Rush is at it again.

As an independent (though Republican-registered) voter, I have been on the look-out for a new favorite pundit...one who best represents my current political mood, which changes daily. More ofter than not, I've got a moderate view of what's going on in the world. Though there are days when I'm far to the right or far to the left on certain issues. Nonetheless, I'm always amused by Ann Coulter and her craziness, way less amused by Keith Olbermann and his self-importance, and kind of scared by Michelle Malkin's venom. Lately, I've been especially into Rachel Maddow.

Who's the only pundit I hear about though? Rush. And boy, am I over him. Can't the conservative punditry movement have a better leader than this guy? He spews hatred at every turn, he's a screamer, and he just doesn't seem all that bright. And it's not because he's an everyday, folksy sort of guy. It's because his ideas aren't new. And they haven't worked, clearly.

Personally, I didn't mind the 'I hope Obama fails' diatribe he went on while on Sean Hannity's TV show. It's not shocking for a far right-winger to want the most liberal senator and newly-elected president to fail. That's how it works in a two-party system dominated by hatred of the other kind.

This latest one, courtesy of the Huffington Post, goes a little too far.

In a minor discloser: I am not by any means an Obama supporter. I voted for John McCain because I thought he was most independent of the two-party system, even though I was hesitant about Sarah Palin. I also really liked Hillary. And I, in fact, disagree with most of Obama's major positions.

But this is too much. We don't need this kind of political dialogue. Especially attacking the First Lady as 'angry.' That word was tossed around quite liberally during the last election. Michelle Obama was a stereotypical 'angry, black woman.' Hillary Clinton was an angry, scorned political opponent for Barack. And Sarah Palin was an angry simpleton when she talked about the MSM's coverage of the race.

Can we move on from this label? Why is it the women are always 'angry?' Even John McCain, who has a notoriously famous temper, wasn't called angry as much as these women, one of whom wasn't even running for office!

John Edward's Reappearance at Brown

Out of all of the election coverage over the past two and a half years, the news of John Edwards finally admitting to what most in the media have heard whispers about for years was thoroughly the most depressing. And there were a lot of depressing stories involving the '08 election.

After having stayed out of the spotlight for a considerable amount of time, Edwards reappeared yesterday at Brown University, where he gave a lecture that he calls "Beautiful America." He spoke mostly about the issues on which he built his platform while running for president: universal healthcare and poverty. Though, at this point, do we really want to know about his policies anymore?

I know I don't. I couldn't care less. What I really wanted to know was would anyone ask him about his affair. One student did (well, technically, she asked about the 'moral standards' of politicians) and Edwards gave a typically inexact answer.

Though a news story that I would usually enjoy talking about due to its salacious content---infidelity, the presidency, and a possible love-child, this one just made me feel uneasy. Putting it all into perspective though with the benefit of time, I do believe this story was important belongs alongside the other sexist stories by the media over the course of the last election.

Firstly, the media didn't even bother to report on it even though after the fact, journalists admitted to having known about the affair. Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to know how the mainstream media would have covered this story if all that was replaced was the name 'John' and replaced with 'Johanna?" Would it have been the lapdog it was, as opposed to the watchdog it's supposed to be? Could a Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin gotten away with this?

A 'Beautiful' Secretary of State?

Recently-appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already been fast on the move, traveling to different parts of Asia, as President Obama settles into his new job, to set a new tone around the world for America. Both Clinton and Obama aggressively campaigned on recreating the American image world-wide, to improve foreign relations. But the reality is, with all of the crises at home, paramount being the economic meltdown, the face of America will have to be largely be determined by Clinton, as Obama will be hard at work. Well, now that she's traveled, just how has she been received on her way around the world?

After passing through Indonesia on what CBS labeled the "Global Listening Tour," the Jakarta Post wrote that "journalists held their breath" as Clinton met with a foreign ministers. And in a later article, a reporter was quoted as saying, "She looks more beautiful than on TV."

Beautiful and breathless? Really? Are we actually talking about the world-superpower's new leading diplomatic voice and reducing her down to a pretty face?

I'm not certain that Condi Rice was ever complimented this way by the foreign or American press (I lean towards 'no'). But I am certain that when Colin Powell traveled outside the U.S. (which was few and far between, by the way), no member of the media wrote or spoke of how he looked. A Lexis-Nexis search yielded no results; certainly, no one mentioned his beauty.

While Clinton is supposed to be the new face of America, I think it's particularly troubling that we're actually talking about how her face looks, on TV or in person, rather than talking about how she's going to repair America's bruised image.

Didn't the media just spend a whole election talking about how Sarah Palin looked in her designer outfits? Or how about the NY Times and Washington Post doing whole articles on Clinton's laugh and cleavage? Not only did that dialogue offend most Americans (look at nearly any political poll following the election), it distracted us from issues that we just can't afford to be distracted from.

It's more than troubling that we're going through this yet again and we're only one month into the new administration. It's detrimental not only to the women's movement to aesthetically reduce the Secretary of State, but it's counter-productive to the very cause that she and the Obama administration are supposed to represent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/20/politics/washingtonpost/main4815167.shtml