"Someone goes first. The black man? The white woman?"

Ceilings that worry me (4.00 / 5)

1.  My own.  Rent went up 40% this year due to the landlord's ARM reset.  Will I have a ceiling/roof over my  head?

2.  The ceiling/roof that the cost of my home heating oil is going through.

3.  The earth's ceiling/ozone layer, which not only has already been gone through, but continues to have a big hole in it.

4.  The ceilings and roofs over the heads of the many Americans who may be unable to make the payments on their ARM mortgages.

5.  The smashed ceilings and roofs on the federal low income housing that is being torn down in New Orleans to make way for new housing that the old residents may not be able to afford.  The broken ceilings and broken dreams of so many in New Orleans for whom the  notion of a glass ceiling would probably elicit a glassy stare.

Roofs that I hope people go through:

1.  The SOTS in every state in the union should go through the roof like the SOTS in California and Ohio and assure the most basic institution -- a secure vote - is intact and protected.

2.  Judges should continue to go through the roof at trust funds that try to foreclose on people's mortgages/homes when they don't even hold the frigging paper that proves t hey have the right to do so.

3.  The entire country should be going through the roof that the Congress has not impeached Bush/Cheney

4.  Likewise, the country should go through the roof if the US doesn't create a sane, aggressive set of policies that engage citizens and corporations in bringing our energy consumption  WAY down.

Hopes and Dreams that could elevate us all:

I corresponded earlier this year with a young woman heading up a project in South Carolina where the residents were debating whether to try to scrape together enough grant money to get running water in the community.  It turns out the money they got was insufficient -- to get the whole system running, much money as they had, they were $5MM short - and once they brought in the running water, it was going to be moot because people could not afford to buy the toilets to use it.

Elevating someone for symbolic gratification is a very different situation from being raised up in the arms and hands of people you have championed and joined with and used your power to lift up and who therefore lift you up.

In the latter situation, the glass ceiling stuff falls by the wayside.  IN the former situation, is it possible that the glass ceiling assuages and distracts from those among us who need far more than the last notch in their career belt.

How ironic that the person championing those who most need a voice is a white male.

Having the wrong sexual equipment and skin color to be a symbolically gratifying change agent should be the stuff of central casting, but that is what our presidential race threatens to become.  Dustin Hoffman should be verklempt.

When being a symbol of change becomes the magic pony, it's no longer about change -- it's about symbolism.

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:03:11 AM UTC

Content of character more important than type of genitalia (3.33 / 3)

South Asia is a region that has more female heads of state than most other regions of the world--Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. In all of these cases, the woman leader was either the daughter or wife of a strong male leader. I recently read an article that tried to disparage the fact that there were so many female leaders in South Asia by pointing out that all these women leaders got to where they were based on the political career of their fathers or husbands.

In the US, we have not only never had a female head of state--but it appears that our only contender is Hillary Clinton, who in my view, is largely running on the experience of her husband. Without him, I really doubt she could have made it this far. It's too bad that even here in the supposedly more liberal United States, a woman still appears to "need" a man in order to get this far in politics.

I do not like this dynastic politics--do we really want potentially 30 years of the US presidency to be controlled by only two families, Bush and Clinton?

Although I would also love to see a woman president, I cannot support Hillary on the grounds that she voted for the Iraq war and has not apologized for this vote. Not only has this war wreaked havoc on our budget, international reputation, civil liberties, and general status of Iraq, but it has also been especially painful for the women of Iraq .

She also supported the Lieberman-Kyle amendment on Iran. She's also been spending time in bed with the likes of Rupert Murdoch

Hillary is the least progressive Democrat in the race and I think she needs to be stopped--and I think it's wrong to support her simply because she has a pair of ovaries.  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 19:06:02 PM UTC

A quality of hope I cannot deny (4.00 / 1)

Having said what I've said above, I have seen some evidence that the simple fact of having Barack Obama running for president has had.  I cannot and will not dismiss the absolute glow (that felt very fresh, new and special) of some of the supporters of Obama have had -- it is precious to behold and I don't want to come across as hardheartedly dismissing them or their experience of his candidacy.  (Of course, maybe they had just had sex and I was reading too much into it.)  My interpretation of what I was seeing was that they were traveling with a newfound hope.  I just would hate for us to be manipulated into believing that selecting a leader to bring about change depends upon in genitalia or epidermis, and not in gifts and qualifications of the candidate, however embodied.

