything better than diet soda.

Yes, I care about animal cruelty and I'm willing to consider veganism a better choice for a healthier planet. But I don't appreciate two more authors, fashionista mavens, adding to the mysogyny against women by trying to motivate them to do what they think they should do by resorting to old-fashioned, mean-spirited shaming.

I won't be reading this book or passing it out to my friends, thank-you.

did anyone catch this article in the New York Times this week concerning mandates and Hillary's first health plan?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html

This is the one issue that Krugman says makes Obama not his pick for president--and yet Obama is not the only one who has tried to implement health care reform without mandates. And the article talks about Clinton's reputed response to Jim Cooper.