The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

How Not To Fix Prop 8

I hate to say this, but I'm not a fan of a key piece of the challenge to Proposition 8 that same-sex marriage advocates are bringing in the California Supreme Court. By all means, ask the court to recognize the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed since it ushered in legalization last June. Laws shouldn't change retroactively, with marriages approved by the state one day and shunned the next. It's true that this case doesn't fit perfectly into the constitutional doctrine based on what's called the ex post facto clause, which prevents laws from changing up on people after the fact. (That's because traditionally, ex post facto applies to criminal laws.) But if ever there was a time for expanding that doctrine, for fairness' sake, this is it.

 The part of the court challenge that makes me skittish is the claim that Prop 8 is simply unconstitutional because it's a major revision to California's constitution, instead of just an amendment, and so the legislature has to separately approve it. This sounds like legal jabber (a revision vs. an amendment--huh?), and I fear that the political price for a ruling like this would be too high. Last summer, the state supreme court took a big step by legalizing same-sex marriage. Now, like it or not, the voters have rejected that ruling. I'm not a fan of state referenda--they make it way too easy to pass bad laws, and California has suffered from them in the past. (Remember Prop 13, which decimated school funding?) But if you have a referendum system, you have to live with it. Or at least you don't turn to the branch of government farthest from the will of the electorate to overturn a law born of the process that's closest to the will of the government. To get out of the Prop 8 fix, California needs another amendment that reverses it. The current challenge is the right battle, but the wrong tactic.
 

What Nebraska Learned (and Didn't) When it Allowed Parents To Abandon Their Kids

Everyone lusts after stories of bad mothers—the worse, the juicier. As you might recall, in the late 1990s, at the peak of the Clinton-era culture wars, a moral panic arose over "dumpster" or "toilet" babies—infants abandoned by panicked, often teenage moms who had told no one they were expecting a child. In the spring of 1997, the nation was riveted by an especially horrific case. In New Jersey, 18-year old Melissa Drexler gave birth to a baby boy at the senior prom, stuffed the child into a trash bin, and returned to the dance floor.The baby died, and Drexler served three years in prison.

"Safe haven" or "baby Moses" laws emerged as a response to such crimes. They allowed parents to abandon their children to the state at designated locations without being charged with a crime. The pro-life movement, which heartily supported the laws, contended that baby abandonment was on the rise because Roe v. Wade had eroded the "culture of life." That is doubtful at best—the abandonment of disabled, weak, and, in many cultures, female newborns has taken place throughout human history. Nevertheless, it's a good thing to provide a safe, anonymous way for struggling parents to turn an infant over to the state. Though safe havens are used extremely rarely, there's no reason for them not to be there.

But these laws had unintended consequences. As the New York Times reported last month, after Nebraska passed a safe haven law in July, officials were shocked that parents were abandoning children as old as 17. Sometimes the parents were suffering from mental illness; often the children were. Many of the families were uninsured or underinsured. But whatever the cause, in the midst of a financial crisis, and in a state with some of the lowest spending on mental health and child welfare services, dozens of parents seemed so unable to cope that they were ready to abandon their kids.

Today, Nebraska responded by amending the safe haven law to apply only to babies younger than 30 days old. And while that will prevent these other families in crisis from coming out of the woodwork, it will do nothing to address the underlying problems of poverty and health care. Just a reminder that while we obsess about freakish stories in our fervor for identifying society's "worst mothers," bigger problems are often hidden in plain sight.

XX Factor Meets Bloggingheads

XX Factor contributors Emily Bazelon and Melinda Henneberger appear on Bloggingheads.tv today to discuss all things Obama and Hillary and also talk a little about abortion.

In this first clip, Emily and Melinda talk about whether Hillary might be too much of a neocon to be President Obama's secretary of state, and how unfortunate it would be if Bill Clinton's finances torpedoed his wife's shot at the job.

And here, Emily and Melinda discuss the seemingly outlandish claim that Catholic hospitals would be forced to shut down under Obama, if the Freedom of Choice Act passes. But Melinda's done some digging, and the act could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. And she says that church leaders could decide to shutter the hospitals rather than sell them.

