It shouldn’t be such a stretch to expect Barack Obama to appoint a woman with his first Supreme Court nomination. After all, as Laura Stiller Rikleen pointed out at the Boston Globe:

[W]e wonder, by what possible analysis could a woman not be appointed as only the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court since it first assembled in 1790?

… [E]ven with our significant numbers in the legal profession, some commentators insist on classifying women as a “special interest” that the president will need to consider. How did one-half of the population and a third of the profession come to be viewed as a special interest?

Neither women nor mothers are special interest groups — we’re the ones who spend most of the money and manage our families, be they children, spouses, parents, siblings or more.

President Obama says he wants to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who can bring real life perspectives to the bench, as well as the necessary intellectual heft. I couldn’t agree more. Think about how things might have turned out differently if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hadn’t been the only woman (and mother) on the court when it told Lilly Ledbetter that it wouldn’t do anything about the wage discrimination by her employer Goodyear and when the court suggested that there is a role for its paternalism when it comes to reproductive choice.

And if there had been other women’s voices on the Court, would the outcome have been different in the Court’s recent decision that employers are justified in discounting maternity leave when it comes to determining pension eligibility of female employees? One more blow to our fight for equal pay for women that Congress must address since the guys on the Court just don’t get it.

It wouldn’t surprise me if decisions like that make Sandra Day O’Connor wonder why she ever left the Court in the first place.

Justice Ginsburg has fought the good fight, especially with the language of her dissenting opinions, in calling out her fellow justices in their attitudes toward women, but she’s only one vote. And she’s 76. She needs some back-up.

I’d like to suggest that a mother who still has children at home (or isn’t too far out from that experience) could provide an interesting peek into the intersection of judicial ivory towers and real life — someone who is still living the daily reality of what it means to be the one in the family who brings home the bacon, fries it up in the pan, and makes sure the grease doesn’t get poured down the sink because she’ll be the one who has to take time off from work when the plumber has to come and snake the drain. Someone like that could be a powerful voice of reason when it comes to getting the remaining members of the Supreme Court to remember that there is a place for the law to intersect with real life.

The current short list of SCOTUS candidates contains many outstanding women candidates — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Kim Wardlaw, Diane Wood and Jennifer Granholm — and several of them are mothers.

Another commentator has suggested that if Obama wants to consider a qualified candidate who is a mother, he might also take a look at Caroline Kennedy, Marian Wright Edelman and Sentaor Claire McCaskill. And if law degree isn’t necessary, I’d suggest that the President look around these parts of the blogosphere — I KNOW there are some women around here who could make some good decisions for the working families of America and teach some of those other justices a thing or two about the impact of making judicial decisions in a reality vacuum.

Obviously, there are plenty of women candidates who don’t have children who would make great additions to the court. But as long as we’re taking life experiences and personal lenses into consideration, why not think about how another mother’s view from the highest bench in the land might give us the additional ally we need when it comes to decisions that impact women’s health, women’s salaries and women’s lives?

After all, we’ve got a mother and a grandmother in the White House and one as Secretary of State. It’s time to beef up the presence of mothers in the court system too!

The only problem is that it ran contrary to the pre-approved White House swine flu message of “Don’t worry, be happy.”

The outcry about the vice president on the cable shows has been over the top — “OMG! Can you BELIEVE that Joe Biden is at it again?! The White House had to ‘clarify’ his statements! Maybe it’s time to put a muzzle on Joe!”

To his critics, I say leave Joe alone.

I completely disagree with the common wisdom that Biden says the darndest things and I want the White House and the media to leave Joe alone. Not because I don’t enjoy a good chuckle now and then, but because Biden actually comes up with comments that are closer to the common sense things that many of us are thinking. This is exactly why I ‘heart’ Joe Biden.

I understand that the government wants to maintain a certain amount of calm and not create a panic. But sometimes, as in this instance, Biden is more the clear-headed voice of reason than the rest of the White House crowd.

Sure, maybe he needs to keep the comedy to himself on certain occasions, but I give the man credit — Biden calls ‘em like he sees ‘em and moves on.

Telling the truth or speaking forthrightly about how one perceives a situation isn’t a “gaffe” — it’s the kind of thing I’d love to see more of in Washington. As for the swine flu situation, given how we all know how easy it is to catch a little cold on even a short flight or subway ride, I have to wonder whether the White House swine flu message to go about our business and not worry too much is really about protecting our health or about protecting the already failing economy?

