Elizabeth Dole, WTF?

Apparently being decent in a close race is just too much to ask of North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole. Instead of bearing down and fighting for her seat on her own merits, she has resorted to making specious and laughably untrue attacks on her opponent, Kay Hagan, based on religion. Dole’s new ad claims that Hagen is “godless,” which 1) what’s wrong with that and 2) is easily disproved. The claim might carry more weight were Hagan not a regular churchgoer who also happened to be a former Sunday school teacher. Shame on you, Ms. Dole! I really admired you before this. Campbell Brown, though, doesn’t let her get away with it. Go Campbell!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMzX_EAfwyc]

Here they go again

In advance of tomorrow’s vice presidential debate, Gwen Ifill, the moderator, is being attacked for a book that she wrote called Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. This book is being published in 2009, and is not available to be read, yet some people have exercised their powers of precognition to determine that she is somehow biased in favor of the Obama-Biden ticket, and cannot possibly be fair. Now, to be honest, it’s not impossible to believe that personal biases or loyalties can influence how one moderates a debate; just ask George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. I don’t think that anybody who was paying attention has forgotten how awful they were when they moderated a debate between the Democratic candidates earlier this year. They asked stupid questions, soft-balled Clinton (at least Stephanopoulos did), and took almost an hour to get to substantive questions regarding Iraq, Iran, and other issues meaningful to voters.

So, it’s not impossible to believe that a debate moderator can be too much for one side or the other. But it seems insulting to insinuate that, because she is a known supporter of Democratic politics, Gwen Ifill won’t be able to attain the level of fairness and bipartisanship required of a good moderator. Maybe the questions about Ifill are warranted and come from people who are genuinely concerned about witnessing a fair debate. But maybe not.

Let’s give a moment of though to what else could possible be fueling these speculations about Ifill’s fitness as moderator. Could it be fear? A lot of the furor over this issue has been raised by Republicans and others on the right. Perhaps concern about Sarah Palin’s prospects in a debate has also contributed to questions about Ifill’s commitment to a fair debate. Let’s face it: during her interview with Katie Couric, Vice Presidential nominee Palin did not shine. In one of the most difficult exchanges to watch, she demonstrated that she did not understand the causes of the current economic collapse, and could therefore offer no cogent or even coherent answer regarding what the country’s next steps should be. Maybe it was nerves, or maybe the slowing dawning realization that she’s totally unfit for the job she’s in the running for, but Governor Palin’s miserable performance definitely did not win over anybody who wasn’t already aligned with her.

Actually, pretty much every televised appearance by Sarah Palin that has followed her energizing, successful, nasty, and entirely scripted coming out party at the Republican National Convention, has shown her to be completely out of her depth. Like the current president, she has shown herself not to be a convincing, confident extemporaneous speaker. Like him, she also seems to have trouble grasping the details and nuances of issues of great national and global import.

Unless her peformances during the month of September were part of a carefully-orchestrated Machiavellian strategy to sharply lower expectations and lull Joe Biden into a false sense of security, she is in big trouble tomorrow. And what better way to negate unflattering day-after assessments in the press than by deflecting attention onto the moderator, before the debate even begins! If Ifill asks tough questions that Palin cannot answer intelligently, then this will be used as proof of Ifill’s supposed biases, and she will be called a bully. If the bruhaha makes Ifill ask easier questions that Palin can answer in a way that makes her seem more aware than she has in any of her recent appearances, then the right will be able to say, “Look! We told you that she know what she was talking about.”

I would love to be excited to see a woman excel on a national stage at such a high level in politics, but nothing I’ve seen so far has convinced me that Sarah Palin is going to be that woman.

What does it take to get rid of that girl?

Kenley is like the Teflon Don, the way she keeps flirting with elimination and annoying the crap out of the judges, only to be reprieved before getting auffed. Why is she still on this show? She’s ungraciously defensive, moderately talented, and supremely annoying. And, of course, I just saw a preview for next week where she dishes up more of the same petty, juvenile behavior that she has exhibited all season. I would be happy to see that promo and take it as a harbinger of her doom, but the other designers were also expressing anxiety and crying on the runway, so it’s too soon to take the pins out of my Kenley voodoo doll. Plus, after last week’s episode, I just knew she would be toast, and she wasn’t, so I have to make an effort not to get too excited.

