Reconsidering "The Nutcracker"

I haven't seen nor danced in The Nutcracker in seven years, and when I did I was a young ballet dancer with a near high school diploma and little brain for the world around me. But watching my students perform several variations from the ballet last week triggered a very strong, very critical response to this holiday classic.

Note that I'm not trying to attack any dance company that regularly performs this ballet each year. After all, ballet companies perform many old works that are born out of antiquated norms for the purpose of reviving the classical art form. My criticism of The Nutcracker rests mostly in the ballet's now set-in-stone representations of other parts of the world and not with the companies that are mere vessels for such works to be performed in a modern society.

The story goes like this: a wealthy Victorian family is throwing a Christmas party. Heir Drosselmeyer gives his god-child Clara a Nutcracker. After bed, she wakes up and the Nutcracker makes her shrink down. They get attacked by mice but all the toy soldiers come alive and save them. The Nutcracker turns into a handsome prince (of course) and takes her to the Land of Sweets where characters from all over the world bring her goodies: chocolate from Spain, coffee from the Middle East, tea from China, something from Russia (never was too clear on that one), etc. Then the Sugar Plum Fairy and her boytoy dance and send Clara on her way. The end.

The most interesting aspects of the ballet are the representations of other parts of the world, particularly the "non-Western" areas such as China and the Middle East (and I use "Western" in quotes because please, the earth is round). In each version I've seen, the "Arabian" woman (usually portrayed by a non-white or "ethnic" looking woman) dons puff pants, a bra top, and bare midriff. Sometimes she wears a veil that covers her nose and mouth. If she has a partner, he wears similar pants and a vest with nothing under it, and often a hat that slightly resembles a Tagiyah except smaller (and therefore lampooned and comical). The music is subtle, quiet, slow, and sensual, echoing the exotic dreams early "Western" explorers generally harbored about this culture they knew very little about. Given how Middle Eastern culture has shifted to become a place we associate with women covered far too much for our "Western" tastes, we see this representation as generally harmless. However, given how the modern Middle East was shaped by "Western" imperialists and their assumptions about Arabian sensuality based on dress, The Nutcracker's representation of an Arab woman may be far more problematic than we'd like to admit.

Our clings to Orientalism is obvious in the "Chinese" variation. Lampooning many different Asian traditions, this minute-long variation is an audience favorite. I've seen many different versions: solo male, solo female, small corps of dancers, etc. At Ruth Mitchell, they came out of a big cardboard teapot wearing funny hats and kimono-like tops. Atlanta Festival Ballet used to have the soloist popping comically out of a goofy box. The Georgia Ballet had four women in costumes that resembled Indian Kurta more than anything else, and throughout the variation a dragon bounced around center stage while two young girls dressed as Geisha (Japanese) flirtatiously twirled umbrellas. The music is high-pitched and fast, and regardless of the company or performers, the variation generally contains similar choreographic elements: bourees, small steps and fast jumps, and of course the strange fascination with the arms and hands. I've never quite been able to figure this one out, but nearly every Chinese variation has involved the dancer holding her/his arms straight out, forearms bent upwards, fists clinched with one or two fingers sticking straight up. The variation is comic, fast, and the dancers are usually small and sometimes acrobatic. In other words, the Chinese are small, funny, always entertaining, and, well, not like us!

Simply stated, such lampoons of "far away lands" maintain a certain feeling of superiority for the "West" and its traditions. The "Western" cultures highlighted The Nutcracker tend to be subdued and not nearly as, well, exotic. With the exception of the "spicy" Spanish dancers, there aren't really representations of "Western" cultures that need too much analyzing. In fact, with the exception of Spanish and Russian, there aren't any other cultures represented at all... unless you want to claim the Flowers came from England and Mother Ginger is German or something like that. To be sure, Nutcracker's most memorable variations are the ones that comically/mysteriously represent "non-Western" cultures, and in the interest of preserving the classical tradition, modern ballet companies have made very few changes to these variations, unless of course there's some po-diddly company in south Georgia that changed its Arabian variation post-9/11 to "Freedom Dance" where Uncle Sam gives Clara a burger and some freedumb fries (and being from Georgia, I can say with confidence that such a change would not surprise me at all).