Yeah, I am that cynical.

You can believe what you want, but I’m sticking with Joe on this one. And since President Obama is the one who chose him to be the VP, I’d suggest that he find a way to embrace his own inner Joe Biden. It will make the rest of his presidential tenure a lot more enjoyable.

It’s quite a cast of characters that seem to be leading the way for GOP 3.0. First, there’s Rush Limbaugh. What can I say about Limbaugh that won’t get me sued? Well, I’ll just take a few tidbits from his Wikipedia entry — he’s a college drop-out, and he’s pretty much been a radio talk show host since then. Not that there’s anything wrong with either of those things, but I hardly think it qualifies him to browbeat the GOP and the new RNC chairman, Michael Steele.

Not that I have any love lost for Michael Steele. When he was chosen to be the running mate of former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich, he had no political experience — he’d been an attorney and later started a consulting business. Not especially the stuff that great political careers are made of.

Then, there’s the 14-year-old. I’m not sure who’s been brainwashing Jonathan Krohn, but I saw him on CNN after he spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (yes, you heard me right) and he sure does have the talking points down to an art.

Now, I am a political geek from WAY back and my interest in politics did start in my teens, but I’ve never met a 14-year-old who really understand the minutiae of the conservative movement or Constitutional intricacies. He’s written a book they’re all hot about, Define Conservatism. He’s upset that people don’t understand. And he does? At 14?

Krohn is being touted as the next big thing among conservatives, Steele wants to remake the GOP and Limbaugh is being treated as the de facto head of the party. If Limbaugh, Steele and Krohn are all they’ve got, I’m going to sleep a little better in my progressive household for the next four years.

Afterwards, in a few short seconds, O’Reilly managed to insult Thomas the journalist, Thomas the woman, Thomas the senior citizen, Thomas’ clothes AND mothers in general! If he’d gone on talking for a little longer, I’m sure he could have found a way to work in her make-up and asked whether she wore army boots.

Wicked Witch of the East? Lincoln? Old lady?

Seriously, what is wrong with this man? Or, a better question is this — what is wrong with men who claim to be pundits and journalists and their constant sexist references as their default way to criticize women? You know, Bill (and all the others), if you want to criticize Helen or any of the rest of us on our journalistic abilities or how we’ve done our jobs, we can take it. There’s really no need to pull out the “your mother dresses you funny” card.

If O’Reilly is going to go down the “Helen Thomas is too old to do her job or to be taken seriously” road, I have to ask — would he say the same thing about someone like Daniel Schorr?

Helen is 89. Schorr is 93. They both have amazingly long lists of journalistic accomplishments. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to guess that if Dan Schorr had been at that news conference and had asked the same question, any reviews of his performance would not have focused on his nonagenarian appearance or whether he ought to be put out to pasture, the way O’Reilly did with Thomas.

The Helen Thomas rap by those Fox News guys is all about trying to keep women in “their place” — do your job, be accomplished, and keep plugging no matter your age, appearance or wrinkle status, and we’ll find a way to try to beat you back.

This is exactly what the bullies did when I was elementary school. This is exactly what the boy bullies are doing to some third-graders in PunditGirl’s class this year. The only difference is that when bullies grow up and someone puts them on television, our daughters get the message that bullies will continue to get the last word in, no matter how old they are.

I’m not worried about Helen. In a grudge match, I’m pretty sure she could take out O’Reilly with one pen tied behind her back! I bet she’s all fesity like that! But it’s not just about Helen — it’s about the rest of us and how our children see women portrayed by men on TV.

If you think O’Reilly should publicly apologize to Helen, stop by the Women’s Media Center site and sign the petition calling for him to sincerely say he’s sorry. I’m not holding my breath that O’Reilly has it in him, but we can try to make him feel a little shame, anyway. And if I knew where O’Reilly’s mother lived, I’d contact her and ask her to have a chat with her son about learning to respect his elders, especially women.

Or I suppose we could start our own mockfest of O’Reilly. No, it’s not the high road, but it might be the only kind of message he would get.

H/T to Jill at Writes Like She Talks for the video!

Oh no, she DI’int! Someone really needs to tell Sarah Palin how the political game is played.

Women, Power & Politics – a good combination and a great online exhibit.

I like that little Malia! She’s spunky! Maybe PunditGirl and I can have her over for a playdate.

