CHEATahs even have their own teeny-bopper girl group!

UPDATE:  H/T to Delphyne for informing me that the CHEATah boy band sensation driving the O-borg astroturfing, "The CHEAT-o Boyz," recently made an appearance at Netroots Nation:

Riverdaughter, if you think this is over the top snark, I'll remove it.

Speaking of CHEATah Girls, Nancy Pelosi gets a bad review by HuffPo's Kathleen Reardon in her article "What Pelosi Doesn't Get About Persuasion,"  (link for source info only, please don't give HuffPo more traffic):

It isn't as if women don't have enough stereotypes to deal with but along comes Nancy Pelosi to tell those who supported Hillary Clinton's nomination that they shouldn't act like poor sports, taking their marbles and going home, if Hillary Clinton isn't chosen by Barack Obama to be his running mate. They should be happy with whoever he picks, according to Pelosi, because more important is party unity and beating John McCain.

While I'm right on board with the need to beat John McCain, party unity is a matter of persuasion, not accusations of insubordination. Berating women who are still supporting for vice president a candidate who won half the Democratic presidential nominee votes and, as Barack Obama says, took us all another step further in breaking through the political glass ceiling, is not the way to persuade them or anyone to vote for Obama. It's counterproductive.

Pelosi should be saying, "Of course supporters of Clinton still hope she'll be chosen. And why wouldn't they given the race she ran?" Complimenting those who still harbor this hope and are doing what they can to make it a reality is a more astute step toward Democratic Party unity than spiteful detractions in the form of stereotypes -- girls who can't take the rough and tumble of the big leagues and let their feelings get in the way.

In fact, it's not only reasonable to have a favorite for vice presidential candidate, I want to know who is on Barack Obama's short list for secretary of state, secretary of defense, secretary of health and human services, secretary of education, attorney general and so on. This should be part of Obama's plan to end the secrecy that has characterized George W. Bush's administration. I want to know what and how these potential presidential advisers think, what they've done well, and not so well. Don't you? And I have some favorites there too. What's wrong with that?

I'd like to hear a little more from Nancy Pelosi about what the Democrats are going to do for consumers who were made homeless by bad loans. How about some informed commentary on immigration, education, poverty, and avoiding having the war in Afghanistan escalate so much that leaving Iraq becomes an even trade in terms of money spent and lives lost?

If you want to persuade people, you don't belittle them or their concerns. You don't lecture them about what they should rather than do think. That's part of Persuasion 101. If you want to persuade, you don't tell people that how they feel is ridiculous. Invalidation is not an effective persuasion strategy. Linking what they care about to a preferred course of action is more productive. And most of all, you don't tell everyone else what they're doing wrong when your record is less than stellar.

 

Well Kathleen, I'm far beyond persuading, and it's not just because of the "sexism" and the "massive-haka-astroturfing-paid-bloggers-driving-the-MSM-narrative" meme.  Why is everyone who has an opinion on PUMA thinking that it's just a "girl thing" or because our feelings are "hurt that our candidate did not win?"

Why aren't journalists and opinion makers like yourself talking about the DNC and RBC violation of fair reflection as the main reason why REAL Democrats won't unite under the Precious' mantle?  THEY CHEATED!!!!  Argh!  When are you going to report that the "presumptious nominee" was selected by vote fraud on May 31st, 2008?   We all saw it on live TV! 

As far as Party Unity goes, well, you know what we think.  Party Unity is DEAD.  Gone.  Kaput.  Pelosi and the CHEATahs can kiss my, er, VOTE goodbye.  Where is it going?  Not sure yet.  It sure won't go to the CHEATahs who devoured Democracy.  When the DNC decides to live up to its party name and elect a candidate without violating the tenets of Democracy, then maybe we'll come back to the fold.   So please stop the "girl thing," will ya?

O/T but important:  Many well wishes to our Texas Conflucians as Hurricane Dolly hits the Texas coastline.  Stay safe & let us know how things are in your area!

My part in the concert was small: I was there as a "backup" for the Cantor at the temple where I sing. (That temple has long been a partner in PPF's efforts). The rest of the time, I was able to sit, snack, and enjoy the other performers. And what a show it was!

Project People Foundation is dedicated to improving the lives of impoverished and AIDs-scourged South Africans. To highlight this focus, PPF opened the concert with performances from South Africans who are part of the cast of The Lion King. They danced and sang with amazing energy, skill and passion. Then, an absolutely phenomenal gospel group sang several pieces that were so inspiring, they almost convinced me to convert. (Oy!) In the middle of all of this was a celebration of Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday, complete with a gorgeous cake.

Finally, the gospel choir closed with a knockout performance of "We Shall Overcome," with the first verse sung in Hebrew to honor the Temple's participation. The entire room stood up and held hands spontaneously. It was incredibly moving to touch strangers and colleagues in such a comfortable way, and sing along with that ultimate anthem of faith and resolve.

That was the sweet, and how sweet it was.

And now, for the bitter.

The performance took place at a large, prominent, mostly African-American church. Barack Obama's name was mentioned twice by various speakers, both times in the context of how inspiring it was as an example to children and adults that an African-American could be nominated as a Presidential candidate. (He hasn't clinched the nomination yet, but I knew where they were coming from.) The folks in the room seemed to agree (I saw a few nods and heard a quiet "Yes!" or two), but there was no applause or loud affirmation of these statements. (And believe me, this crowd was not shy - if you've ever been to a service in a black church, you know what I'm talking about.)

In fact, both of these statements were made by men, and I saw some female faces around the room freeze a little, as mine did. I wondered if the two thoughts that went through my head were running through theirs:

1) Women of color could have been inspired by Hillary as well as Obama; and

2) Why isn't he better?

