"Sweet icing on a bitter cake"

I'm a little late on this, but author Susan Faludi wrote a New York Times op-ed about Hillary's speech on Tuesday at the DNC. What she wrote really resonates with me (I had some of the same ideas in the post I wrote directly after the speech) and it's nice to know I'm not the only one. Here's some highlights:

MUCH has been made of the timing of Hillary Clinton’s speech before the Democratic National Convention tonight, coming as it does on the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage. Convention organizers are ... pay[ing] homage to the women’s vote in particular and women’s progress in general. By such tributes, they are slathering some sweet icing on a bitter cake. But many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are unlikely to be partaking. They regard their candidate’s cameo as a consolation prize. And they are not consoled.

“I see this nation differently than I did 10 months ago,” reads a typical posting on a Web site devoted to Clintonista discontent. “That this travesty was committed by the Democratic Party has forever changed my approach to politics.” In scores of Internet forums and the conclaves of protest groups, those sentiments are echoed, as Clinton supporters speak over and over of feeling heartbroken and disillusioned, of being cheated and betrayed.

The despondency of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters — or their “vitriolic” and “rabid” wrath, as the punditry prefers to put it — has been the subject of perplexed and often irritable news media speculation. Why don’t these dead-enders get over it already and exit stage right?

Shouldn’t they be celebrating, not protesting? After all, Hillary Clinton’s campaign made unprecedented strides. She garnered 18 million-plus votes, and proved by her solid showing that a woman could indeed be a viable candidate for the nation’s highest office. She didn’t get the gold, but in this case isn’t a silver a significant triumph? ... Many Clinton supporters say no, and to understand their gloom, one has to take into account the legacy of American women’s political struggle, in which long yearned for transformational change always gives way before a chorus of “not now” and “wait your turn,” and in which every victory turns out to be partial or pyrrhic.

For all the talk of Hillary Clinton’s “breakthrough” candidacy and other recent successes for women, progress on important fronts has stalled. ...Today, the United States ranks 22nd among the 30 developed nations in its proportion of female federal lawmakers. ... Women's real annual earnings have fallen for the last four years. ... Women’s numbers are stalled or falling in fields ranging from executive management to journalism, from computer science to the directing of major motion pictures. ...

Again, many daughters of a feminist generation seem pleased to proclaim themselves so “beyond gender” that they don’t need a female president. ... As it turns out, they won’t have one. But they will still have all the abiding inequalities that Hillary Clinton, especially in defeat, symbolized. Without a coalescing cause to focus their forces, how will women fight a foe that remains insidious, amorphous, relentless and pervasive?

via Broadsheet.

18 Million Cracks

I saw Hillary give her concession speech two months ago in D.C. I admit it, I cried. My sister who came with me, she cried. The middle-aged woman standing next to us, she cried, too. And even as I review the text of her speech to post below, I tear up.

...[W]hen I was asked what it means to be a woman running for President, I always gave the same answer: that I was proud to be running as a woman but I was running because I thought I’d be the best President. But I am a woman, and like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious. ...

I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of. I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter’s future and a mother who wants to lead all children to brighter tomorrows. To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and mothers, and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal respect. Let us resolve and work toward achieving some very simple propositions: There are no acceptable limits and there are no acceptable prejudices in the twenty-first century.

You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories, unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United States. And that is truly remarkable. ...

Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it. And the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time. That has always been the history of progress in America. [emphasis mine]

Her speech today, and in June, marks the end of something spectacular. But, taking a step back, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be unusual in this day and age for a woman to run for president. I shouldn't be this upset that a woman lost, knowing it's another 8 years before another woman (or the same!) will have the chance to run again.

We like to think we live in a society without sexism, and I think a lot of people fool themselves into believing its true. And even I -- despite spending a decent amount of my working years as a professional feminist -- managed to become complacent.

Her loss is a slap in the face to women. It's like I'm being told to get back in the kitchen. I don't want a glass ceiling with 18 million cracks in it. I want no glass ceiling at all.

