Do you have a plan to vote?
Let us tell you the information you need to register and cast a ballot in D.C.
The feminist blogosphere is up in arms about coverage of Patricia Blagojevich‘s role in her husband’s scandal. Lady Blagojevich is reported as saying, among other things, that they ought to “hold up that [expletive] Cubs [expletive] … [expletive] them.” Which is so [expletive], I can’t even tell what it means! But some bloggers aren’t into how “reporters” are covering her part in the mess. Let’s take a look.
From Feministing‘s analysis of the coverage:
While many are in shock and awe over the “brash” phone conversations she took part in that resulted in the charges against the governor, the Times’ tabloidy take on Blagojevich by painting her as this “first lady gone bad” is just tacky. . . . Taking any opportunity to paint women involved in politics as divisive and manipulating is sadly an old tactic by mainstream media. But when it specifically comes to women who are married to men involved in political scandals, the media seems to usually victimize them for not knowing about their husband’s “double life.” This case, however, is different; her knowledge of it immediately makes her not only his partner in crime, but the trophy wife turned trickster.
Hmm. I’m not sure, given the evidence, how the media is expected to cover either Blagojevich as not “divisive and manipulative.” And isn’t there something refreshing about that?
I, for one, far prefer Patricia’s totally gun-ho [expletive]-that-[expletive]-and-[expletive]-them role in this scandal to the alternative: trotting out on stage with a big ‘ol frowny face and being Very Disappointed in Your Husband. Sure, this not being a sex scandal makes it a lot easier for Patricia to jump on board here. But you know what they say: the couple that pays-to-play together, stays together.