Let's address #1 first.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright mentioned Hillary Clinton in his controversial "God Damn America" sermon, and his remarks were instructive. He asserted that Hillary hadn't had to work twice as hard as a white man to get the same job. It was a laughable and hugely ironic statement in the context of this primary, considering that Hillary has now all but lost the nomination to a man, although she was the winner of the popular vote and has a resume that, by any objective measure, dwarfs Obama's.

Clearly, gender equality is not a part of Reverend Wright's awareness. As every woman in his congregation could have told him, women do have to work twice as hard as a man in order to get the same job. Of course, even if they are fortunate enough to get such a job, they are paid, on average, 77 cents to the man's dollar.

Is there any reason to assume that Hillary Clinton would not continue her work to gain gender equality as President? No. The only way to beat Hillary was to smear her with false accusations of racism and race-baiting, and that is exactly what his campaign did. Out of an understandable sense of community, only a brave few African-Americans stood up for her or Bill Clinton in the face of Obama's divisive tactics, and those who did were intimidated with primary challenges or, in some cases, death threats from the Obama camp.

As frustrating as #1 is to me, #2 is what really hurt. Why is he The One, as Oprah famously dubbed him? What has he ever done for the black community? What has he promised to do for the black community? Why does he talk down to the NAACP and perpetuate white stereotypes about his own people?

Why doesn't he appreciate how much his community needs a figure of great stature, a person who aspires to be a fighter for social justice for all Americans, a person who strives for peace and an end to institutionalized racism and bigotry of all kinds - yes, even unto sexism and homophobia? Why isn't he humbled a bit by what the unqualified support of the black community means?

It breaks my heart that Senator Obama was not asked these questions by the Party Leaders before they decided to elevate him to national status. Fair or not, an African-American candidate will bear the burdens of his long-suffering community on his shoulders, just as Hillary would be expected to bear the burdens of long-suffering women on hers. And as I looked at all the faces around me last night, holding hands with a beautiful stranger and pledging to overcome, I could only think: African-Americans deserve better. They deserve so much better than vague platitudes about hope and change. They deserve a deep understanding of their plight and a lifelong commitment of time and resources, of heart and soul, towards mitigating that plight.

For all of our sakes, I hope they get what they deserve from America and, should he prevail, Barack Obama. As we all know, it's been a long time coming.

Cross-posted at Oooh, nuance!

From the world's free encylopedia, i.e. Wikipedia, about Bastille Day:

The storming of the Bastille was more important as a rallying point and symbolic act of rebellion than a practical act of defiance.

And what is PUMA?  We are the peasants, the farmers & everyday people who have had it UP TO HERE with the unfair, undemocratic ways of our leaders and we WILL take the DNC to task.  Who told them what to do with OUR Democratic party?  Are we going sit along and take more crap or are we going to storm the Bastille? 

I say we've already started to take that MUTHA DOWN. 

The only way to that is if we continue the efforts we've made at Just Say No Deal, and the wonderful donations to pay down Hillary's Debt , (Marianne "symbol of Liberty and Reason" of the Democratic Party) - at the coffee cup & T-shirt on the right column of this very blog.   Carol Diamonds & Her FuzzyBear who leans (and just where it feels SO GOOD) would appreciate it!  We can do this! PUMA is 1.5 months old, !!  Will Bower, PUMA Chieftan Supreme says we conservatively have $6 million paid off, but we won't know until July 20th.  So IF you can, in the name of LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY, please donate at the right hand column coffee cup or T-Shirt!!!!!!                          --->

I don't know about you, but doesn't Rico look FIIIINE in his tilted French beret?  YUMMY!!!  He is seriously making a Caribbean Latina sweat tonight!!!   He's ready to serve up Moet Chandon flutes with strawberries (if you like), delicious Pink PUMA cocktails and Mountain Lion Martinis to all Bastille Day Conflucians.  Our wonderful waitstaff are serving Pate and Foie Gras appetizers.  WOW, Flo is ever so wondrously sexy in her can-can girl outfit - bustier and split-to-there ruffled skirt, but she will kick a Smiegly DOWN if necessary with her jujitsu trained legs, OR kindly hold a merde word you choose to use.

At the Scratching Post, we always encourage freedom, and this will operate as an open thread.  Say what you like, do what you like, be what you like, but remember to BE YOU.  You are not alone, you have friends at the Confluence who feel the same way as you do.  We won't allow our nation and our party to go down the drain.  We will be the chemotherapy to this cancer of corruption and pseudo-progressivism that has polluted our Democratic tenets of "one person, one vote."  We are PUMAs - proud and vigilant - and we are not going to "get over it." 

For our entertainment tonight, a gracious visit from the QUEEN GRACE JONES and her rendition of "La Vie En Rose."   I'm a proud child of the 80s and Grace Jones is one of the Diva Goddesses I worship (had to include GRACE JONES WORSHIP, forgive me).  Yet, I really believe Edith Piaf would be proud to see her signature song performed in such an artistic way. 

For the more studious minded, this Conflucian PUMA invites you to read the AWESOME AND FANTABULOSO posts today (scroll below), from MYIQ2XU, GaryChapellHill and the PUMA High Priestess, The Shaman of Satire herself, Mother Riverdaughter.  Everything they said and VIVE LE LIBERTE!

Clinton concluded his speech by reminding governors, who are marking the association's centennial, that the issues they face today are similar to problems President Teddy Roosevelt grappled with a century ago.

Those include inequality among rich and poor, immigration and energy policy.

If those issues are dealt with, "We're about to go into the most exciting period of human history," Clinton said.

John McCain seemed to be channeling Bill as well when he made a similar observaton:

He said government should play an important role in areas like addressing climate change, regulating campaign finance and taking care of “those in America who cannot take care of themselves.”

“I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold,” Mr. McCain said, referring to Roosevelt’s reputation for reform, environmentalism and tough foreign policy.