That's not to say certain companies are not more complicit than others in revitalizing these Orientalist traditions or, as is common with many dance companies, outright racism in their casting. I remember seeing Nutcracker at Ruth Mitchell as a youngster. The part of Arabian was always played by one of the more "exotic" dancers. That is, a non-white woman. The thing was, it never really was a woman of Arab decent. Arabian was usually an African American woman, or sometimes an Indian woman, or a woman of mixed race. ("Well what else were we to cast her as? She can't be a SNOWflake!")

Why All Women Should Vote

I had a friend, a black woman, who wouldn't sit in the back of a bus. While this was hardly an act of radical resistance in 1998, she explained that it was an homage to her grandmother's generation who dedicated their lives to a struggle that would one day allow everyone, regardless of race, attain the simple right to sit where they please.

Those who know my politics know they hardly fit in the mold of the mainstream electoral system. To those, the fact that I am so adamant about women, immigrants, and people of color exercising that right is puzzling, and often garners some intense criticism and debate. I'm accused of playing into "petty identity politics." Well okay. Not to bring more "petty" identity politics into it, but everyone who has ever criticized me for voting have been white males. That is, people who would have had the right to vote (whether they chose to exercise that right or not) at any given time in U.S. history. Identity politics be damned, those of us with a different historical identity tend to see things a bit more uniquely. Women have had the right to vote for less than 90 years now. African American males have had the right for 138 years, but literacy requirements and the use of poll taxes effectively blocked most from voting until the Voting Rights Act that was only passed a mere 44 years ago. Immigrants continue to face many challenges in gaining citizenship, one of which is the right to be able to choose their representatives.

And we continue to struggle on these fronts. Our version of democracy holds very little variation; any candidate who has a snowman's chance in hell is guaranteed to hold the interests of the "bosses" at the forefront of their policy, lest they get literally "bought out" by another candidate's funds. But taking the time to actually go to the polls, regardless of which party we support for or whether or not we write in "Mickey Mouse" if we just couldn't care less, continues to be an act of every day resistance to tens of thousands of Americans who have not always had that right. And given the hours and dollars and sleepless nights I've spent on grassroots efforts, to criticize me for taking 45 minutes out of my day, minutes I probably would have spent picking my nose or cleaning my kitchen, to do something I perceive to be of relative historical significance is just offensive, if not completely ludicrous. Unless of course you're going to argue that me picking my nose or (heaven forbid) cleaning the kitchen is going to instigate the goddamn revolution.

Especially when you consider the sacrifices people have made to even be allowed to hold a legitimate political opinion, to show the government and board of elections that you are retaining that right can be a powerful homage to those who gave their lives for this cause. That's why all women should vote. Not just for the "leaders" (Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony), but for all our grandmothers and great grandmothers who sacrificed more than some of us can even begin to comprehend. For Lucy Burns, who was arrested at a 1917 suffragist protest outside the White House, beaten to a pulp, and left hanging by chains around her wrists. For Dora Lewis, who, the very same night, was thrown into a jail cell so hard her head was smashed against an iron bed frame, and she was knocked unconscious. For all the women arrested that night, thrown into Virginia's Occoquan Workhouse and fed food infested with worms. For Alice Paul, who went on a hunger strike and was subsequently force-fed through a tube until she vomited, then was tortured for weeks for acting on one very basic belief: the belief that women and men are equal.

And conversely, for Grace Saxon Mill, anti-suffragist extraordinaire, who wrote this piece of garbage to argue against women's suffrage in the UK during the early 1910s:

Arguments Against Women's Suffrage

Because women already have the municipal vote, and are eligible for membership of most local authorities. These bodies deal with questions of housing, education, care of children, workhouses and so forth, all of which are peculiarly within a woman's sphere. Parliament, however, has to deal mainly with the administration of a vast Empire, the maintenance of the Army and Navy, and with questions of peace and war, which lie outside the legitimate sphere of woman's influence.

Because all government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of con­tributing.

Because women are not capable of full citizenship, for the simple reason that they are not available for purposes of national and Imperial defence. All government rests ultimately on force, to which women,
owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of contributing.

Because there is little doubt that the vast majority of women have no desire for the vote.

Because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.

Because the United Kingdom is not an isolated state, but the administrative and governing centre of a system of colonies and also of dependencies. The effect of introducing a large female ele­ment into the Imperial electorate would undoubtedly be to weaken the centre of power in the eyes of these dependent millions.

