Read my latest story, "The All-Nighter", at 52|250.

Ironically, there is a glaring flaw in Maureen Dowd’s current column, A Flawed Feminist Test:

But Hillary is not the best test case for women. We’ll never know how much of the backlash is because she’s a woman or because she’s this woman or because of the ick factor of returning to the old Clinton dysfunction.

What she misses is that there will never be a perfect test case. There will never be any way to prove with absolute certainty the degree to which a specific female politician is disliked because of her gender as opposed to her specific traits. Indeed, the two types of reasons are often intertwined. Moreover, there will always be something in any individual’s background– a flaw– that could be pointed to as the (primary) determining factor in this dislike.

The most important reason that there can’t be an ideal test case for women in highest office, however, is that no woman can ever stand for all women. By writing as if there is validity to searching for an ideal gender representative, Dowd obscures this.

It’s not because I’ve internalized misogyny; it’s not because I don’t know I’m a “slave”, as Robin Morgan seems to believe. It isn’t even her vote to authorize the war in Iraq or her multiple votes to fund it (though these are huge negatives); I do realize that gender bias may have made these votes necessary (since it’s all too easy to portray a woman as weak). Of course, I’d still prefer a candidate who didn’t vote to support the war. (This wouldn’t be Obama, however, as he voted to fund the war despite the speech he gave before he was in the Senate.)

The major sticking point for me is her support for Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks is, of course, terribly misnamed, as the group actually silences autistics. Among its leadership is a woman who is perfectly happy to talk about her wish to kill herself and her autistic daughter, right in front of said daughter in a video produced by Autism Speaks that contains many other flaws. Autism Speaks also talks about autism prevention and “stamping out” autism.

My autism (diagnosed Aspergers) is part of who I am. I don’t want that part of me stamped out, no matter how other people react to it. I don’t want people like me to be prevented from coming into existence. That Clinton has chosen to support a group that supports these things indicated an attitude towards people like me that I see as threatening my survival– perhaps not in a literal sense but in the sense of preserving what it is that makes me who I am (if you can forgive the use of such an un-PoMo concept as the self).

When I’ve mentioned this issue, I’ve had neurotypicals tell me that I need to stop being concerned about my “pet issue” and look at the big picture. Maybe if she were perfect in every other way I could. However, self-preservation in an often hostile world comes first for good reason. (It’s also quite funny when I get this criticism from the same people who suggest that all women should vote for Senator Clinton.) I’ve also been given a list of legislation that Clinton has supported that provides funds for disabilities. I’m aware of these bills, but as positive as they are, they do not change the fact that she is happy to assist a group that thinks people like me should not exist. Nor is supporting funding to help those of us who “unfortunately” do inconsistent with believing we should not exist.

Would I vote for her if she dropped Autism Speaks? If she answered letters like this positively? I’d at least consider it; if she started talking about neurodiversity, then I definitely would. If people like me don’t insist on making this an issue, who else will?

Actually, this time it’s even worse than during Bill Clinton’s inauguration. If you don’t believe me, check out this gem of a run-on sentence (note that I’m not picking grammar nits here; this bit goes on and on with no music and little sense):

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits’ end, but she has always risen, always risen, don’t forget she has always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Cliches that appear elsewhere in the “poem” include “in this race for the long haul” and ” make a difference”. The worst of the vague language is probably “wonderful, wonderful place” (because a place that is only wonderful once isn’t good enough), which led me to wonder momentarily if the poem was intended as a satire, though the article that appeared with this poem indicates otherwise. Then again, I’d like to pretend that the whole thing is satire, given its reference to Angelou as “one of the most influential and respected literary voices of the modern age”. But I guess that if you write sufficiently vague tripe, everyone will respect for never challenging them.

The scare quotes in the title of this entry are there because I am referring to the Des Moines Register “Debate” which excluded the winner of the Democracy for America and Progressive Democrats of America polls, Dennis Kucinich.  Obviously, the Register’s stated logic for this exclusion– that Kucinich lacks an active Iowa campaign office seems thin given that Alan Keyes is being allowed to participate in the Republican debate and that the Kucinich campaign does, in fact, have an office (though it is a home office rather than a rented storefront).  Indeed, discriminating against a campaign run out of a home office is another way of favoring those campaigns that appeal to corporate interests and the wealthy and thus have overflowing war chests.

But there may be more to this story.  Remember, for a dark horse candidate to gain momentum from the Iowa caucus, they do not need to win; they only need to do better than expected.  The last thing the so-called front runners want right now is a rising candidate from one of the other assigned tiers– especially one whose voting record positions him to challenge them on a whole host of issues, not least of which is the Iraq War.

Given this, it’s interesting to note that the Des Moines Register is owned by Gannett.  A quick check of their Board of Directors turns up Marjorie Magner who has donated the maximum amount to Senator Clinton’s campaign along with Donna E. Shalala who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under Bill Clinton’s administration.  Now, I’m not trying to say there was necessarily some conscious conspiracy going on here.  It’s just worth keeping in mind who’s in charge of the very media companies that get to decide which candidates are heard and which are not.