Could this be a coded message to PUMAS, from both Bill Clinton and McCain?  As I'm sure Clinton knows, Teddy knew a thing or two about being run out of his party.  In fact, TR and Hillary have a lot in common:

The voice of the people" was clear in the Republican primaries. But the voters were not allowed to "speak" in most states.This was the first year in which there were presidential primaries. The primary system had developed on the state level for state offices from the 1890s on, and in 1912 presidential primaries were introduced, often promoted by supporters of TR. But some 36 states had no direct popular Republican primary. In these states delegates were chosen by state conventions, and delegates to state conventions were usually chosen in local conventions. It was a system easily dominated by professional politicians, particularly in the South where there were few Republicans but many delegates.

That sounds an awful lot like the way Obama won in red states like Idaho and Utah.  It also reflects how undemocratic the causus system is (as if we needed further proof).

 Republicans in the South were often simply federal officeholders, such as postmasters and revenue collectors. Rough politics was nothing new , but in 1912 records were set for riot, rough house, fraud, and dispute. The end result was that in many states contesting delegates claimed the same seats. Some 254 delegate seats to the Republican convention were contested.

The Republican National Committee, dominated by President Taft's supporters, had the power to decide the delegate disputes.

Isn't that exactly what happened at the RBC meeting?  But wait, the similarities keep on coming:

 Incidentally, of the 53 members of that committee, 15 had not been elected delegates to the convention in 1912, and four came from US territorial possessions and 10 from Southern states, areas where GOP politics was completely controlled by presidential patronage. these three groups accounted for 29 members of the Republican National Committee-- a majority. Of the 254 contested seats, TR was awarded 19 and President Taft was given 235. About the best that could be said for the GOP adjudication process was that Taft had stolen a majority "fair and square." That is to say, what was done was probably legal , if barely so in many delegate cases. But there were no law suits and trials. The courts seldom got involved in party disputes in those days.

A loss of 22 delegates would have denied Taft the nomination on the first ballot. The conclusion seemed obvious to Roosevelt's supporters at the Republican national convention in Chicago in June 1912. The Chicago Tribune printed a banner headline: "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL."

The whole fair and square thing sounds a lot like how the RBC decided to award delegates to Obama that had been won by Clinton in the Michigan primary.  Their "Fair Reflection" regarding the Michigan primary took delegates that were awarded by the voters to Clinton and gave them to Obama.  They also awarded him delegates based on him receiving EVERY SINGLE write in ballot, even though they were never even opened, and Obama went out of his way to make sure that his write in would not even be legal.  Too bad we don't have the same editorial board as the Chicago Tribune did back in 1912.  So how did Roosevelt's supporters react to this shameful affront to democracy?

Most of Roosevelt's delegates walked out of the Republican convention and held a mass meeting, where it was decided to bolt the Republican Party and found a new party. Roosevelt agreed to lead a new party if nominated . In August 1912 the national convention of the new Progressive Party met in Chicago, and nominated TR for President and Governor Hiram W. Johnson of California for Vice President. In November the Republicans for the first and only time in history came in third in both the popular and electoral vote for President. TR came in second, and because of the split in the normal Republican vote, Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected.

This last bit is my favorite part.  This is what we need to do in Denver. And if Clinton's delegates formed their own party, I think they very well could win the presidency.  Even if they didn't, it is imperative that Obama does not get rewarded for such an anti-democratic power grab for the reigns of the party.  Theodore Roosevelt understood this, even in defeat:

By running and losing, by refusing to be counted out by party leaders when the voters had spoken first, Theodore Roosevelt had firmly established the new primary system. "..Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? " TR asked in March. "I believe they are. My opponents do not." It was democracy that was on trial in the contest for the nomination that year, and in the long run democracy won.

I agree with TR, American people are fit to govern themselves.  Obama and his supporters do not agree.  They believe that they are entitled to their nominee by hook or by crook.  They believe that some voters are more equal than others.  Hell, they believe they can even read the minds of people who didn't even vote and with a straight face argue that they would have voted for Obama--if they hadn't been tricked into not voting --so they should be given as much consideration as the people who took their civic duty seriously and actually went to the polls.  (I should mention that the irony is not lost on me that one of Teddy's distant relatives would be chairing the RBC that stole delegates from  Clinton and gave them to Obama)

We all remember TR from history class as the rough and tumble, "carry a big stick" guy.  But what many people don't know was that, like Hillary, he was also a champion of women's rights.  In fact, his (Bull Moose) Progressive Party had many women in  powerful positions, and in the 1912 election two of the states that TR carried were states that had given women suffrage already:

At the first national convention of the Progressive Party, in Chicago in August of 1912, all observers noted the prominence of women, women delegates, women leaders. The Kansas newspaper editor William Allen White recalled: "We were, of course, for woman suffrage, and we invited women delegates and had plenty of them. They were our own kind, too-- women doctors, women lawyers, women teachers, college professors, middle-aged leaders of civic movements, or rich young girls who had gone in for settlement work." "Settlement work" refers to the settlement houses in the cities, places where the poor could obtain basic social services, not then available from government. Many social workers, male and female, supported the Progressive Party in 1912. Indeed, the most famous settlement house leader and social worker in American history, the beloved Jane Addams of Hull House in Chicago, was at the convention, and seconded Theodore Roosevelt's nomination for President. This was said to be the first time that a woman had addressed the national convention of a major party. The rules of the Bull Moose Party, adopted at the Chicago convention, mandated that four women were to be members-at-large on the Progressive National Committee. This was to insure female representation at the highest levels of party leadership.