Because past legislation in Parliament shows that the interests of women are perfectly safe in the hands of men.

Because Woman Suffrage is based on the idea of the equality of the sexes, and tends to establish those competitive relations which will destroy chivalrous consideration.

Because women have at present a vast indirect influence through their menfolk on the politics of this country.

Because the physical nature of women unfits them for direct com­petition with men.

So for any woman who refuses to allow her "best interests" be entrusted in the hands of men, for any woman who refuses to be represented only by her husband, for any woman who refuses to let society think you lack the capacity to think politically, to any woman who knows she is not unequal on the basis of her sex, and the women who know they are more than fit to compete with their male counterparts, I say to you today, GO VOTE!

I Love My College Degree...

...and wouldn't trade it for all the money in the world.

No joke.

But that doesn't change the fact that my eyes lit up when I saw that my former employer, Joann's, was hiring again. And they have a new general manager, and the assistant manager is a friend of mine. I just really need a job with enough hours to get my bills paid each month!

I had a conversation at Joann's while waiting in line to get fabric cut (beautiful rayon fabric I found for NCDF pants) with a woman whose son was thinking of dropping out of high school. Seems the kid's dad had recently been laid off and the woman's interior design business was in a real slump. So money had been tight, and the kid wanted to drop out of school to work full time at his part-time (fast food) to help his family. The woman was obviously endeared by her son's selflessness, but she obviously worried for his future. Suppose, she suggested, he were to get laid off as well? Then he'd be out of work, eighteen years old with no high school diploma. I didn't have to tell her a GED just wouldn't be the same unless he was skilled in a trade.

"I want him to go to college," she said. I told her I had a college degree and still couldn't find work. "You see?" she said. "If you can't find decent work WITH a college degree, how will my son find decent work without even a high school diploma?"'

And yet it seemed increasing the hours of his $6.75/hr job would be the only way he'd be able to pay for college in the first place. And of course incidentally, increasing his work hours would scholastically make getting into college to begin with a near impossibility. She lamented, "I guess if he'd worked harder in his classes..."

Yeah, because poor kids have to have a 4.0 to get into college, I thought, and also while working 25 hours a week just to pay the friggin application fees. It's true, though. My family was able to pay for me to go to college out of state and never once was I pressured to get higher grades except for the sake of having better grades... scholarships and other necessities never once factored into the scenario.

It reminds me of NC's new program for high schoolers. Kids enrolled in public schools can take college courses during their junior and senior years of high school online so that they only have to pay for two years of college and finish with a bachelor's degree. It sounds totally awesome, and I'm sure it's helped thousands of kids get their degrees, but it's also totally classist.

While I'm sure a lot of over-achievers will no doubt take advantage of this program, let's face it... the majority of kids doing this will be kids that can't afford to spend 4 years at a university. So while their wealthy classmates do keg stands at suburban house parties and dream of the following year at UNC Wilmington where keg stands will surely be a nightly ritual, working class kids fight the temptation to let it all go and get fucked up as an escape while they sit at home fighting through college course work at age 16 just to have a shot at a better life. And probably on top of having a part time job, or more. And we wonder why drug and alcohol problems are so ugly for the working classes.

Privilege is such a motherfucker.

It's also the thing that enables me to say I wouldn't change my college degree for all the money in the world.

Republicans putting lipstick on a sexist pig

Let's get one thing straight: the McCain camp has absolutely no right to be crying "sexism" every time someone takes a jab at Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin.

This week, Barack Obama responded to the McCain campaign's newest mantra of "change", saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig." This is an old analogy that's been used by politicians for years, but of course McCain didn't miss a beat in jumping on the chance to once again pander to disgrunteled Clinton supporters. Crying outright sexism, McCain asserted Obama's comment was in reference to Palin's recent comment about hockey moms. But that's not all; the McCain campaign has also attempted to anger all "hockey moms" by skewing the Democratic candidate's words to make it seem like Obama was calling them pigs.

I don't think I've ever heard such rampant reactionary responses from one campain in a single season! It seems like McCain is attempting to read into every word that comes out of Obama's mouth. But politically speaking, this saying can be traced back to July 1991, when then-Governor Ann Richards of Texas responded to allegations that her first legislative session had been ineffective, saying, "This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess." Richards would again use this saying at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, and many other times as it became her trademark saying.