I didn’t necessarily think that Suede should have gone home for the boring rock and roll outfit that he made Jerell, but I would not argue that, cumulatively, his missteps outweighed those of the other designers. Despite his relentless use of the third person, somehow Suede wiggled his way into my heart (just a little), and I was actually slightly sad to see him go. He’s like that annoying, boozy barfly whose futile attempts to speak in complete sentences and be taken seriously are so funny that you’re a little sad when the bartender finally cuts him off and pours him into a cab before the night is over. Now who’s going to entertain you?

Still, it’s not so much that Suede’s talent is one that I’m going to miss (I’m not saying that he isn’t talented, but I’m not going to lose sleep next week wondering what he would have made if he’d remained on the show instead of Kenley). It’s just that I hate Kenley’s attitude so much, I’m not inclined to be fair or reasonable about anything related to her. Her sense of entitlement is making me ill. I’m all for self-confidence and pride in one’s work, but she takes these perfectly good qualities to unreasonable levels. In Kenley’s world, any time that somebody doesn’t just adore her stuff, it’s not because she’s made a mistake or interpreted the challenge incorrectly, it’s because that person JUST DOESN’T GET IT. She cannot conceive of a universe where her best effort isn’t right the first time out, and doesn’t understand why others don’t love her as much as she loves herself. She lacks perspective and cannot accept criticism in the spirit in which it was intended. How does she expect to learn anything from 1) a well-known desinger, 2) a former fashion magazine style editor, 3) a pretty freaking awesome supermodel, and 4) any number of guest fashion luminaries if she won’t listen to their advice long enough to see how it might apply to her designs? I really admire Tim for even trying to explain to her how her attitude is getting in her way, but I am in no way surprised that she immediately discounted everything that he’d said to her. She’s a brat, and I use such a childish word because she seems to have an attitude more commonly found in 15-year-old girls.

I continue to be impressed with Jerell. He really has made such great strides from where he was at the beginning of the season, and although his attitude sometimes resembles Kenley’s, at least he has the talent to kind of back it up. It would have been really interesting if he’d won four challenges in a row, and his work is such that I would not have felt that Korto was slighted if he’d won tonight. I’m glad that Korto won tonight, if only because that meant she actually cracked a smile on the runway. Usually, she looks like the judges just offered her a choice between the dungeon or a day in the stocks.

Also, I know it’s not fair, but I’m unreasonably excited that there will be at least two female designers officially going to fashion week this year (as opposed to being decoys). It seemed like the women of of season five really had the chops that were mostly lacking in their male counterparts, and I’m excited to see who wins. [Full disclosure: thanks to the wonderful Jezebel, I have already seen the collections of the five designers (those still in the competition, plus Joe and Suede) and know which are in my personal top two, but I don’t pretend to be able to guess what the judges will think.]

Other thoughts:

I’m not even remotely interested in that design show after Project Runway, but the tiny Asian guy with the horrible little voice makes me want to do damage to my ear drums. I know it’s horrible to make fun of somebody for something that he has no control over and that he cannot change, but his voice just bugs me so much. I program my dvr to continue to record for a couple of minutes after Project Runway is over (I’m paranoid about missing something), so this isn’t the first time that I’ve gotten this particularly unpleasant surprise.

Seriously?

There is not, in this day and age, any good excuse for not understanding the theory of evolution. Even if you don’t believe that evolution is a satisfactory explanation for how we came to be here, you should at least know what it is that you oppose. I thought that misunderstanding or misrepresenting evolution was a particularly American thing to do, but I guess that’s not true. I was reading an article in England’s Daily Express about several actors (Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Rosamund Pike, and Joseph Fiennes) who are gearing up to do films about Charles Darwin’s life, and I was horrified to read this sentence: All four Hollywood stars are lining up to appear in films about Darwin, who developed the controversial theory of evolution, which argued that humans descended from apes.

Really? That’s it? Evolution is a rich, complex theory based on observation of the natural world, living species, and the fossil record, and all they can boil it down to is that it says humans descended from apes? AND THAT’S NOT EVEN WHAT EVOLUTION SAYS. So I’m disappointed. By the way, the theory of evolution states that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, but in no way says that humans came from apes. If we had, why would apes still exist? Stupidity like this is frightening.

I wrote the editor an email about the story, not that I think it will help. I’m familiar with the Daily Mail, which is roundly mocked because it is rather right-wing and not usually terribly concerned with the accuracy of the articles it publishes, but I didn’t know that the Daily Express was the same way. I guess I learned something today, even if it’s not what the Daily Express thought it was teaching me.

Too touchy?