In November 1912 Theodore Roosevelt carried two states with women's suffrage, Washington and California (he won six states in all);

We will never know what might have happened had Roosevelt triumphed in the GE of 1912.  We do know, however, that he got more votes than the Republican nominee.  If Hillary were to follow his example I think she could actually go the whole 9 yards and beat both McCain and Obama.  Many people suggest that she could never do this as it might damage Bill Clinton's legacy in the eyes of the party.  I'm not so sure.  Roosevelt's legacy, and even legend, are the stuff of which our shared national pride is made.  I'd like to think that in 100 years Hillary is remembered as the scrappy underdog who took on her party, and this time, won.

THE SCENE: An old-fashioned parlor out of Agatha Christie, with sofas, chairs, a fireplace, porcelains on the mantel, etc. HILLARY CLINTON, wearing a yellow pantsuit, is standing center stage. Seated are NANCY PELOSI, BARACK OBAMA, DONNA BRAZILE and HOWARD DEAN. Standing in the corner with arms folded is Obama's right-hand man, DAVID AXELROD.

HILLARY: All right everyone, you know why we're here. A crime has been committed, and it's a very serious one. I figured we are all suspects, so we might as well get our stories straight.

OBAMA (sullenly): Well, it wasn't me.

AXELROD: Barack - take it easy. Remember - Unity, hope, change! [OBAMA rolls his eyes.]

BRAZILE [faux-fended]: For Pete's sake, Hillary, what the hell am I doing here? I'm neutral! How could I be guilty? Don't you know I work for CNN?

[Brief pause]

ALL except BRAZILE: HAHAHAHAHA! [BRAZILE glares at everyone, then slowly breaks into a grin and laughs along with them]

HILLARY [wiping her eyes]: Whew! Thanks for the laugh, Donna. That really broke the ice! [returning to seriousness] Okay, are we ready to get down to business?

PELOSI [with a stern look at the others]: Go ahead, Hillary. We're ready.

HILLARY: Thank you, Madame Speaker. [takes out a police report and scans it while speaking] All right now, as we know, Ole Yeller, the Yellow Dog Democrat, died sometime during the primary season. The voters aren't sure when it happened, but they know he's gone to another, more Independent place. He'll never vote straight Democrat again. A moment of silence for poor Ole Yeller, if you would.

[ALL bow their heads.]

HILLARY [sighing and resuming her spiel]: Right at this moment, things are looking pretty grim for our Party because of Ole Yeller's death. We can't bring him back to life, but maybe if we figure out how he died, we can persuade the voters to get a replacement. A New Yeller, if you will. [The others groan.]

OBAMA: Jeez, Hillary, can't you get to the point a little faster?

HILLARY [muttering]: Amateur. [PELOSI snorts in agreement.]

DEAN: Obama's right. Let's just start talking about how none of us could have done it, then we'll all blame Hillary and go home. Deal? [HILLARY shakes her head with a little half-smile, then sits down by the fireplace.]

BRAZILE: That's a great idea, Howard! I'll go first. [stands up, begins pacing the room dramatically] Of COURSE I couldn't have done it. I mean, no one knows better than me how to win over Democrats. Look at my record! Every Presidential candidate I've worked with has won! [grins triumphantly, arms out]

AXELROD [crossing to BRAZILE]: Uh, Donna, you might want to check that statement. You've chalked up more losses than wins in your column, unless you're seriously claiming that Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Gephardt and Gore all became President? [Donna's grin falters, and she sits down sheepishly] Oh yes, you definitely could have done it...unlike me. Look at my incredible record running campaigns and working for Democratic politicians. I got Deval Patrick elected, and then, of course, Barack. I could not be more innocent. Ole Yeller loved me and my candidates!

PELOSI [standing]: Ha! Your [sarcastic] brilliant campaign made a lot of women very angry. I know because they kept calling me. [imitating the callers] "Why does Obama call women 'sweetie' and offer to kiss them for votes? Why doesn't he say something about all the misogyny from his supporters and surrogates? What was that stuff about being periodically down?" Blah blah blah. They're a bunch of whiners, but they do have a point. So don't tell me about how you couldn't have killed that dog. You're just as guilty as Donna here.

OBAMA: [standing] And what about you, Nancy?

PELOSI [bristling]: That's Speaker Pelosi to you.

OBAMA [smiling]: My apologies, Madame Speaker. [PELOSI is somewhat mollified. Of course, it's hard to tell because of the Botoxed frozenness of her face.] But my question remains, what about you? Thanks to your inability to get us out of Iraq, Congress' "good to excellent" approval rating is 9%. That's gotta be some kind of record, right guys? [THE MEN ALL SNICKER. HILLARY glares at Obama until he stops laughing.] Uh, anyway, looks like you're not so innocent either.

PELOSI [dignified]: Fine. I'll admit that I'm not a saint. But Senator Obama, can you do the same?

OBAMA [offended]: Who, me? Are you kidding? I AM the Democratic Party! I moved the DNC to Chicago! I'm Obama for America! And besides, everyone loves me. Yes, I can!

HILLARY [unable to keep silent]: Oh, for god's sake, Barack, you don't believe your own propaganda, do you? Save it for your deluded worshipers in the blogosphere!

AXELROD [aside to Obama]: Yeah, Barack. I told you that most of those [makes air quotes with his hands] "anonymous supporters" work for me anyway.

OBAMA [ignoring AXELROD, sneering at HILLARY]: Oh please, woman, like you have the right to tell me what to do! I am the nominee! I won! I'm going to be nominated in a giant football stadium in front of 76,000 screaming fans - I mean, Party members! I'll win without you and your voters! Who needs those Bubbas, anyway?

DEAN [scratching his head]: Uh, Barack? You know, a lot of people think Ole Yeller was a Bubba. You're acting like you sure hated him. Maybe you ARE the killer!

[BILL CLINTON enters.]

