The Amazing Tina Fey and Amy Poehler

It remains to be seen what the 2008 will mean for women in politics, but it's been a boon for women in political comedy. Everyone agrees that Tina Fey and Amy Poehler created an instant classic on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, appearing together as Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.



I am so glad this dynamic duo got to do this scene before Amy Poehler had her baby! She hid her 8-months-pregnant belly behind the podium. (Of course, if Poehler were Sarah Palin, she'd deliver the baby and be back at work the next Saturday.)

Will the Fey-as-Palin storyline make it onto her show 30 Rock? Wouldn't Liz Lemon's ultra-conservative boss Jack Donaghy become irresistibly attracted to her because she's a dead-ringer for Palin? His ex-girlfriend is Condoleezza Rice, for gosh sakes. Here's how I see it: one day Liz wakes up and hastily puts her hair up in a scrunchie when she's on the subway, late for work, accidentally creating a mini-beehive look...and the rest is workplace-harassment comedy history.

Final thought, to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I love you guys, but it's really time to get some women on your show! Samantha Bee is great, but such a "token girl" in your roster.

Mojo Mom's commentary on Women's eNews

I'm pretty excited today because I've written a political commentary for Women's eNews, an online news service providing professional coverage on a wide variety of issues affecting women's lives.

My piece, featured as "Today's Story," is called Obama v. Clinton Puts Stretch Marks on Sisterhood.

As a Gen Xer, I feel sandwiched between two powerful generational juggernauts. I am still not sure whether our ultimate generational fate is to play referee between the Boomers and their Gen Y children, or choose sides ourselves.

In my commentary I argue that it's time to extend a welcoming hand rather than a slap in the face to younger leaders, even if we don't always agree on every issue across generational lines. In the Obama-Clinton debate, I feel the choice to support Obama has been unfairly dismissed and disrespected by Boomer feminists.

I hope you'll read the commentary and let me know what you think. Women's eNews doesn't have reader comments on the piece, so feel free to share your thoughts here.

Choosing hope over fear

I've been thinking a lot about the politics of fear versus the politics of hope lately.

Conservatives have kept the Amerian public on a short leash for years by controlling us with fear. Do it our way....or you and your children will get blown up (by the Russians, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda....).

I have noticed that Hillary Clinton is adopting the fear angle in her campaign as she sarcastically decries Obama's message of hope. It's not working well for her. On Tuesday, Jon Stewart made fun of Clinton's pessimism: join me in the chant now, "NO, WE CAN'T." It is a strange platform for a Democrat to run on.

Today Clinton has a new alarming ad out that I would have sworn was a John McCain ad until the final reveal:



This message perfectly illustrates what cognitive scientist George Lakoff said the other day about Clinton: she is actually using the conservative framework. She tries to win over "swing voters" by moving to the right or using the fear approach. Obama appeals to that group of people by identifying common ground that they share with progresssives and inviting them to work together on those issues.

The Democrat-in-Conservative-clothing approach is no longer working for me, and I don't think it can be effective in November. The people who want a Hawk candidate will already be voting for John McCain. On a practical and philosophical level I am yearing to see our country give Hope a chance.

I do not for a minute think that a hopeful stance will be an easy way out of our difficulties. On the contrary, it will demand a lot more participation and individual change (ie conserving oil) than the Bush approach. But after the last seven years we've been subjected to, aren't we as citizens willing to grow up and take responsibility for our government, rather than remaining scared and obedient little sheep?

Obama/Clinton through a cognitive scientist's eyes

Political linguist/cognitive scientist George Lakoff is brilliant. I've been a fan of his for a few years now, and I'm going to get to hear him speak at a sold out event in the Triangle this weekend.

But you can hear him right now, interviewed on WUNC radio's program The State of Things. Lakoff talks about politics in a unique way, discussing frameworks, values, and how progressives and convervatives have failed or succeeded in getting their point across.

In the final third of the half hour segment, Lakoff lays out the essential differences between Obama and Clinton's political approaches.

Lakoff's specialty is putting into words what we may have felt in our hearts but not been able to articulate. I recommended this interview to a friend earlier today and he emailed back, "Thank you for that, it was the best 30 minutes I will spend this week."

This segment is a must-listen. The Obama-Clinton comparison is in the last third of the 30-minute segment. If you have ever wondered why Obama is really the change candidate, rather than Clinton, you owe it to yourself to listen to this segment.

You can listen for free through your computer or download to an MP3 player:

The reason why Obama is the change we've been waiting for

Do you ever have one of those moments where the world doesn't change in an instant, but rather you change your perspective 180 degrees and see things from a totally new angle? I had one of those radical moments today, coming after weeks studying the Obama-Clinton matchup. I've been supporting Obama since John Edwards dropped out of the race, and my enthusiasm for Obama has kept growing. Today I could see why Obama is literally "the change we have been waiting for," and why Clinton's campaign is failing to catch fire with young people.