Dana Perino has her last news conference today. Watch it live here.

And Katie Couric is on the Road to the Inauguration. Katie, feel free to stop in for a cup of coffee!

I’ve been thinking about this a lot before launching into this piece because I wanted to put my finger on exactly why I had a gut negative reaction to this cover. I don’t have a philosophical objection to a man on the cover of Ms. My problem is that they chose to portray President-elect Barack Obama as a superhero who will swoop in and use his superhuman feminist cred to save women.

Sorry, I’m just really uncomfortable with that.

First, who at Ms. could possibly have thought this cover was in keeping with the mission of Ms.? According to its website, “Ms. was the first national magazine to make feminist voices audible, feminist journalism tenable, and a feminist worldview available to the public.” Showing a man, any man, on the cover in the guise of a superhero doesn’t really seem to fit with that.

And is it in keeping with that mission for that man to be Barack Obama, a candidate who commented freely during the presidential campaign using sexist language about Hillary Clinton, talking about her emotions going up or down and having her claws out, among others?

Criticize your opponent on policies and ideas? Go for it. Use blatantly sexist language to belittle your main competition with language that’s dripping with gender specific? I guess that’s fair game these days, too, but then you really don’t get to call yourself a feminist. And I’m ashamed of Ms. Magazine that they would ignore that.

Some had wondered whether this was a just a play on the first Ms. Magazine cover with Wonder Woman running for president. If so, it could have been considered an interesting juxtaposition. But the editors say that’s not what they intended.

Supposedly, Ms. Magazine believes that this is what a feminist looks like. Maybe my inner cynic is working in overdrive today, but I don’t think this cover is really about portraying a feminist-in-chief. It’s about getting people like me to express their outrage about it, so they’ll sell more magazines.

Both of them were nominees for Attorney General of the United States for Bill Clinton, but were taken out of consideration because of nanny documentation and tax problems. Actually, Wood was legally and technically in the clear of any wrongdoing, but because her situation sounded so much like Baird’s problem, the Clinton administration didn’t want to risk it at the confirmation hearing.

Now, it turns out that Barack Obama’s choice to head the Treasury has some similar problems, yet Obama has said he will not withdraw his name because of “innocent mistakes.”

Really? I can actually get past the possibility of not knowing if the nanny’s immigration papers were in order, but the guy who is going to oversee the IRS and is the head of the Federal Reserve Bank, who’s supposed to be an economic phenom, “forgot” he was supposed to pay certain taxes on his income?

Now, I didn’t think Baird and Wood should have been taken out of consideration because of their nanny issues, but if it’s OK to tell women they have to step down because of legal “mistakes,” especially those involving working mothers and child care, then is it acceptable to give a pass to a guy in a similar situation?

Mr. PunditMom said to me last night, “Well if they lose Geithner, then who’s going to have the expertise to take over at Treasury?” I have to believe there is more than one wunderkind who can manage Treasury, even in these desperate times. The larger question for me is whether Barack Obama wants to raise the whole double standard question before he even steps into the White House as POTUS?

Yes, maybe my feminist radar is a bit more on alert these days after so many misogynistic things that happened in the presidential election, but I have to wonder — if Tim Geithner were Tina Geithner would the candidate be getting the same benefit of the doubt on the supposed honesty of these mistakes?

Senators who have to confirm Geithner acknowledge these problems are serious, but say they don’t disqualify him. If that’s so, then Zoe Baird or Kimba Wood should have been Attorney General under Bill Clinton. But somehow their acts did disqualify them. Other than gender, what’s different this time?

Call me crazy. I know there are plenty who will. I’d just like to see the same standards applied to men and women being considered for high posts, whatever we all decide those standards should be.

Will Barack Obama be the Equivocator in Chief?

Apparently it’s OK to hide jewels and heirlooms if you’re a fraud mastermind, and you still don’t have to go to jail!

President Lame Duck gets testy about New Orleans.

Sanjay Gupta might need to hold on to his CNN gig.

Burris is back!

And the voting is already underway for the sex symbols of the Obama administration!

Oh, and it’s time to DE-LURK! Thanks!

But this morning as I was listening in my car to his farewell news conference, I just about drove off the road as it became clear that this man could not have cared less about what his actions and policies did to us as a nation or as individuals.