BILL: Did I hear someone say Barack killed Ole Yeller? Well, forgive me for being just a dumb country boy from Arkansas, but it seems to me you're all guilty. Donna, you changed the DNC rules to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan, but not states you thought Barack would win. Howard, you let her do it. Axelrod, you're just creepy with all that cult worshiping stuff, the Bush-style campaigning and the astroturfing. And Nancy? Well, I feel kinda sorry for you because you got ol' Steny undermining you every step of the way, but you sure didn't help Ole Yeller much - and the buck stops with you.

OBAMA: Oh, come on now. Like you're an impartial observer, Bill? This is - just - inartful, even for you.

BILL [getting red in the face and pointing]: Listen here, you ungrateful little Chicago punk. If it wasn't for me - the only two-term Democratic President in this room, by the way - you would be nowhere, man. I raised Ole Yeller. I made him think we Democrats cared about him. I fed him, I stayed up with him at night when he was sick, and I made sure he stayed with me instead of going to Bush's or Dole's house. By the time I was done with Ole Yeller, it looked like he'd live forever - or at least another eight years!

You guys were the ones that screwed it up. You showed Ole Yeller you didn't care about him. After eight years of Bush destroying everything he loved, he finally died - of a broken heart.

[EVERYONE but HILLARY starts yelling at BILL and each other. BRAZILE and PELOSI start throwing porcelains at each other. DEAN starts screaming "Chicago sucks! Yeeeearrrrgh!" at AXELROD.]

[HILLARY stands up and walks over to BILL. She shakes her head and takes his hand.]

HILLARY: I wonder if they'll ever understand what happened to that poor dog? Come on, Bill, let's get out of here. [exiting] Maybe in 2012, we can get the Party a puppy!

[LIGHTS OUT]

Here's a tidbit:

Into this 'situation,' comes Hillary Clinton, first credible female
running for president of the greatest nation on earth, for now anyway,
and a woman who 'doesn't get what the big deal is all about.'

She followed the women in business model, which is to prepare first
and then ask for the job.  She presented what she would do, not what
she is.

To her great and naïve surprise she was told that her confidence,
competence, enthusiasm, and enjoyment in campaigning was somehow
'emasculating' Barack.

She was 'too confident,' plus 'too competitive,' and she made him look
unprepared during those debates, by knowing all the answers, and
having the best-crafted plans, and responding first to everything, and
by 'forcing' the media to compare the two of them she somehow
diminished him, which must have been what she really wanted to do all
along, to emasculate, to castrate, to ruin, to withhold, to be a bad
'mom' who didn't 'need' a man.  In other words she didn't pretend he
had the phallus, and she didn't even seem to know she was supposed to.

So go read it already!

For the past few days, Obama has been trying to explain what he really meant on July 1, when the told a religious magazine, The Relevant

I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions [emphasis added].

That's pretty clear, right? Obama is saying that a woman cannot get a late-term abortion (after 22 weeks) based on a mental heath issue. Obama doesn't seems to understand that this would be a radical departure from current understanding of abortion law.

In response to this stunning statement by the presumptive nominee, ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote on July 4:

Wow.

This has been a central battleground issue in the Supreme Court going back 35 years, to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, when the Court ruled a woman had a constitutional right to abortion. The decisions said states can ban all abortions after the fetus is viable -- but that any restrictions must include exceptions to protect a woman's physical and emotional health.

In the years since, anti-abortion groups have fought hard against mental health exceptions, arguing that they create giant loopholes that make abortion bans meaningless. Doctors, they argue, can always find a "mental health" exception. But abortion rights groups just as strongly argue the mental health exception is critical to preserving a woman's right to an abortion—and that the woman and her doctor must be allowed to make those decisions about her health without government interference.

To me, this seems to be what Obama is suggesting: that women will try to get around the laws about late term abortions by *faking* emotional problems and *manipulating* their doctors into backing them up.

Next, on July 5, Crawford Greenburg reported that Obama had attempted to "clarify his remarks" by telling reporters on his campaign plane that

mental health exceptions...can be "rigorously" limited to only those women with "serious clinical mental health diseases." He said mental health exceptions are not intended permit abortions when a woman simply "doesn't feel good."

"It is not just a matter of feeling blue," Obama said.

WTF?!! Is he serious? Could he be any more patronizing? Yes, Barack, we know. Women "periodically when they're down...." Back to Jan Crawford Greenburg:

Here's the problem with that, and why Obama's remarks are so startling. Obama is trying to restrict abortions after 22 weeks to those women who have a serious disease or illness. But the law today also covers some women who are in "mental distress," those women who would suffer emotional and psychological harm without an abortion.

This standard has long been understood to require less than "serious clinical mental health disease." Women today don't have to show they are suffering from a "serious clinical mental health disease" or "mental illness" before getting an abortion post-viability, as Obama now says is appropriate.

Jan Crawford Greenburg contacted the Obama campaign for *more clarification* and received this response from Obama:

"My only point is this-historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family," Obama said. "I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.

"In the past, there has been some fear on the part of people who--not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle--that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case. I don't think that is how it has been interpreted.

Okay, I've heard this from him before. What is is sh*t about women having to consult with their families and pastors before they get an abortion? I know I'm an old deadender, menopausal woman and it doesn't affect me anymore, but what about young women who don't have pastors? And if they do have pastors, what if they don't f**king well feel like sharing their gynecological decisions with them?

And family? I guess that means the husband or father has to sign off on the decision? What if the female trying to get the abortion was raped by her father? What if her husband is a violent abuser? Does Barack Obama have any idea what kinds of decisions we are talking about here?

In any case, it seems pretty clear that Obama is arguing for weakening Roe v. Wade. And haven't the O-bots been telling us forever and ever that Obama is 100% reliable on abortion rights? Yeah, right.