Even tonight, as I watched the coverage on MSNBC directly prior to her speech, some man came on (I'm not sure who) and said that former Hillary supporters were just waiting for Hil to give the word and then they'd be fine with voting for Barack. Because obviously I've been waiting around for someone to TELL me to vote for Barack. I'm just a silly woman who can't make up her own mind, I need to be told what to do (even if by Hillary). To that, unnamed political commentator, I say fuck you. Fuck. You. Part of me really wants to give up on the Democratic Party in general (despite being told its the "women's party" I'm starting to have my doubts) and become an Independent ... but then I remember its my registration as a Democrat that let me vote for Hillary at all.

So when Hillary asked her supporters tonight: "Were you in this campaign just for me?" I have to honestly answer, "Yes, yes I was." If I wasn't, I wouldn't tear up every time I see or hear you. If I wasn't, I wouldn't still be this upset. If I wasn't, I wouldn't feel like your loss was my loss. And despite my love and idolism of you, I simply cannot support your request that I "must support Barack Obama." Sorry, Hil.

No love for the mandate

The Health Care Blog had an interesting piece today comparing Joe Biden's health plan when he was in the primaries (I barely even remember him being an option, to be honest) to Obama's current plan. According to HC blog:

Both cover the usual list of Democrat health care touchpoints -- making coverage affordable with subsidies to people and businesses, creating new public options to supplement private offerings, preventing insurers from denying coverage to the sick, emphasizing prevention and chronic disease treatment, etc., etc., etc., yada yada and so forth.

Neither plan, significantly, follows the Hillary Clinton proposal for mandating coverage for all people. Neither does the vaporous plank on health care in the Democrat's party platform draft.

This makes me sad. I guess you consider Obama's statement that he'd support a single-payer system at some point in the future as his support from universal coverage, but I don't think that goes far enough. I mean, I get it. It's political doomsday to support a mandate (look at Hil now) but really look at Massachusetts. I admit that I haven't looked closely the personal effect of its mandate, or the effectiveness of the coverage, but the resulting increase in coverage is remarkable.

Oh well.

Not concrete = Not important

This makes me so sad.

"For a lot of people who have health insurance, they are paying more for health care, but it may not show up as concretely as paying $70 to fill their gas tank," said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster.

Gas, people? Really? That's your top concern? Somehow, I think it's highly unlikely our next president is going to do anything about gas prices. Buy a Prius and get. over. it.

From the Democratic camp:

Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, said the problem is the press, not the campaign.

"The issue of health care may be getting less attention than it deserves from the media, but it's still a top concern for voters and among the top issues that Sen. Obama talks about on the campaign trail," said Burton.

That better be true, Obama. I still don't like you, I'm still not voting for you, but you better keep it as a "top concern."

Best quotes:

On why gas is more in people's minds than health care: "If people had to pass that many signs that announced how much health care costs, you can bet it would be at the top of the agenda," said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a Democratic think tank, and former adviser to Vice President Al Gore.

And of course Drew Altman: "Beneath all that, when you probe, when you ask people what's bothering you about the economy right now, in economic downturns — problems paying for health care and health insurance really loom large," Altman said. "After people's fixations paying for gas prices, problems paying for health care are right at the top with job issues."

[Of course, if I was the head of a huge non-profit dedicated to health care, I might think that health care was a big issue, too.]

"Bitch is the new black"

Very funny segment on Hillary, via Salon.

Pent Up Anger

While out for happy hour last weekend in D.C., my friends and I managed to pick a bar that was part of a Obama supporter bar crawl. Standing around with my roommate, we were approached by bar crawl participants, who asked us if we wanted a sticker. We politely told them no thank you, we support Hillary. Which led to a 30 minute discussion about why I was supporting Hillary (my roommate had escaped by this point). So annoying 1) because I was a happy hour, and 2) because speaking/thinking about Obama makes me uncontrollably angry.

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about why I hate Obama so much. It's not rational, and I would consider myself a rational person by nature. So why the pent up anger?