McCain should really check himself before he goes on these tirades. He would remember last fall where he used the exact saying Senator Obama used, word for word, when describing Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan that she had first pushed as First Lady. Dick and Lynn Cheney have also utilized this fun little colloquialism while not referring to women at all.

So Obama is sexist now. I'm sorry... but I'm confused. Tell me, which party wants to limit a woman's reproductive options, including access to birth control (which 98% of women will use at some point in their lives)? What's McCain's take on the equal pay for equal work again? Didn't McCain vote to suspend the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993?

Besides, wasn't it the McCain campaign (all Republican campaigns in the primaries, really) who repeatedly asserted that Hillary Clinton wasn't "man enough" to "run with the big dogs," that she should just "get over it" whenever someone took a jab at her on the basis of gender or complained of gender bias on the campaign trail? And now we have a presidential race without Hillary, a Democratic ticket without women, and a Republican ticket with on... so that makes it suddenly okay for McCain and Palin to hipocritically cry sexism at every turn? Oh no, no, no. Try as they might, all the lipstick in the world couldn't soften the appearence of this sexist pig.

Why I Don't Counter-Protest at Functioning Clinics

A couple of years ago, during which time I was fully enmeshed with the political group The World Can't Wait, I received word that there were major protests going on in Jackson, MI at the last standing abortion clinic in the state. The demonstrations were led by the extremist group "Operation Rescue" (yes, the group that instigated the "No Place to Hide" campaign which disclosed the home addresses of abortion providers shortly before a wave of murders and clinic bombings in 1995). There were major counter-protests around this clinic and the call was to get everyone down there to stand in solidarity with the pro-choice movement.

Well needless to say, I was excited. I was all ready to make the 11 hour trip (22 total counting return time), missed classes and gas prices be damned. But then I learned that this clinic was still going to be fully operational for a few more weeks. Something at that point didn't sit right with me. I couldn't really explain it at first, but suddenly I was less enthusiastic about going. In fact, I didn't want to go at all.

After some soul-searching, I realized how morally opposed I was to adding fuel to a fire burning extremely close to an operational abortion clinic. After all, each and every time I drive by a Planned Parenthood with protesters, my heart aches. It's not just because I am so angered by the anti-choice extremists and their absolutely awful tactics in forcing women away from these clinics, but because I just can't imagine being a frightened and vulnerable woman having to walk past a crowd trying to make a political case out of your personal life.

I have a friend who volunteers at a Planned Parenthood. Her job is to escort women from their cars past protesters if necessary. As much as she wants to argue with them, she knows she should not for the sake of the woman she is escorting. I feel the exact same way about counter-protesting near a clinic. I put myself in the woman's position... most women are already dealing with so much shit when they make the decision to have an abortion: there's the initial "oh shit I'm pregnant" moment, the often difficult decision about what to do about it (which includes addressing one's own personal morals and societal stigmas), then she has to go in for a procedure that, while safe, is still surgical and, let's face it, no fun at all. While I can see myself defiantly marching past protesters as I go in to have an abortion (or maybe just get my annual pap smear or pick up a new NuvaRing), most women aren't all that comfortable being seen going into a Planned Parenthood by either protesters or passersby. The threat that Operation Rescue will take down your license plate number has to be equally traumatic. That being said, I somehow doubt a frightened woman ducking between signs and banners just to obtain medical care will care WHICH side you're on... I doubt she wants anyone to be out there at all. My presence as a counter-protester, I realized, would only increase her anxiety about being there in the first place regardless of whether I'm there to condemn her or "protect" her. I'm still screaming, arguing, and making a generally political issue over a personal decision.

Now overall, the abortion issue IS political, and I'm not saying it's not. In a perfect world, of course, it wouldn't be. But in our world, where a woman's control over her own body is a battle that has to be waged through discourse on rights and freedoms, birth control and abortion are both political as well as personal issues.

And by that I mean the overall issue is political, but the individual decision, while influenced by political culture, is personal, and I believe that respecting that (very) fine line should be one of the top priorities of the reproductive justice movement. After all, we can't all be Super Badass Jennifer Baumgartner who allegedly exited the clinic after her abortion to join the crowd of counter-protesters outside.