Obama is creating a movement toward participatory government, one that will require much more of its citizens. It's crazy that this has not already happened. We waged war against a major oil-producing country, and yet we have not been asked to conserve in any meaningful way. In the face of environmental crisis, war, and poverty, our main civic duties have been to keep spending like greedy little consumers, and not ask too many questions.

That's been about Bush. Obama or Clinton would mark a significant change from Bush, and don't disagree that much on policy issues. So what is the difference between them? Boomer women see Hillary as the change they have been working toward for years. 1970's Feminists get angry with younger women who support Obama, and question whether we have ignored the lessons of Feminism. Don't we get it that our hard-fought rights are still under fire? How could we turn our back on the opportunity to elect a female President? Are we gender traitors, ungrateful, ignorant, or suffering from false consciousness?

I vote for None of the Above. As of today, for the first time I feel like Feminism is no longer the movement we need to drive social change. This is hard for me to even write. Although I majored in neuroscience rather than women's studies, I have always proudly called myself a Feminist. I still believe in the core values and and principles of Feminism, but here's the switch in perspective: I pulled my friend Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner's book The F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy off the shelf this morning. Kristin writes about young women being active in their communities, informed about issues, and yet turning out to vote at very low levels. Only about one third of women ages 18 to 24 voted in 2000, compared to 65% of women over age 44. I have read her book before, and in the past, I have always interpreted that to mean that there was something wrong with young women, and we should try to find new ways to bring them in to the Feminist movement. But now I am have come to believe that the Second Wave, 1070's Feminist movement was an effort rooted in a particular place and time in American history, and that it is the movement that needs to change, and politics that needs to change, to resonate with young people.

Hillary Clinton is the logical culmination of Boomer Feminists' march toward success. I can understand why they are frustrated that just as they think their/her moment has come, the younger generations are not getting on board. But growing up in the aftermath of the battles of the 1970's is very different than being on the front lines. We do take some of our rights for granted. Is this a success or failure of Feminism? I call it a success, though I realize the absolute danger of complacency.

There are many tough challenges ahead, but I don't think we need a new "wave" of Feminism to tackle them. I would like to see women and men working toward gender justice, and people of all races working toward racial justice. This is what I see in Obama's campaign. Of course Clinton cares about these issues, but Boomer Feminists have alienated us by insisting that we draw political lines based on gender.

Clinton is qualified to be President, but in my opinion she is not the best choice because of the Dynasty issue (20 years of Bushes and Clintons, do we really want it to be 24 or 28?). Politics as usual is fueled by loyalty above all and we have created loyalty gridlock by handing the Presidency back and forth between these two families for twenty years. In addition, there is residual resentment toward Bill and his shenanigans, even among Democrats, and every time he shows up in the campaign it's a 1990's flashback. Clinton surrogates struck dischord every time they acted like she was entitled to win. A co-chair of Clinton's campaign in Michigan said, "Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic." Way to give up on and practically disenfranchise those of us in the so-called "Red" states. (Guess the Clinton campaign didn't learn from Howard Dean's successful 50-state strategy in 2006.) I know that Obama will be competing for North Carolina in the general election, should he become the nominee.


It would be a huge milestone to have a women fill the role of President, but Hillary is ultimately an insider, not the change candidate. Obama is poised to reach the benchmark of a million people contributing to his campaign, many small donors who chip in $10 or $25. At the same time, a pro-Hillary 527 group is trying to raise $10 million--$100,000 each from 100 donors. Which campaign, and resulting Presidency, would be "owned" by the people?

These thoughts are a work in progress, and I am sure my Feminist elders would not be pleased by my change of heart. My bottom line is that it is not us who needs to change to conform to a movement, but it is the movement--Feminism, Humanism, Participatory Democracy, Grassroots Wildfire--that needs to change to draw us in.

I am working to support Obama, MomsRising.org, Lillian's List of North Carolina, and Women for Women International, among other causes. If my worldview doesn't make sense to older Feminists, maybe they should try looking at things from a new perspective.

What's the storyline in South Carolina?

I know this is somewhat off-topic for Mojo Mom, but I have to write about the Democratic South Carolina primary today. (I had started a political blog last year but wasn't able to keep it up. Today I really need an outlet for that mojo!)

I am a Democrat, a big John Edwards fan, but I see good things in Obama and Clinton as well. I have been very frustrated by the mainstream media forcing storylines on a primary season that is just starting to unfold. The best analysis I have seen of the insistence on "horse race" coverage is "Why Campaign Coverage Sucks" by Jay Rosen, originally reported on TomDispatch.com, and reposted to Salon.com.

Today on CNN.com, as the primary is underway, the headline says, "Obama's legitimacy on line in South Carolina." Oh really? Who says? I am worried that the media has painted Obama into a racial box in South Carolina: on the one hand, Obama needs to show strong from African-American support. As CNN's Bill Schneider says, "Obama's support among African-American voters gives him more legitimacy. Obama has been doing well with young voters, independents and educated upper-middle-class liberals -- the NPR vote. Winning the black vote by a solid margin means Obama has standing with the Democratic Party's base."