Palin, Meet PETA

You have got to watch this. So she is going on..."values...convictions...policies...blah blah blah," Starbucks in hand, while that dude in the background is killing the turkey. I kid you not.

I can't decide if the video looks more like a) performance art  b) fetish film or c) an Onion video.

Her last words; "I'll be in charge of the turkey."

Yeah, I bet you will.

The Long History of Janet Napolitano

It's heartening to hear that Janet Napolitano is most likely Obama's pick as secretary of Homeland Security. I profiled Napolitano for The American Prospect in July and spent some time with her in Phoenix. She's really smart, tough, and funny, dropping Monty Python lines in official meetings. A cabinet with both Napolitano and Hillary Clinton in it would be chock-full of female power.

A former prosecutor, Napolitano is vocally pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and a moderate on immigration, which serves her well in Arizona's libertarian political climate. She was the first governor to dispatch the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border, and the Bush administration followed her lead on the issue.

But what many don't know about Napolitano—or don't remember—is that she first came onto the national stage in 1991 as an attorney representing Anita Hill during the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on Clarence Thomas. (Joe Biden chaired the committee at that time and is remembered for his ham-handedness in dealing with the sensitive topic of sexual harassment.) Napolitano was in charge of preparing the testimonies of Hill's supporting witnesses, and she credits her involvement in the case with deepening her commitment to electoral politics. "It really did bring home how issues of women really didn't have an avenue to be heard at that time," Napolitano told me during our May interview. "I think that from Professor Hill's standpoint, that experience cost her a lot personally. But I think she should have a satisfaction in knowing, but for that experience, the fact that women need to be treated fairly and are entitled to go to work without being harassed—when they're in the workplace trying to earn a living—would never have gained the prominence it did and all the protections we now have."

When Bill Clinton appointed Napolitano U.S. Attorney for Arizona in 1993, Senate Republicans held up her nomination for more than a year, in large part because of lingering resentments over the Thomas-Hill case. So it'll be interesting to see if the issue resurfaces for Napolitano this time around—or if, 17 years later, the infamous episode has lost its power as a political and cultural touchstone.

Or, Maybe Obama Knows Exactly What He's Doing...

Can (and Should) Eliot Spitzer Be Rehabilitated?

With a very serious op-ed on financial regulation in last Sunday's Washington Post, Eliot Spitzer clearly sees the economic crisis as an opportunity to rehabilitate his reputation, trotting out some pretty powerful "I told you sos" from his New York state attorney general days. Spitzer says he rang the warning bell about subprime mortgages and accounting irregularities at AIG but was rebuffed by the Bush administration. Only in the last paragraph does he deal with the elephant—cough, prostitution-ring scandal—in the room:

Although mistakes I made in my private life now prevent me from participating in these issues as I have in the past, I very much hope and expect that President Obama and his new administration will have the strength and wisdom to do again what FDR did.

A few bloggers were so impressed by Spitzer's essay that they called on the Obama administration to offer him a job. "Do we have to exclude Spitzer from addressing the issues on which he has considerable expertise? Issues that have nothing to do with an unrelated sex scandal?" mused Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly. "Is there a better pick in mind for the next chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission?"

Anonymous Liberal agreed, writing: "The argument is simple. When you're really sick, you hire the best doctor you can. You don't care about his/her personal life." Politico's Ben Smith floated Spitzer's name as a replacement for Hillary Clinton in the Senate should she become secretary of state.

If you're raising your eyebrows, you're not the only one. The way I see it, the No Drama Obama team has enough trouble on their hands incorporating the Clintons into the fold. Do we really expect Obama to embrace a man who broke multiple laws by contracting a prostitute across state lines? And there's no indication that Ashley Dupre, the call girl in question, is planning on helpfully fading into the night. On Friday she will appear with Diane Sawyer on 20/20, and she has granted an interview to People magazine. Her words to Silda Wall Spitzer? "I'm sorry for your pain."

Even if you're willing to forgive Eliot Spitzer's slimeball behavior, there's the inconvenient truth that despite his Wall Street expertise and reputation as a corporate ball buster, Spitzer's governorship was rife with scandal and intrigue from day one. He used the state police to spy on his political opponents. He was so obnoxious to the state Legislature that even his allies feared his liberal policy agenda would erupt in flames. A good fit for Obama? No way. Eliot Spitzer: Not the change we need.