The only thing I can come up with is that Clinton's downfall is so obviously in part because of sexism. In the media, in people's minds. The media bugs me the most. I expect everyday people to be ignorant, that's just how it goes. But the media? Our society's opinion leaders? I expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard. But they really have not, and completely represent how sexist is still so prevalent, albeit in a more subversive form than in the past. NOW's president Kim Gandy I think sums up my feelings best in her most recent "Below the Bet" post:

The press have been brutal to Clinton, no doubt about it. Whether consciously or not, too many reporters, commentators, pundits and the like appear unable to critique Hillary Clinton without dusting off their favorite sexist clichés, stereotypes and insults. Some of these remarks seem mild, while others are offensive and truly outrageous. Taken together, they create an environment of hostility toward all women, not just Senator Clinton. At this moment it feels like she is a stand-in for every woman who has ever tried to get ahead and be taken seriously by the powers that be.

For me, it's not just the sexist comments about Clinton, it's also the media's absolute inability to critique Obama. Certainly, he's done something to merit scrutiny. They just won't look.

For example, last week (I started this post awhile ago) I was reading the coverage for Maryland's primaries (where I'm from) in the Baltimore Sun. On the front page, there were three stories: one about Clinton, one about Obama, and one about McCain. The tag lines telling readers where to find the rest of the stories were slightly ridiculous: Clinton's was "campaign," McCain's "GOP," and Obama's was "believer." Believer?? Are you kidding me? How about "Obama" or "Democrat" or something without such a blatantly biased connotation? It's little things (so small you wouldn't even realize that you read it unless looking) like that that really drive me insane. Read Gandy's post for more ingratiating remarks.

I've been collecting articles over the last two weeks that I think either resonate with the sexism problems in the media or in society. Here are the highlights:

• "Between 'inspiration' and health care," Froma Harrop: "From his Chicago headquarters, Obama ended the exhausting Tuesday night with an almost mechanical 'we have to choose between change and more of the same.' ... How odd that when it comes to the Democrats’ top concern, health care, Obama offers very much 'more of the same' -- as in more of 'no universal coverage.'"
• "When women rule," Nicholas Kristof: "In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices -- and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man."
• "Democrats need to understand that racism and sexism still count in elections," Mary Sanchez: "In the final primary weeks, Democrats should ask themselves this question: Is the U.S. more prone to racism or to sexism? And how should the answer affect party strategy if the goal is a Democratic White House. ... I vote sexist. Hillary haters are much more numerous and vocal than those who can’t stomach the idea of a black man globetrotting for the next four years on Air Force One."
• "A calumny a day to keep Hillary away," Stanley Fish: "The majority of posters agreed with the characterization of the attacks on Senator Clinton as vicious and irrational, but in not a few posts the repudiation of Hillary-hatred is followed by more of the same. ... Comments like these would seem to lend support to the view (voiced by many respondents) that sexism is what ultimately motivates the Clinton bashers. ... If so, they face it from women as well as from men, at least on the evidence provided here."
• "Women hold key to Clinton's fate," Bill Maxwell: "The country has had a number of women who have sought the White House, but none could garner wide support. So far, Clinton has been the most viable, but she is facing the 'damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't' syndrome. She cannot be too feminine for fear of appearing weak and not up to the job. She cannot be too wonky or too tough for fear being labeled a 'bitch.'"

***

Since writing this post, there has been a slight shift in the media, although it's too little too late, I think. Here's a couple of opinion piece that (finally) realize that Obama's "hope" might not be all it's cracked up to be:

• "Obama's spell memorizing but empty," Charles Krauthammer: "Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude."
• "The Obama delusion," Robert Samuelson: "Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems."

Let's talk Mayo Clinic

and Hillary, for that matter.

But focusing on the Mayo Clinic for a sec ... The clinic on Friday released 19 recommendations for health care reform. One of their major proposals is to make health insurance more portable. I mentioned this topic in my last post. I simply cannot stress enough how much I support portable health insurance. It doesn't make any sense to have it tied to employers anymore. I mean, hello, people of my generation have extreme ADD when it comes to holding a job. How are we ever supposed to establish a connection with a doctor, which will help us receive better, more coordinated care, if we keep having to change insurance providers every year and a half? New York Times says that one and four change jobs every year ... and I think they might be referring to me, haha.