But on the other hand, what if Obama wins South Carolina on the strength of the black vote, but lags behind in the white vote? Will the man who was once questioned for being "Black Enough" now become marginalized as "The Black Candidate," even though he won in lily-white Iowa and got 37% of the vote versus Clinton's 39% in New Hampshire? It seems to me that Hillary Clinton gets only beneficial bonus points for winning the black vote but obviously can't be marginalized as the White Candidate for scoring too many points in her demographic.

The gender card is its own mine-field. Of course Hillary Clinton faces the double-bind of being tough enough yet likeable and relatable. I am concerned about both of these fine candidates being pigeonholed unfairly, and I was really upset by the squabbling this week between Clinton and Obama. I did get the impression personally that Clinton's campaign has unleashed some unfair attacks against Obama, that Hillary has tried to appear to be rising above that fray yet sends her surrogates (Bill and others) to do the dirty work. Some call that politics, some call it hardball, I call it unfortunate. I will consider this election a failure if our unconscious racism and sexism are used as weapons by candidates against each other. I guess that brands me as a hopeless idealist, because of course this is already happening and will happen between parties [and memo to Broadsheet, a blog that I generally respect, your growing fascination with this drama is making it worse] but it crushes me to see candidates whom I like and respect going after each other that way.

As for the narrative of the Democratic Primary, Obama won Iowa, Clinton won New Hampshire, and although both "beat expectations" in each race, it's pretty close between the two of them. Why do we have to have this huge back-and-forth drama after each race? Both Clinton and Obama have more support in their party than any individual Republican has in his party. These are two viable candidates, and we should let the voters rather than the media decide who will end up on top.

What do you think? Am I on to something here, and am I also missing something? I am open to the possibility that I am adopting storylines without being conscious of them. My favorite political pundit is definitely Jon Stewart, who is not afraid to call the media out on its bullshit. He deftly skewered pollster John Zogby for the fact that all the predictions about the Democratic New Hampshire primary were just WRONG. Zogby didn't have a good answer for what went wrong, or Stewart's common-sense question about why can't we just wait a couple of days and see what the voters say?

Maybe because it would put the pundits out of business....? For a rare glimpse of sanity on CNN.com, read University of South Carolina School of Law Professor Danielle Holley-Walker's commentary, "Issues -- not gender or race -- on minds of voters," and stay tuned for the voice of the voters in South Carolina and beyond.

Living in North Carolina, I am happy to think that my vote in the Primary on May 6th could actually mean something.

For more background on this topic I recommend Drew Westen's book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. Race and gender touch deep buttons in all of us, and it would be a shame if we let manipulation of these frameworks determine the outcome of our election. In 2000 we seemed to pick based on the guy we'd rather have a beer with, and look where that got us. We need to really think things through this time and make sure we're guided by our better angels rather than our unconscious comfort zones or prejudices.

Mojo Mom news roundup, from Baby Einstein to George Bush

There is so much news today that I am just going to write a roundup pointing you to the articles that I have open all over my computer screen.

• Baby Einstein videos don't make babies smarter. Did anyone ever really think they were anything more than a convenient distraction? Still, it's sad to learn that video-watching is correlated with decreased language acquisition. The effects may not be permanent but it's still discouraging. Learn more at NPR.org and Time.com.

• Preschoolers think food tastes better when it's served in a McDonald's wrapper. Even store-bought carrots. Tempting to try this at home when carrots are involved, but bad news in the long run.

• On a related note, I recommend the book Buy Buy Baby for an in-depth look at marketing to kids, including "educational" toys and the relationship between tots and brands. Check out this great Salon.com article for more background on the book. It seems to me that the "educational" mandate for toys has gotten even more intense over the past few years. Walking down the toy aisles at Target recently, it struck me that every baby toy had some sort of identified specific learning goal. There's no room for just plain playing any more.

• Depressing news on a different subject: women who express anger at work are seen as incompetent but men may well be admired for it. In a research study, angry men were assigned a higher than average salary and angry women were penalized. Yet another double standard. The researchers make a connection to Hillary Clinton and the delicate balance she must walk. I am a John Edwards supporter but I abhor the impossible standard of perfection that Senator Clinton is expected to maintain. On the Today Show this morning, the pundits basically proposed that in tonight's debate Clinton should allow herself to look a little dumb. I think it was couched in terms of "taking the risk of being spontaneous and less scripted" but it reminded me all too much of junior high when girls had to avoid looking too smart around boys.

Who thought that when a serious female candidate emerged for President her primary criticism would be that she's too competent and not personable enough? Where is the safe ground between too frosty, versus not tough enough to be Commander in Chief? It's definitely a narrow path that she's being asked to navigate. I definitely feel that the men have much more latitude, like George W. Bush whose "Gentleman's C's" GPA from Yale was no hindrance for a well-connected guy who was perceived as so gosh-darn "likeable."

Joe Klein addresses Clinton's challenges in his Time essay this week, "Hillary, the Bran-Muffin Candidate." Whatever one thinks about Clinton, there's not question in my mind that she is qualified to hold the office of President, and that is a great step forward for all women.