I have not yet witnessed the same excitement in the Hillary supporters, but I  know so few of them firsthand.

But if tigergrrl is one of them, if this is tremendously powerful for her, I don't want to dismiss her experience.

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 20:15:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree (4.00 / 1)

But if tigergrrl is one of them, if this is tremendously powerful for her, I don't want to dismiss her experience.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 20:36:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am totally excited for Hillary (0.00 / 0)

and I want to see a woman win the White House this November!  Its high time a woman is President of our great country, and if countries such as England (think Margaret Thatcher) and Germany, and Israel (Golda Meir) have/had
female leaders, then why can't the U.S.?  

I do like Barack Obama as well, but would prefer to see
a woman win the nomination this time around.

I encourage everyone to check out www.voterunlead.org
which is all about encouraging women, no matter what
party, to run for office on local, state, and national
levels....maybe you'll see why I want a woman president...

"Waiting....waiting on the world to change"  --John Mayer

---

by: tigergrrl74 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:15:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

how much is gender a factor for you? (0.00 / 0)

If Hillary didn't run and there was a male candidate who had the exact same position as Hillary on the issue, would you be as excited about about his candidacy?

It doesn't seem like it--it seems like the bulk of your support for her stems from the fact that she has a set of ovaries.

Margeret Thatcher was a conservative and she ran on her own merits as did Golda Meir--neither of them had husbands or fathers who were political leaders. I think it's more apt to compare Hillary to Benazir Bhutto--both women essentially ran on the records of their husband and father, respectively. This is absolutely dynasty politics.

Here is a decent article from Robert Scheer on this issue

As long as Hillary Clinton, and now Gloria Steinem, has chosen to play the women's card against the race card, let me throw in a third one: the class card. Clinton claimed in the New Hampshire primary debate that she is the unmistakable agent for change because she is a woman and her election as president would send a strong signal of a new day aborning to America and the rest of the world. It is hoped that it would be a more progressive message than the one sent by Margaret Thatcher's ascent in England.

Steinem put a finer point on the argument in her New York Times commentary, published Tuesday, New Hampshire's primary election day, arguing that women get wonderfully more "radical" as they age, and therefore older women are more inclined to vote for Clinton, Steinem's preferred candidate, as opposed to Barack Obama, whom younger women went for in Iowa. Maybe those younger women were more worried about how to pay off college loans or swelling mortgage obligations than gender identity.

What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can't be a lawyer without working for banks? Steinem boasts of Clinton's "unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House" without referencing the Clinton White House's giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women. Sen. Clinton's key election operative, Mark Penn, was the other half of the Dick Morris team that recast populist Bill Clinton as the master of triangulation.
I am not trying to play the class card here by claiming that because Obama grew up black and middle-class he will therefore inevitably be that rare politician who remembers where he or she came from. Bill Clinton, who came from a poor family, disproved the notion about remembering. To his everlasting shame as president, Clinton supported and signed welfare legislation that shredded the federal safety net for the poor from which he personally had benefited. He faithfully served big corporate interests by signing off on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act, which, as a gift to the banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers, reversed consumer protection legislation from the New Deal era. Thanks to Bill Clinton, those pirates were allowed to merge into the largest conglomerates the world has ever witnessed and, adding insult to injury, to "data-mine," thus sharing your most intimate financial and health information. Bill Clinton's next biggest concession to the fat cats was the Telecommunications Act, which ended what was left of public control of the airwaves and permits mega-media corporations to grow even bigger. No wonder Rupert Murdock and Hillary Clinton now get on so famously.
Yes, Bill Clinton was a very good president compared to what came immediately before and after, and his wife has many strong points in her favor, not the least of which is her wonkish intelligence. What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation.