Eric Holder for Attorney General?

And now on to a different Obama Cabinet post: At Newsweek, Michael Issikoff is reporting that Eric Holder will be tapped as Obama's attorney general, assuming he vets well. What I like about this choice is that it's bold but not crazy bold. The strike against Holder is that he signed off on Bill Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich, a crackup wherever you are on the ideological spectrum. On the other hand, Holder has a solid-to-gold reputation as a federal prosecutor. And he served as a not-fancy judge in the District of Columbia's Superior Court. When the right tried to tar him with the Rich screw up when he was on Obama's vice-president selection team, it didn't much stick--at least, not enough to fell him. The Obama folks must be making a similar calculation here.

I don't know enough about Holder's particular role in the Rich episode to know for sure whether they're right to look beyond it, but taken as a whole, Holder's record shows that he knows his stuff and should be able to run the Justice Department well. On national security, his rep is not hard left. That's of a piece with the move to the center that Obama made on wiretapping by the National Security Agency over the summer. It could mean that he's going to disappoint liberals who want to rip up every Bush administration DoJ order. This is the test of governing as opposed to criticizing from the outside. The Democrats are about to own the war on terror. Holder will be nothing like Alberto Gonzales; that I think we can count on. It's harder to know how many degrees apart he will be from the current attorney general, Michael Mukasey, who was sent in to clean up the Gonzales mess. For example, what will Holder do with Mukasey's recent order expanding the FBI's powers to infiltrate and investigate? May the tests begin.

Whose Foreign Policy? That's the Question

At this point, I think we are arguing just to keep our skills up, because Hillary as Madame Secretary seems to be a done deal. But, my mother always said I would rather argue than eat, so: Whoa, Hanna, how is it that "in every way it is petty to want to deny her" the top foreign policy job when her views on foreign policy are not compatible with Obama's. (At least, that was my understanding when I voted for him.) As McCain campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb says in a post for the Weekly Standard, "On the issues, Clinton's a hawk ... Clinton flipped on the war, but as the nomination slipped out of her reach last spring she spoke of the threats this country faces, and of the prescriptions offered by Obama, in language that would warm the hearts of neoconservatives. ... She threatened to 'obliterate' Iran in response to unprovoked aggression against Israel, she spoke of unconditional meetings with the leaders of rogue states as 'irresponsible and, frankly, naive,' and she castigated Obama's transparent saber-rattling on Pakistan. ... On matters of diplomacy, Clinton's views are not so different from those held by John McCain and most Republicans [big fat bold letters mine]—and they are certainly well to the right of Obama.'' 

I fail to see why it is "right-minded, in a feminist way'' to appoint someone whose views were rejected by the majority of Americans. And though I understand the impulse to aw, just go ahead and give it to her, this job is too important to be anybody's consolation prize, and that she has suffered does not mean she has earned it. To me, her trippy Tuzla flashbacks, or whatever those were, do not suggest a firm grasp of even her own life. Emily B., you imagine that though she's been a lousy manager in the past, she's "too smart not to figure out (finally) how to successfully delegate the management of this'' State Department. But isn't history a better predictor than IQ?

Yes, Hillary (Because I'm Rooting for Tracy Flick)

My fellow Emily, as usual I read your acerbic post and find myself about to disavow my own previously held views. Why did I find myself aflutter over the prospect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again? Oh right: She could ace this job! You are right that she has not proved herself as an administrator. But here are three quick retorts: That is only part of the state job, three's the charm, and she is too smart not to figure out (finally) how to successfully delegate the management of this. Plus the bonus: She must be through with some of her worst campaign managers. On the soap opera front, for once I don't want Bill drama to disqualify her. I hated the idea of the retread of the two of them back in the White House. But this would be her work, her office, and I can't believe the Obama people haven't made it clear that Bill's role should be limited to the cheery star-power glad-handing he is so good at. If they think that they can work with her, then like Hanna says, I'm ready to trust them. Also, I want the Democrats' rival houses to come together this way. This president is taking over with all the world in economic shambles. It's the right time for putting aside past differences, for our most prominent politicians to act like their biggest and best selves. That's what Secretary Hillary would signify to me, on both sides of the détente.