I truly believe counter-protesting outside functioning abortion clinics is more "stooping to their level" than the mainstream pro-choice movement would like to admit. Which begs the question: if we can't confront the likes of Operation Rescue where they thrive, where can we confront them? Or what can we do to ensure the safety and emotional well-being of the women who are entering a clinic well-guarded by antis? Unfortunately, separating our politics from our hearts may have to come into play here. On the political side, we can be a powerful force anywhere else in the world. On any random street corner, in political office, in masses around a city hall or capitol building, in Washington... anywhere that doesn't involve making a political spectacle out of women's personal lives (now, should a woman want to make a political statement out of her decision, I think that's totally great, but we cannot assume all women entering or exiting an abortion clinic will think that way). On the personal side, we can (and should) volunteer as escorts at clinics that regularly have crowds of protesters outside. Or donate money, should we have the means, so that these clinics can hire security personnel or paid escorts. There are millions of ways we can be a powerful force in ensuring the political and personal safety of a woman's right to enact control over her own reproductive destiny without further problemitizing her situation.

But Lauren, you might say, What about that weekly demonstration you're trying to get together at the CPC in Greensboro? It did occur to me that that might look like a major contradiction, a lapse of personal morals for the sake of a political agenda on my part, but I have thought it through and think it's just fine. Why? Mainly because CPCs are not the kind of place where potential clientele need to be "left alone," because CPCs do not offer any controversial medical treatments, because they don't offer much legitimate information at all, and sure they may be confused about an unplanned pregnancy when they arrive, but they're bound to be more confused once they get into the CPC. Because CPCs aren't real clinics, and because I am committed to spreading that fact, I find it perfectly fine to stand on the sidewalk near a CPC with signs reading things like "This is not a real clinic," etc. I will not, however, approach any woman going to the CPC. I will only engage these women should they approach me first, and I would encourage my fellow protesters to do the same. While protesters at abortion clinics spread lies around legitimate medical clinics, we would be a force to spread truth around deceptive centers that pose as clinics. And of course that little bit can be argued, but not without getting into the whole abortion debate, and that's a cyclical debate I really don't feel like getting into right now.

Introducing Bristol Palin, Poster Child for Mommy's Values

When I heard the rumors (yes, rumors) that 4 month old Trig was actually the son of Bristol Palin, daughter of VP candidate Sarah Palin, I'll admit to sharing a private "Oh Snap!" moment. However, the more compelling evidence I read about the subject, the more I started to feel just plain sorry for Bristol. I mean, if these rumors are true, her family structure (as well as the overlying societal structure she lives within) completely disallows Bristol from claiming her own baby. And that's just sad.

Well this morning, the Maverickette spoke out, clearing Bristol's name the only way she could: Bristol can't be 4-month old Trig's mama, because Bristol is 5 months pregnant now! Another private "Oh Snap!" moment.

Wow. Well, okay. That of course doesn't mean (as Nikki suggested) that they're not fudging her pregnancy and she's not pregnant with a second child immediately following the first (it's very easy to get pregnant immediately after birth), but really this is all aside the point.

What interests me here is the way the campaign has handled it. Well okay, the way the campaign has basically HAD to handle it. The family (Sarah and husband) have publicly stated how "proud" they are at Bristol's "decision" to carry to term. Now, I'm not saying Bristol didn't REALLY make that decision on her own, but what good is it considering that's most likely the ONLY option she had regarding her pregnancy? In Alaska (as in many other states), 17-year-old Bristol wouldn't have been able to obtain an abortion without parental consent, and Palin supports that law. In Alaska (as in many other states), Bristol wouldn't have been able to access EC without finding doctor to write an underage woman a prescription without her parents finding out, and Palin supports that law. Let's go to the beginning: in Alaska (as with any state that needs federal funding for schools), Bristol would not have been taught about contraception in school, and given her mother's take on birth control and condoms (she's against them even in marriage), I doubt there was much education at home either.

Bristol Palin is one of thousands of poster children for abstinence-only education. She is one of thousands of young women who find themselves without options due to lack of access or laws barring "underage" women from making their own decisions about their bodies. And worst of all, Bristol Palin has become a convenient political tool for her mother and runningmate to use against the case for reproductive justice, just as Sarah Palin herself has used her decision to carry a fetus known to have Down's Syndrome to term. ("If I can do it, so can you... and you WILL.")