What really surprised me about the coverage on this was the employer response. According to the Times,

Executives of several large employers who took part in the Mayo discussions agreed that rising medical costs and the aging of the baby boomer generation were pushing the current system toward a crisis. But they said they were not ready to abandon their current health plans for employees.

“We do not believe in relinquishing the employer-sponsored health care system,” said Anthony C. Wisniewski, a Mayo panelist who is executive director of health care policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.

That's basically all the article says about it, which is kind of annoying because I want to know WHY they don't want to give up health insurance. It would make them totally more profitable. God knows those car makers are itching to drop insurance coverage ... why not businesses in the Chamber of Commerce? Perhaps because a good insurance plan makes a job offer more attractive? Hard to say without a better background in business.

You can read the rest of the recommendations here. Overall, I felt like the recommendations were very thought out .. radical but not so radical it couldn't be done. I'm very hopeful that Hillary will implement some of their recommendations into her reform. The whole quality-cost debate I think is pretty standard, but portability is something I would really like to see implemented.

Now on to discussing my girl Hill's proposal. Since I didn't cover it at work (as I did the Mayo Clinic) this is news to me too. Looking a press release from today on her website, the final prong of her three prong plan includes none other than --- PORTABILITY. (Full disclosure: I love Hillary. I volunteer for her campaign. Which truly demonstrates my love because I hate making cold calls ... but for her, I do it.). She even throws in tax credits. Listen to her: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it." It's genius. She has some other good things outlined in the press release, so I recommend reading it.

From a different press release (the mainstream media will have more detailed coverage tomorrow ... if I have time I'll post some the main pieces so I am not completely one-sided.):

If you’re one of the tens of million Americans without coverage or if you don’t like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and that coverage will be affordable. Of course, if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.

• Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.
• Available: No discrimination. The insurance companies can’t deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.
• Reliable: It’s portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.

...If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren’t currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

Reading this shit practically makes me giddy. Also, hopefully you caught last week's Newsweek, which had extensive coverage about Hillary and "what kind of decision maker she'd be." It has some good insight into the lessons she's learned from the failed health care reform attempt of 1993/4. Here's a different web exclusive article on health care and Hillary.

Candidate Updates

I'm going to be honest here, I really only plan on blogging about the candidates who I personally think are viable.

For the Democrats:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Barack Obama
• John Edwards

For the Republicans:

• Rudy Giuliani
• Mitt Romney
• Tommy Thompson (not really because I think he's viable, but because his whole platform is basically about health care ... at least, so you'd think from the coverage)
• Fred Thompson (again, not really because I think he's viable. I just really love Law & Order)

That said, here are some updates on their stances on health care:

• "Bearing scars, Clinton cautious on universal plan," McClatchy. Clinton's being a bit vague on her health care proposal to avoid comparisons to her last plan, while playing up her health care "scars." Smart move.
  
• "Edwards to Detail Health Care Plan," Associated Press. I personally thought he had already detailed it enough, but apparently he did it again today in Michigan. Also, he's added proposals to end patents on breakthrough drugs and require insurance companies to spend 85% of premiums on patients care.
• Gialiani has a 12 Step program for the country, one of which is increasing access to health care: "Giuliani Offers Up 12 Steps to a Better Future," Washington Post. "Rudy's Plan for the U.S.: 12 Promises to Keep if he Becomes Prez," New York Post.
  

Side note on party differences from the article on Clinton:

Democrats describe the escalating cost of health insurance and the rising number of uninsured Americans as "a crisis." All say they want universal coverage.

Republicans rarely mention health care, except when asked about it. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona don't list health care in the "issues" section of their campaign websites. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney rarely talks about his successful effort to make health insurance mandatory for Massachusetts residents.