With an incredibly upbeat tone in his voice, Bush described his time as president as “joyous” and he recounted how he was able to have “lighthearted” exchanges, even during the “darkest moments” of the Iraq war when he was learning of the skyrocketing American casualties. Bush thinks he’s done a dandy job helping to rebuild New Orleans. He scoffed at the notion that the Presidency of the United States carried with it any real burden.

Number 43 was proud of the fact that he never wavered on “his” principles (never mind those of the Constitution and any collective American ones). He proudly recounted that he was able to keep his focus on the issues at hand because he always had, as a reminder about the gravity of situations around the world, his daily intelligence briefings.

And, of course, he was glad he had his regular exercise and mountain bike rides as a way to forget momentarily about the troubles of the world.

He needed daily reminders? He was glad he could forget? I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the person in the Oval Office to ever let his or her mind wander about what’s going on, even when they’re getting in a little cardio work-out.

I had hoped that Bush wasn’t really someone who blithely went about his day with such apparent indifference. But if someone can genuinely and sincerely make those kinds of remarks that paint them as so out of touch with reality, then that’s scarier than just about anything else I can think of.

Here’s a little taste:

It was funny that Bush also felt the need to mention (again) that he gave up drinking. In the future, I don’t want a president who confesses to having had a substance abuse problem. I want someone who can deal with all things in moderation, including the occasional glass of wine. Because when someone who is supposed to be the leader of the free world lives in a land where he views all his choices, even down to whether he’s having a cocktail or a soft drink, as so clear cut, the nuances of the world are lost. And our world is nothing if not full of nuance, subtlety and shades of gray.

George Bush was a man with no real worries as he stood before the White House press corps this morning. I guess that’s nice for him, but for the rest of us, I’m glad we have someone taking over next week who at least will try to keep the country’s problems on the front burner, even if he’s headed for a few minutes in the weight room.

While I’m betting she was a Tracy Flick kind of gal in high school, that teenage girl also had insecurities. And a girl with political ambition and underlying self-esteem issues about who she is and how she climbed the ladder of success can be a troublesome thing for the rest of us.

Even with a certain amount of accomplishment, anyone with a Tracy Flick persona also endured her share of being picked on — that’s just what happens in high school when you’re not quite as popular as the “in” crowd as you’d like to be. Most of us have lived that and understand that and, sooner or later, we get over it.

But there are those who suffered those adolescent cruelties who vow that when they’ve “made it” they’ll show the rest of us! They won’t take it and they’ll give it right back! That can be very self-satisfying, but it’s not really a good move if you want to be something like, say, a Governor.

That’s tone and attitude I heard from Palin when I watched this clip. Poor Sarah, the eternal victim –

When you get to be one of 50 governors and have political ambitions to get to Washington, D.C., one way or another, then it’s time to lose the victim thing. Yes, it’s keeping Palin in the media spotlight, but not in a good way.

For better or worse, to move beyond being a first-term governor, you can’t whine about bloggers and reporters who don’t like you. If the media covers your family in a way you don’t like, then you need to find a way to handle it without complaining about being picked on or talking about your mother bear tendencies. You need skin thick enough so that even if you think you’ve been treated unfairly, you can find a way to manage it gracefully, yet forcefully, without sounding petty. And, Sarah, you just aren’t even close.

As for the whole Katie-Couric-what-newspapers-do-you-read-thing? It’s time to let that one go unless you’re going to do more than talk generally about reading “publications” and then quickly mentioning USA Today and the New York Times. It’s OK to quip to your friends that Katie shouldn’t expect that the world revolves around her and her words, but you have to keep that thought bubble pretty private if you expect to be taken seriously as a political player.

If Palin, as the first Republican woman vie presidential candidate, keeps whining about how unfairly she was treated and how mean the media is, she can kiss her political future goodbye. That’s OK by me, but I have a feeling that’s not what’s she’s planning on for herself.

While I’m no fan of Palin, I have defended her in the past (to the chagrin of some of my progressive pals!) for having the chutzpah to try to make the most of the political lottery she won by being John McCain’s running mate. But besides damaging her own political future, Palin is doing a huge disservice to all women, especially those who want to run for political office, when she uses her high profile platform for a Wendy Whiner routine.

Palin says she didn’t know what the McCain campaign was thinking when they had her do multiple interviews Katie Couric because the first one went so poorly. I don’t know what Palin was thinking when she agreed to be interviewed for this movie. It’s not really a sign of good judgment. That’s ten minutes I’d wish I could take back if I was in her shoes.