Rather than focus on her gender, I would like you to provide us with substantive reasons as to why you think Hillary's positions on the issues are more progressive than Obama or Edwards.

From an ISSUES (not gender) perspective, why are you supporting Hillary as opposed to the other Democratic candidates?  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:54:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

dynasty politics (0.00 / 0)

I think it's more apt to compare Hillary to Benazir Bhutto--both women essentially ran on the records of their husband and father, respectively. This is absolutely dynasty politics.

I can think of another candidate who ran on the record of his father.. he won an election and served twice.

heck, he's still in office.

I don't think it has much to do with the presence of ovaries IMHO

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:01:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton's recent comments on her vote are making it even worse (3.00 / 1)

The general defense by those that voted for the war, and now have regrets, is that they were misled by the Bush Administration - had they know then what they know now, they would have voted Nay. Trouble for Hillary, Obama's famous 2002 speech makes it clear that some did know then... A serious point by Obama, and many of those that voted against the AUMF, is that even if you took the Bush claims of WMDs and other threats seriously, there were still not sufficient grounds for military intervention. The threat was not imminent and diplomatic options had not been exhausted.

In response, Hillary has now changed her defense to one that constitutes historical revisionism. From Meet the Press, 1/13/2008:

...I made it very clear that my vote was not a vote for preemptive war. I said that on the floor, I said it consistently after that. It was a vote to put inspectors back in to determine what threat Saddam Hussein did in fact pose
...
Fourth, it is absolutely unfair to say that the vote as Chuck Hagel, who was one of the architects of the resolution, has said, was a vote for war. It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so.

So, Clinton claims she didn't know she was voting to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. Well, either she's lying or just not that smart.

• First, the title of the Resolution was: "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002." (full text of Resolution here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go... Even for someone that didn't have time to read it all, though the Resolution is quite short compared to most congressional legislation, you didn't have to get past the cover to know what you wer voting for.

• From SEC. 3. of the AUMF
  AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
  

     (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
  Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
  appropriate in order to--
             (1) defend the national security of the United States
         against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
             (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
         resolutions regarding Iraq.

  Is there anything ambiguous about that?

• As Olberman pointed out last night, Hagel was the architect of a different resolution; Clinton voted for Bush's version. Indeed, Hagel's version had further restrictions that would have prevented Bush from using military until demonstrating that diplomatic efforts had failed, and receiving further approval. If Clinton thought she was actually voting on the Hagel version, then I'm very worried about her preparedness to be President.

joesahoe has another important diary on this subject. The gist is, if what Clinton said on MTP was true, then she believes the President intentionally misled Congress in order to start a war without proper Constitutional authority. Thus, she was/is obligated to demand investigations/censure of the Bush Adminsistration and encourage her colleagues in the House to pursue Impeachment.  http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/sh...

---

by: Neal Fink @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 14:06:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

abdicating congressional responsibility (0.00 / 0)

Another point that needs to be made was the entire resolution to authorize the president to use force was illegitimate. According to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. In this case, Congress (Hillary included) chose to abdicate her Congressional responsibility and delegate war-making authority to our president, a very dangerous moron, indeed.  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 14:47:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

here's the thing (0.00 / 0)

I am not happy that Hillary voted to go to war, and I know a lot of people aren't happy with it either, but I moved way past that already.....

"Waiting....waiting on the world to change"  --John Mayer

---

by: tigergrrl74 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:16:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You shouldn't move past it (3.00 / 1)

because Clinton hasn't moved past it. The soldiers risking their lives every day CAN'T move past it. Innocent Iraqis that have seen their friends and families killed by out-of-control American contractors can't move past it. From your safe home in Fairfield, perhaps you find it easy to move past it, and cheer Clinton on like a loyal sorority sister. I urge you to learn more about Clinton than just her sex.