Yesterday Jan Crawford Greenburg blogged again about Obama and his apparent desire to weaken abortion rights. Oddly, she points out, Obama is a co-signer of the Freedom of Choice act, which

contains a broad mental health exception by specifically referring to the 1973 Supreme Court case that demands that any abortion ban contain an exception based on "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age…all these factors may relate to health."

So which is it Barack? Does he even know what the bill says? Has the great "Constitutional lawyer" read the decision in Roe v. Wade? Doesn't he have some advisors who can at least get this information for him? What is really frightening is that there are already enough votes on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe. Does Obama know that? Does this man ever do his homework? Crawford Greenburg writes:

What is his bottom line? Is Obama still the legislator who has ardently and consistently opposed restrictions on abortion, even laws that would protect the life of an aborted fetus who happened to be "born alive." Is he now willing to support new restrictions on the right to abortion?

Or is he just playing politics with abortion...[and] creating an issue for conservatives to seize—and one they might now win in the Supreme Court?

I really don't know the answers to these questions. Is Obama really anti-choice or is he just a clueless doofus who doesn't know what he's talking about? Or is he actually articulating a new Democratic Party strategy?

Today in Salon, Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman, "feminist Obama supporters," write that

in recent weeks, Democrats, including Sojourners founder Jim Wallis, have suggested that the party may need to take another crack at tempering its strong platform support for abortion rights by making "abortion reduction ... a central Democratic Party plank in this election." In a recent interview with ABC News, Wallis said he planned to talk to his "good friend" Barack Obama about an abortion reduction plank, and said he had discussed the idea with party chairman Howard Dean and had the support of at least one member of the Platform Committee, the Rev. Tony Campolo. "Abortion reduction should be a central Democratic Party plank in this election," Wallis told ABC News. "I'll just say that flat out."

Can we please have Hillary back now?

Thomas Beatie has given birth to a baby girl!  Nancy and Thomas welcomed their child earlier this week in Oregon.  Thomas, a man who was born female, decided to keep his reproductive organs because he knew he wanted to have a child one day.  Thomas and Nancy appeared earlier this year on Oprah, which has been one of the most memorable shows on television.  While on Oprah, Thomas stated, " I see pregnancy as a process and it doesn't define who I am."

That being said, I know for many, this has to be somewhat confusing as many of us define womanhood by the ability to have children.  Throughout the years, I have heard women who could not bear children describe themselves as feeling like less of a woman, to which many people enthusiastically reply, "that doesn't make you any less of a woman!"  So I ask you, what does it mean to be a woman?  Are those who can't bear children or choose not to any less of a woman?  Is being a mother the divine purpose for all born females? 

To put this in even a broader context, what does this tell us about we feel about fatherhood?  For many years fathers have been thought as emotionally detached disciplinarians.  So, I ask, is that enough for you?  Are we satisfied that only our women can serve as nurturers and caretakers of our children?  In my opinion this is insulting to both genders, because this idea has latent messages buried deep within its language.  If we are to believe this is true then that means that first, women are simply too emotional and not strong enough to be considered effective disciplinarians and secondly, that men are unable to be caring and empathetic caretakers.  I can only hope that if this is how the majority presently feels about gender roles and parenting that we are making steps to progress toward a median where both men and women can be considered empathetic, nurturing, responsible and dutiful parents and maybe with the birth of the Beaties little girl we are taking a very important step on the path to true gender equity.

Who needs the GOP anymore? The Democrats have officially become sleazier than the mother f#$@& freepers. This is what happens when you throw around terms like "post racial" in order to win elections. This is what happens when you tell people that by electing you we have cured racism in this country. This is what happens when you cynically attack your allies and smear them with charges of racism. This is what happens when you let a frat-boy mentality serve as a moral compass for your campaign. This is what happens when real prinicples are replaced with lust for power and fame. This is what happens when you and your surrogates use blatantly sexist tactics to win elections. This is what happens when you reduce women to nothing but sexual animals. This is what happens when you vote for Barack Obama. Barack Obama, you DISGUST me! Barack Obama YOU DID THIS!!!!! And there is no redemption. You have set back the causes of civil rights, feminism, gay rights, and human rights in general by decades. The Pandora's box you have opened will mean nothing but woe for this country. Indeed, what you have unleashed your daughters will pay for as they become women. Barack Obama, SHAME ON YOU!

Now, with Barack Obama the victor, many of the New York senator's female supporters are deeply frustrated, and wondering when the chance to elect a woman president will arise again. Their frustration is compounded by a sense that sexism and misogyny tinged the campaign, especially in media coverage.

See, you're not justifiably angry that the primary season was rigged to favor the lesser of the two candidates, you're frustrated  because you didn't get your way.  Of course all that mattered to you was that a woman be on the ballot.   It didn't have anything to do with the fact that you thought she was far and away the best candidate in the race.  You all just thought it was her turn, and dammit We will not be ignored Dan, I mean Barack.... (not only is Clinton straight out of Fatal Attraction, all of YOU are too).

And c'mon gals, there really wasn't any sexism or misogyny in the campaign or the media.  You just "sensed" that there was.  Women, after all, are always getting so caught up in their emotions that they can't even think rationally, right?  But anyway, there's no need to fret because your younger daughters and sisters don't have the baggage that all of your age and experience and wisdom weighs you down with.  they are much more optimistic (and definitely less emotional than you).

 For all the older supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton who may have been depressed, deflated, wistful or angry about her exit from the presidential race, there's an upbeat 17-year-old who doesn't feel the dream of a woman in the Oval Office has slipped away.

So all of you depressed, deflated, wistful old hags need to just shut up and listen to the wisdom of a bright-eyed 17 year old and her peers.  Sexism is soooo over.  Clinton's race was not historic because there are no more barriers to women in our society.  You all just need to get over it.

