For this post and this post only. Feel free to skip on by if you so choose.
Am I the only one who couldn't honestly care less about what's happening at the Democratic National Convention?
Anyway, a few observations:
1. Theresa Heinz Kerry is no lady. I read a bit of Kevin Drum's commentary on the whole "shove it" episode and then read some of his commenter's opinions. (Hat Tip: Vodkapundit) One in particular stuck out like a sore thumb.
Yeah, I have to admit, I've never understood the appeal of Laura Bush. She gives out a seriously strong "plastic robot" vibe. I'm sure she's a wonderful person and all (and certainly she's been given credit for stopping Georgie's public drunkenness), but... eurgh.
A plastic robot vibe? Keeping your nose out of your husband's business, and I mean BUSINESS,
does not mean one is a "plastic robot." It simply means one has the
good sense to know what is your business and what isn't. If Theresa
Heinz Kerry wants to run for President, fine, go for it, provided she
can get the Constitution amended. I have no issues with that. But don't
defend a foul-mouthed woman by comparing her to a woman who chooses not
to polarize the populace with her actions.
,
Yeah. Like I'm one to call someone "foul-mouthed." I know I don't have
a leg to stand on, but the woman is deluded. She said the words,
"un-American traits." A reporter, whom her spokeswoman claimed worked
for a "right-wing rag" asked for clarification on that phrase, she
claimed she'd never said it and then told him to shove it. Who's in the
right here and who's in the wrong? Who's pushing the agenda? Not the
reporter, that's for sure. She should apologize. Furthermore, she
should know her place. Yes, I too, hate that phrase, but it fits. Sue
me. Her place is as potential First Lady, not as policy wonk or
official mouthpiece of the Kerry campaign. She's there to wave, be
pretty and do whatever it is wives do on the campaign trail. If she
didn't know that going in and now wants her share of the spotlight,
well, that's just tough, isn't it? Ultimately, all of this is comes
down to the current conundrum that revolves around "the office" of
First Lady. Just because women have different roles nowadays, and can
bring the proverbial bacon home and then fry it up in pan doesn't mean
that two hundred plus years of tradition gets thrown out with the
bathwater. It just doesn't. If you want a position within the
government well, get yourself elected or appointed. But don't think you
have a say in what goes on, or that your opinion matters just because
of whom you're married to. The world just doesn't work that way.
Eleanor Roosevelt only made her contributions because her husband
wanted her to---and allowed her to---not because she had any political
standing, and the goodwill that comes with standing, as First Lady.
Hillary Clinton is a senator now. Good for her. But it doesn't excuse
her virtual coup d'etat with her health care commission when she was
First Lady. Hillary put herself between the rock and the hard place
there. She ignored tradition. She ignored that she was there to support
her husband, and that in itself can be a full-time job. She wanted
changes, however, and she got herself elected. Good for her. But she
should not be considered the role model of what a First Lady should
ever be. She is an anomaly. Laura Bush is a wife. Wife, by its current
usage, is not a limiting label, but first and foremost, in my opinion,
it means you're one half of a partnership; you're one half of a team
who wants to work for a goal. Most of us don't have ambitions as lofty
as the White House; most of us just want to live and raise a family and
for that we would like, and need, a partner. The Bushes are different,
and I have no doubts that President Bush would support his wife in
whatever she wanted to do, just like she's supporting him in what he
sees is the path he should follow. Can you honestly say the same of
Theresa Heinz Kerry? To me, she shows all the hallmarks of a woman who
thinks she got the better end of a quid pro quo marriage. There is a
difference.
The problem with the Democratic acceptance, and trumpeting, of her
remarks is that she will now be encouraged to get mouthy. Perhaps
"problem" is the wrong word. I don't see it as a problem. If the
Democrats want to put this woman forward, fine. Let her hang herself
and the entire Kerry campaign by echoing Hillary's behavior. Not a
problem for me. I just don't want to listen to it, and I don't want my
fellow sorority sister (Yes, Mrs. Bush and I are members of the same
sorority. Same with Lynne Cheney. And Nancy Kassebaum Baker. And Ann
Margret, too.) being bashed because of what this woman says. It's not
fair.
2. Have I mentioned that I don't care anything about this convention
and am completely bored by it?
3. Wonkette has a commenting
job on MTV. Whoop-de-freaking-doo. Anderson Cooper interviewed her last
night and I kept shouting, "Ass F@#$ing! Ass F@#$ing! C'mon! SAY IT,
Beeeyotch! Show us what you're REALLY famous for in the blogosphere!"
at the television. She never obliged me. Reportedly she has class now
that she's the senior commentator for MTV News. Whoo. Color me
impressed!
4. Andrew Sullivan had
better just endorse Kerry or risk lynching by all of the people who
have supported him over the past couple of years for his hawkish views.
Memo to Andrew: You're abandoning your hawkish audience by even
thinking that Kerry is a decent alternative. But that's your choice.
Fine, but GET IT OVER WITH, ANDREW. Just endorse the guy already. I
don't have an issue with it. I don't mind that you write for different
audiences, either. What I do have a problem with is guilting us into
giving you money while keeping us on the hook. You led us to believe
you held one thing above all others. Now you don't. Clarification is
needed. I would simply ask that, if you're actually going to endorse
Kerry, do it before your pledge drive is over with, please? People who
have supported you enthusiastically over the years have a right to know
where you stand before you write something that will make them quit
your blog. This pledge drive smacks of a short con. If Sunday's Times
op-ed is any indication, it appears you're going to endorse Kerry for
Prez. Then the very next morning, what should await us at the Dish but
a pledge drive? This doesn't appear to be a coincidence. Don't milk it
for all its worth before you pull the rug out from under a good portion
of your readership. It's dishonest and downright BBC-ish.
Ok, I feel better now. The ELECTION-FREE ZONE RULE is now
back in place.