Also, while I resist the idea that Hillary Clinton deserves this, in the sense that no one deserves any incredibly prestigious plum of an office, the Tracy Flick fan in me wants her to have it. And wants her to shine. Yes, she could also just go on being a good senator. But this gives her the opportunity for a grander next act. I want her to keep the pantsuits and the toughness but lose the brittle edge of her image that the campaign left us with. She should be the bitch who gets stuff done, as Tina Fey put it, but less bitchy. 

No, Hillary, No

Give Hill a Chance

Taking the Bait: The Feminist Case for Hillary as SoS

Yes, the Bill factor is irritating. But this story about forced abortion in China reminds me why it might be pretty neat to have Hillary as secretary of state—despite Emily, Hanna, and Melinda's convincing articulations of Clinton fatigue. Arzigul Tursun is a Muslim Uighur woman living in rural western China. A mother of two, Arzigul and her husband fled their village after learning she was again pregnant, in violation of Chinese law. When government officials threatened to seize their home unless Arzigul submitted to an abortion, the Tursuns returned. Due to international outcry, the situation is now in deadlock, with the 26-week pregnant Arzigul currently under watch at a municipal hospital.

So what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton? In short, with sexual and gender oppression at the root of so many global conflicts, I'd welcome a secretary of state not only aware of these problems, but with a history of speaking out on them. One of Hillary's most famous speeches as first lady was at the United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she declared "human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights." On the campaign trail in July 2007, Clinton said, "When I traveled to China in 1995 ... I thought it was absolutely essential that I speak out against the practice in China of one child per one family. Because what that meant for women's lives was often forced sterilization and forced abortion."

Of course, we have a female secretary of state currently, and we've had one in the past. But Condi Rice has hardly pursued a feminist agenda, and Madeleine Albright, though she had a history of working on women's issues, didn't come with the platform and celebrity Hillary would bring to the job. If anything, Hillary became more comfortable with playing the role of feminist icon over the course of the long 2008 campaign. Partly, that was a purely political choice; she learned after that choked-up moment in New Hampshire that appealing to women delivered more votes than some of her more hawkish advisers had assumed. But only her fiercest critics could accuse Clinton of not having real feminist convictions. In a Washington Post interview as her primary campaign faltered, Clinton said, "Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal."

As secretary of state, Hillary would be Obama's chief diplomat. And indeed, it would be strange to see her directing negotiations with Iran, for example, after harshly attacking Obama for wanting to speak directly to that nation's leaders. But if Obama gave Hillary some latitude to develop a platform on international women's issues, it would send a powerful message. Maybe that doesn't outweigh all that Clinton fatigue—but it's at least something to consider.

The Obamas on 60 Minutes

Yes, it is embarrassing, but I am going to say it, anyway: How glorious to have a president I can not only stand to see on television, but would have watched over Desperate Housewives, had it come to that. I kept trying to think of the last time such a thing had occurred—is it time yet? the president's going to be on!—but the answer is: never. ("For the first time in my adult life ...") A year from now, Obama will no doubt have to do more than show up and say true things grammatically, absent any mugging or winking. But tonight, he had me at "America doesn't torture.'' And when he declined to place sole blame for deregulation on Republicans. And when he said he was not very interested in having the same old tired left-right tug-of-war. So for as long as this lasts, I'm going with it.

I was a little surprised that he put Eisenhower up there with FDR and Lincoln on his list of presidential greats; Was this post-partisan politesse, or was it Eisenhower's lack of drama he admires? His warning about the military-industrial complex, maybe? Or the taste and vision of his granddaughter?  

It also came as news that the first couple's 60 Minutes interviewer, Steve Kroft, was such a T-Rex: "So, you have a new dog and your mother-in-law's moving in?'' (Right, it stinks to be Obama.) But 44 put the kibosh on that and on Kroft's suggestion that Michelle's whole mom-in-chief routine is going to get old in a hurry when she's "knocking around that big house'' on Pennsylvania Avenue. "Here's one thing I know about Michelle,'' the president-elect informed him. "She's serious when she talks about being a mom; that's why our girls are so wonderful.'' It doesn't happen by accident, in other words, or in five-minute snatches of quality time. So we shouldn't judge low-income families by one standard (stay home and read aloud all day; turn off that TV!) and Ivy League graduates by another (you're home with your kids? gosh, sorry to hear that). If parenting is so important, how come Kroft and Traister and maybe most of us at some point act as if no one who could get a decent job would spend their days doing it? Obama seems proud of his wife's accomplishments as a mother, among other things—and why wouldn't he be?