It's harder to gauge the feelings of the too-young-to-vote set, as pollsters don't reach out to them. But teachers who've been listening to them in the classroom all year say their female students haven't experienced overt gender discrimination in their lives, and thus didn't see Clinton's historic quest through that prism. Indeed, the word "historic," so ubiquitous in coverage of this race, comes up rarely in these conversations.

OK, snark off now.  There is so much wrong with that paragraph I don't even know where to begin.  First of all, I love how the media tries to wed anecdotal nonsense to actual empirical data.  Look at the first sentence, it could very well read: "We don't have any REAL data on this demographic, but we asked a couple people, so we'll just go with that."  I mean come on, you are pretty much telling me that your proof is unscientific and meaningless.  That's basically an admission that everything you're writing is pure propaganda.  What passes for journalism today is absolutely disgusting.  And even if it were true that 17 year old girls reported that they didn't feel like they were targets of gender discrimination, they're way too young to even be able to recognize it yet anyway(or at least most of them).  But relying on the wisdom of high school students, the author declares that sexism doesn't exist anymore, and therefore, there really wasn't anything historic about Hillary's candidacy to begin with.  The underlying accusation of the article, if you will, is that you older women are just overreacting.  As that a#$hole 2 old for maxim said to me after he accused me of being a racist, "don't get your granny panties in a wad".  Yeah, sexism is officially dead.....

I taught high school myself, and from what I saw it's not any easier being a girl today than it was 20 years ago.  The same pressures exist (mainly to please the boys and not seem too smart). 

Thank God they have teachers who are smart enough to recognize sexism even if the kids can't see it themselves.  Wait, maybe not:

"These kids are growing up differently than in the past. They don't have a view of limitations on women," says Michael Yell, a middle school teacher in Hudson, Wis. "I just don't think gender bias is on their radar at this age. But racial bias is, so that's one of the appeals of Barack Obama."

Again, they don't ever want to miss an opportunity to point out that even if sexism still exists, well, it's just not as important as racism.  Clearly it is Obama's turn if for no other reason than the fact that he is black (and before anyone accuses me of racism, that is what the teacher seems to be saying, not me).  Great example you're setting there Mr. Yell.  I mean is he actually endorsing a view that people should vote for Obama to atone for racism in this country?  Be afraid for your children parents, very afraid.   The article continues with more of the creepy indoctrination stuff we saw on Obama's campaign website about "Kids for Obama":

She took a straw poll in her class of mostly 12-year-olds recently and was astonished at the unanimity. No one picked McCain, even though the area is conservative politically. As for Clinton, "a couple of hands went up but then down quickly, as they realized it wasn't going to be a popular choice."

I really had a hard time reading this whole article without getting physically sick.  This is some of the basest propaganda I have seen.  Using children to condition actual voters is something straight out of 1984.  Remember the neighbor's wife whose children terrified her?....I don't think we want to go there.  But it gets worse:

There's no question that across the country, Obama's youthful persona and message of change have captivated huge numbers of young students, more than Clinton or the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. "My kids say Obama's younger, full of new and fresh ideas," says Sandy Gonnerman, a seventh-grade teacher in Lakeside, Calif., near San Diego.

And just in case you didn't get that "change" message hammered hard enough into your head, let's just reinforce that a little more shall we?:

The young girls of today, looking ahead to voting in a few years, are really inspired by the idea of change in all its aspects, Saltz says. "It's a win-win situation," Saltz says of the race just concluded between Clinton and Obama. "I don't think these girls see Hillary Clinton's not getting the nomination as a defeat. This is still amazing. It's still an incredible leap forward."

See, even though she lost, we still get to revel in the superdoubleplusgood feeling of having selected a candidate who represents all the great things that change has to offer.  And don't worry girls, there's always next time....

I'm going to go throw up now.....

But back to Martin. He has an insulting piece over at CNN.com that is beyond the pale. He not only insults Hillary Clinton, but also all of her supporters. That includes me, and just about everyone reading this. He starts out with this gem:

Remember all those wrestling "death matches," during which they talked about guys tearing their opponents' heads off in the ring? We all knew wrestling was fake, but the promotion was awesome, because it always sucked us in.

Nothing like starting out your commentary with some nice violent imagery Roland. I suppose you get your kicks thinking of a woman having her head torn off. Sick. But it gets even better. You see, Hillary Clinton will do ANYTHING to become president:

Sen. Hillary Clinton will do anything and everything to win, and the idea that Sen. Barack Obama should give in to her demands to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates is ludicrous. When you're ahead, you don't concede any ground. If the roles were reversed, she would do the same.

Why does Roland Martin hate enfranchising voters? It seems to me that he contradicts himself. If Barack Obama should not give in simply because he is in the lead, doesn't that show that HE will do anything to win? Even if it means giving the finger to the millions of voters of FL and MI? I wish Obama would do what's RIGHT instead of what's politically in his favor. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

You see, Clinton doesn't care about the Democratic Party at all. You know, the Party that she has been fighting for for over 35 years. The party that, when led by her husband, gave us the first two-term Democratic President since FDR. Yeah, she doesn't care about them at all. And it's so obvious that Roland doesn't even have to bother to provide any evidence that it's true (except for the infamous "Clinton source"):

This race, regardless of what anyone says, is still airtight. Obama has the lead among superdelegates and has garnered a majority of pledged delegates, but they always can change their allegiance, per Democratic Party rules, and don't think for a second that the Clinton camp doesn't understand that.

Her comments to The Associated Press that she may take this to the convention in August shouldn't be dismissed. I don't think Clinton cares about the party. Last week, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux said a Clinton source told her that their focus is Clinton first and the party second.

Martin also thinks that you are all a bunch of irritable women and that Clinton uses that to her advantage by ramping up false-charges of sexism during the campaign:

In the past few days, her surrogates, and even Clinton herself, have ramped up the talk about sexism. There is little doubt that she is trying to stir the ire of her female base and push them to demand that she either be the nominee or be given the vice president slot.