Clinton's been on TV and other media this week telling outright lies about what happened during the lead up to the war. Please go back and read my comment above.

How can you support someone that is STILL telling new lies on top of old stale lies hoping to excuse her complicity in leading our country into an illegal and unnecessary war? Obama wasn't in the Senate yet to vote, but he made a famous speech clearly stating his opposition - and laying out the argument for why those in Congress should vote against the war regardless of claims of WMDs and such by BushCo. Edwards, like Clinton, cast that bad vote. But, at least he's willing to stand up and admit it was a mistake, without the caveats and wiggling of Clinton.

---

by: Neal Fink @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:46:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't know I was in a sorority?! (0.00 / 0)

I wasn't even in one back when I was in college...aye aye aye!  On a serious note, I will go back and read your previous comments, and think on them for a bit.  What I meant was that while I realize she made a mistake voting for the war (but still hasn't owned up to it),  I focus more on the positives of her...

"Waiting....waiting on the world to change"  --John Mayer

---

by: tigergrrl74 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 13:54:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um, you did know that there were white males (0.00 / 0)

actually running for the Democratic Parties nod?

I realize that they aren't important any more having served their purpose, but one of them is actually in a three-way tie (within MOE) in Nevada. Yes, the media doesn't talk about him. Yes, national polls show that he is the only candidate that beats EVERY Republican. Yes, you wouldn't know about that from the polls that media does talk about. But, what the hell, let's all just dismiss him anyway.

< /snark>

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 18:54:14 PM UTC

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Rich white heterosexual male Christian attorneys just can't catch a break in America. It must suck to be John Edwards.

< /double snark>

---

by: Neal Fink @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:01:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

are they the same WMs trying also RUN the parties' nod? (0.00 / 0)

The ones bringing the lawsuit against the precincts in the casino area?

Nicole Hollander's Venusian/alien character Gernif would observe the earthlings and say:  "How versatile these RWMs are".  /snark.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:12:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hilarious! (0.00 / 0)

I actually laughed out loud reading this one, Met00...I am so sick and tired of the mainstream media only reporting on people of color and powerful women.

The reason that Edwards isn't getting tons of media coverage couldn't possibly be because his campaign can't seem to find a way to insert him into the debate, could it? It couldn't possibly be because John Edwards the candidate is doing a poor job of defining himself as a substantial alternative to either of the two front-runners? And, it couldn't possibly be that after a second-place finish in Iowa, the state he had admittedly staked his campaign on from day one, John Edwards came in a distant third in New Hampshire?

Nah. It must be because of this country's persistent failure to take white male politicians seriously.

I just hope the day will come when John Edwards doesn't have to sit in the back of the bus.

---

by: OGDem @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 20:21:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I actually thought this OpenLeft piece was useful (0.00 / 0)

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r...

When a candidate carrying a strong populist message, a message rightfully angry at the abuses of big business and the establishment, loses an election that they were positioned to win, it's incumbent on progressives to examine why, not just make excuses. I suggested that maybe the answer is a combination of populist anger and compelling ideas about solving problems. I'm glad it's provoked a thoughtful discussion on Open Left.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 20:44:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gee I wish someone put it in a chart for me... (4.00 / 1)

http://www.journalism.org/node...

Lookie here, someone did!

H/T to Greg Sargent at TPM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:26:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

where's Shirley Chisholm (4.00 / 1)

when we need her most?  

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:04:43 AM UTC

Maybe... (0.00 / 0)

...we really just need to wait for Sam Woods (Tiger's kid) to grow up, so we can have the first Cablinasian/Swedish Buddhist woman president! ;^)

---

by: dauphinb @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:33:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't forget about (0.00 / 0)

Shirley Chisholm.....she certainly made history back in '72! Not just as a woman, but as a African-American woman....

"Waiting....waiting on the world to change"  --John Mayer

---

by: tigergrrl74 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 13:51:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]