Hillaries Everywhere

My dread about the Hillary revival is more general. All of a sudden the Clintonites are everywhere—on TV, in the papers, at all the Washington parties. It's as if they've been hiding out for the last eight years, planning their private-school auctions, and now they're ready to take over again. One brave, path-breaking Hillary rewarded for a lifetime of hard work and suffering, I can handle. But the whole lot of them colonizing the transition is too much. The Clintonites are not dreamers. They came to power during a Republican era and have a constricted view of what they can accomplish. Over the years, they have lost whatever blue-sky instincts they once had and have turned into schemers and professionals. I can see what's going on, from Obama's point of view. He is above these sorts of staffing details. His vision goes right over John Podesta's head, straight to the heart of the problem. Still, it's making me nervous.

Hillary for Senate

Ann, don't you love how we've all turned into headhunters for Hillary, eager to pitch in and help her locate just the right job? State wouldn't be the best possible platform for her diplomatic and managerial skill set. But Hillary as war czar isn't quite the ticket, either. (Because nearly everything reminds me of a scene from a musical, what I'm thinking is "May God bless and keep the czar ... far away from us.'' In the Senate, for example.) Obama has created a problem for himself by dangling a major cabinet post as an option; if he doesn't offer it to her now, her partisans won't be happy. But it would be even worse to begin his bright new day in Washington with a confirmation hearing starring all the ghosts of Clinton scandals past. And Defense doesn't work as a Hillary landing pad any better than State does; her initial and lingering poor judgment on Iraq wasn't a plus in any way. Where did rewarding those who were wrong about the war ever get us? Truly, I never followed the '04 reasoning of those who argued that since Bush made the mess, he should be the guy on cleanup. During the run-up to the war, I remember talking to a top Clinton foreign policy person who patiently explained to me that, in fact, the Clinton and Bush administration's views vis-à-vis Saddam and invading and coalition-building were just not that different: "Together if we can, alone if we must.'' Which is why Clinton at DoD would not be different enough for me.

The Brass Ceiling for Hillary?

Melinda and Emily, you're probably right that somebody should have whispered to Obama, "Wait, you'll be sorry," before he summoned Clinton for a Chicago chat about the State department slot. But either no one did, or he didn't listen, so now what's he going to do? Offer her secretary of Defense. The cons are all the same (and who knows, he may be counting on her to consider the prospect of filling out all those forms, and decline). But here are some fresh pros. For him: It wouldn't hurt to have someone who voted for the Iraq war in charge of handling the withdrawal, and she's been a member of the Armed Services Committee for years. He wouldn't be unleashing another globe-trotting Clinton when Bill is already out there, and it would ratchet down her hobnobbing with world leaders. Pros for her: Here's Clinton's chance to be a first and break the brass ceiling. State would be so been-there-done-that.

I'd Like To See Her Application

Hillary for Secretary of State?

Sarah Palin "Freed?"

Here’s Sarah Palin at today’s press conference at the Republican Governor's Association in Miami. It’s Palin minus the sass. But plus the gravitas. Minus the “betchas” and “atchas” and “gotchas.” But plus the edgy new slouch. But also minus the wink (Thank God).

If anything, Palin looks like she’s playing Tina Fey at a mob funeral in New Jersey.

Putting aside the absurdity that she’s finally giving her first national press conference because “the campaign is over,” I find her almost totally unrecognizable. I have one foot in the Sara Mosle camp (brilliant post!) and am desperate to put her behind us. My other foot is in the Andrew Sullivan/Anonymous Liberal/Kevin Drum camp: Covering her as though she is a serious politician with serious things to say is folly. But whatever you think of Sarah Palin, her performance today had none of the “charm” of the last two months, but weirdly, held none of the terror. Turns out Palin playing Palin isn’t very interesting at all.