I don’t consider myself easily offended. I make and laugh at jokes about women, black people, New Jerseyans, Americans, Christians, liberals, and a host of other groups to which I belong. And I do believe that non-black people can talk about, or disagree with, black people without automatically being considered racist. So why did it bother me so much today when a white coworker used the word “uppity” to describe an annoying black patron?

I’ve been thinking about it for the last couple of hours, and I think I’m bothered because the word uppity has such a troubling history. When I hear it, I think of a person whose behavior is somehow above what could reasonably be expected from one of his or her station. I don’t know if this is a definition that would be used by that any significant portion of the non-black population when defining uppity, but it’s probably what a lot of black people think when they hear it. This word has been the subject of recent press, after Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican Congressman from Georgia, used it to describe Barack and Michelle Obama, then claimed to be ignorant of any racial connotations to the word. He’s from Georgia. Even if that’s not what he meant when he said the word, I find it unlikely that he could have spent the past 58 years in Georgia without somehow knowing that this word might have had a racist connotation. His explanation that he thought they were elitist and snobbish also makes no sense. They’re pretty high up on the freaking totem pole, buddy. Certainly higher than you. How do you expect them to behave? Also, I’m really love it if I Westmoreland could answer this question: what about a duly elected senator who won his party’s vote to be their Presidential candidate could be considered too elite? Don’t we want our leaders to belong to a relatively high class in society? Who should be of a higher class than those who aspire to lead our nation? And if that higher class does exist, why aren’t they running things?

So this patron was annoying, but in the same way that scores of other patrons are annoying many times throughout the day. She didn’t seem to look down on us, she just didn’t really care that what she wanted didn’t conform to library rules. She was over the whole rules thing, but she never acted as though she was above us. I get along just fine with my coworker and I’ve never thought for a second that he might have a problem with me due to my race, but things like this always make me uneasy.

What ever happened to kindness?

I am not the world’s most enthusiastic Obama supporter, but enough of my positions are close to his that I feel comfortable voting for him. I don’t feel like the Republican party addresses my concerns, but I’v never actively hated them, or regarded them with the ridicule that I see in a lot of my Democrat peers. I understand that 2008 is an election year, and people will do what they feel necessary to try to get elected. STILL I was disgusted by both Rudy Guiliani and Sarah Palin’s speeches. Guiliani has no hope of getting elected to a higher office than the one he’s already held, so it didn’t hurt him to give a nasty, unsubtle, totally negative speech about the Democratic candidates. He has nothing to lose and it bought him a little goodwill from people who six months ago wouldn’t have spit on him if he was on fire.

But I was totally unprepared for how nasty Palin’s speech was. She’s been raked over the coals by a lot of people in the last week, but the Democratic ticket did not participate in the very public rehashing of all of her family’s business. They didn’t condemn either her or her daughter, and didn’t question Palin’s decision to stay in the presidential race. So why would Palin give such a dirty speech, and take cheap shot after cheap shot at Obama? The qualifications and half-truths were bad enough, but outright lies about death taxes and clean coal really make me wonder why the Republican powers that be would think it necessary to craft and deliver this speech. It definitely played to the rabid base in the convention hall, but I can’t imagine it going over well with moderates. And for somebody who considers herself a strong and committed Christian, I really wonder how such a dirty attack could be considered in any way Christ-like. In terms of delivery, she totally nailed her speech. In terms of content, Ms. Palin did little to solidify her own party’s positions on issues and gave the kind of light-on-actual-information speech that Republicans often accuse Obama of giving.

Thursday thoughts

I hate spinning class so much. I enjoy knowing that I’m burning a gazillion calories, but I don’t enjoy feeling as though somebody has taken sandpaper to my crotch. Ouch. It’s not unbearable, but it’s definitely just another reason that I have to psych myself up to go at all.

Watching the Olympics has made me realize how much I miss playing a team sport. I think I should try to join a volleyball league. I know that I could ask Christine, but I think I’ll make it a personal project and see what there is around here.

What’s with the stupid China-themed commercials that everybody is doing for the Olympics? I don’t know, but it seems kind of shameless. I feel like it shouldn’t matter where you set your commercial, as long as it’s good and well-done, but these mostly aren’t. It seems as though they feel that as long as it’s set in China, the commercial can be just as stupid as they please. I started this to talk about a Crouching Tiger-themed McDonald’s commercial, but then some other stupid dragon-related hot tub commercial came on and made that one look like a masterpiece by comparison. Did innovative and smart ad people not make it out of the 60s?