Now my only other thing is this: what if Joe Biden (or, heaven forbid, Barack Obama) had a pregnant teenager? Not being seen as champions of the so-called "pro-life" movement, the Democrats would hardly be able to turn a case which would so obviously have left a horrible taste in the mouths of social conservatives into a politically-OK situation without serious spin (awe, she's marrying the father!), and could have easily destroyed a once-flourishing presidential campaign. In fact, it would have added a great deal of fuel to an already out-of-control fire in regards to the way many see the daughters of more liberal legislators: conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel, for example, believes that legislators with daughters are more liberal on reproductive rights issues because liberal legislators have, and I quote, "slutty daughters." In fact, she went so far as to say they support abortion for "selfish, personal reasons." Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have echoed these sentiments many times over. A pregnant daughter on any Democratic candidate's behalf would please the conservative think-tanks to no end: "Can we really elect a president with such a slutty daughter?" "If he can't raise his daughter to behave right, how can he run a country?" etc etc etc. And if Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter, well, I don't even want to imagine the blatant old-school racism regarding black women's inherent "looseness" that would resonate from the mouths of these pundits.

And yet with Bristol you have the Jaimie Lynn effect. Conservative white girl gets pregnant and, my god, decides to carry to term! And she's getting married to the baby's father. How endearing. (There's just no way the endless financial support from multi-millionaire family members had ANYTHING to do with that decision!) She's not slutty, she's MORAL. She's a poster child for Traditional American Values.

Isn't it amazing how a little spin can turn that frown upside down?

Election perspectives from an independent

Please don't misconstrue my "independent" status as "moderate". I'm not a moderate in any way shape or form... that would make choosing a candidate easier, but gaining perspective a whole lot harder.

It's been interesting, myself, hardly putting her hopes and dreams in the hands of a bipartisan system, watching this circus unfold. And yes, I'll admit, I get carried away with Obama now and then. Hell, the man is a DAMN GOOD speaker. I mean really good. Charlie and I noted last night that during his entire 1 hour speech, he never once looked down at a card, and there was just no way he could have been reading from a teleprompter at that stadium.

Of course that's no reason to vote for someone. But I truly did like 80% of what he was saying. Unfortunately I know what he represents, and knowing that, I know he won't necessarily deliver. I know I have to take these things into my own hands... let me rephrase, I know WE have to take these things into OUR own hands.

It's not just that McCain is boring and Bush comes off as an idiot (he's not) that we dislike them... that's just comedic value, perspectives used to make us laugh and create an overly simplistic view on the real threats facing us. And there are real threats. John McCain, who not only believes that life begins at CONCEPTION but believes that that belief should be legislated, who not only believes women should stay at home but that companies shouldn't be required to pay women equal pay for equal work, who not only turns up his nose at the very real challenges facing working class women but actually blames them for it... these anti-woman policies cannot be erased by simply nominating a similarly sexist woman as your veep. The thing is, who really knows much about Sarah Palin? She's hardly outspoken, not one of the contenders in the primaries, so on the surface, McCain is "doing women a favor," giving them "representation" on his ticket the way the Dems refused to.

It's pure danger. Suppose the woman McCain picked had been Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Jill Stanek, or Bay Buchanan? No Hillary-supporters-turned-swing-voters there. However, a quick peek at Palin's "on the issues" page will reveal Sarah Palin as nothing more than the worst of the worst balled up into one... except, obviously, the belief held by Schafly that women should stay at home (no place in Government, no sir-ee!). Sarah Palin has been endorsed by the Eagle Forum, an anti-choice, anti-GLBTQ group that demonizes feminism as a "rebellion against God" and has enacted an agenda to fill governmental policy with such beliefs. She has even used her own case of having her fifth child diagnosed with Downs Syndrome in-utero instead of terminating the pregnancy as a political stance against other women's personal decisions to abort.

Granted Obama's decidedly fuzzy stance on late term abortion would have probably disallowed Palin from being able to terminate due to Downs (a condition only feasibly detected in the 3rd term of pregnancy). Or not... maybe Obama, like other supporters of the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban, doesn't care to ban the more unsafe of the two later term procedures, D&E (ID&E, the procedure specifically targeted by the ban, is safer for the woman and has a much lower rate of complications). I'm not really sure. What I do know is that Obama supports a state's right to limit access to 3rd term abortion regardless of situation.

We shall see. And hey, I may be pleasantly surprised. If I am, I will GLADLY eat my words. I will not, however, go into this election season hungry in anticipation.