Apparently he hasn't been keeping up. Hey Roland, we don't want Hillary to be the Veep. She goes on the top or we take our votes elsewhere. This is where this starts to get personal. Not only is Hillary a monster, but all of her supporters are as well. Way to try to win us back Roland, sweetie:

Clinton and her supporters now discount all of that and act as if they were always champions of the "disenfranchised" voters in Florida and Michigan. But they weren't. And the record is clear. Only when it became apparent that she needed the states' delegates to close the gap with Obama did she change her tune. She said one thing in Iowa and New Hampshire and now is saying something else.

How dare Roland Martin imply that I have not always been a champion of enfranchising voters. That is the most insulting, bigoted comment of the whole article. See, to me the underlying accusation is that we are all racist and that we never cared about civil rights or voting rights until now. And even though he reverts to the pronoun "she" he clearly accuses both Clinton and "her supporters".

Will the DNC or the Obama campaign speak up for Hillary? Do they believe that she doesn't care about the Democratic Party? Will Obama condemn Martin's gratuitous attack on Hillary's supporters? Again, I won't hold my breath. The comments are closed on Roland's commentary, so I suggest you contact CNN and let them know how repugnant he is. Let them know what you think here

I received this in an email this morning and wanted to share the letter:

***

Dear Colleagues,

The Center for Asia-Pacific Women in Politics (CAPWIP) and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UN/ISDR) are pleased to invite you to the Third Global Congress of Women in Politics and Governance which will be held on October 19-22, 2008 at the Dusit Hotel, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  The theme of the congress is “Gender in Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction.”

Women and environment experts have raised concern over the absence of women in the discourse and debate on climate change and disaster risk reduction, both of which are global mainstream issues that are currently impacting the entire world. The involvement of women in areas of environmental management and governance should not be perceived as an afterthought. Women's roles are of considerable importance in the promotion of environmental ethics.

The current imperative is for women to understand the phenomenon of climate change and disaster risk reduction and their impacts and implications at the individual, household, community and national levels. Studies show that women have a definite information deficit on climate politics, climate protection, and preparedness through disaster risk reduction.  Only with this information can women take their proper, significant and strategic role in the issues of climate change and disaster risk reduction.

Special attention will be given to defining how women and gender could be mainstreamed, and to define the roles women can play in addressing the impacts of climate change and disaster risk reduction programs and policies at the global, national and sub-national levels. In other words, the Congress should define how women can be given the social space to participate, influence, and benefit from global and local responses to climate change.

The Importance of the Congress

Today, on the average, one person out of nineteen in a developing country will be hit by a climate disaster, compared to 1 out of 1,500 in an OECD country. Climate change creates lifetime traps: in Niger, a child born during a drought is 72 percent more likely to be stunted than a child born during a normal season.

We truly hope that the environment organizations will find this forum a good opportunity to advocate gender and climate change policies and programs through gender responsive legislation to the women parliamentarians, decision makers, the youth leaders, media and the funding agencies/organizations. Let us join hands in promoting gender responsive governance through transformative leadership and citizenship. We are looking forward to your participation. Please download the full information sheet and registration form for this Third Global Congress of Women in Politics and Governance from our website,

http://www.capwip.org/3rdglobalcongress.htm

Very truly yours, Jung-sook KIM (Ed.D.)

President, Center for Asia Pacific Women in Politics (CAPWIP)

***

(I have abbreviated the letter, but the main idea that women should be included in this discussion is at the center of the Congress.)

Before we start, all numbers I use in this post come from exit polls at CNN.com. The link to their "Election Center" page is here, and you can navigate from state to state, then click on the exit polls, to see where I am getting the numbers (I'm too lazy to link to each individual state).

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, 13% of voters said that race was a factor, yet this is the state that they point to to say that Obama can win white voters. Is that 7% difference between KY and WI even that statistically significant? Furthermore, of those 13%, the majority of them voted for Obama. So does that mean that they are racist but decided to vote for the black candidate anyway? Actually, I think what it shows us is that how certain voters answer stupid exit poll questions is meaningless when compared to how they voted.

Georgia

In Georgia 18% of voters said that gender was an issue, and those voters backed Obama by 12 points. Does that mean that Georgians are a bunch of sexists who would never vote for a woman? I don't remember the media making a big deal about that at the time. They certainly didn't call on Obama to "reject" those sexist voters. Furthermore, 21% (even higher than KY) said that race was a factor in their vote. Of those voters, seventy-two percent voted for Obama. But then again, most of them were probably African American voters. I guess that means that in Georgia, it is African American voters who are racist, right? Not so fast. As gratefulcub told me yesterday, they are allowed to vote based on race because they are voting for the person of the same race, not against a person of a different race. I know, that is about the most twisted reasoning you can think of, but that's how the Obamabot mind works. I pointed out that by using his specious logic, one could also argue that instead of voting for Obama because of his race, maybe African Americans are just terribly sexist as a group and voting against Clinton because she is a woman. As anyone with half a brain can see, both arguments are equally preposterous.

Connecticut

So far we've been looking at southern states where throwing around accusations of racism is nothing new. Now let's go north to see how they fared. In Connecticut, which Obama won, 15% of voters said that race was a factor in their voting decision. Of those voters, the overwhelming majority voted for Obama. Since only 9% of the voters in CT were black, then some of those voters who considered race must have been both white, and voted for Obama. Using the media's stupid reasoning, how can we explain this? You could say that it is "white guilt" that led them to vote the way they did. But we all know, like the accusations of racism in KY, this is not only wrong, it manipulates racial tension in this country for political ends. That is unacceptable. Taking this into account, the media and Obama sweeties seem to be more politically akin to David Duke than MLK Jr when it comes to race.

Florida

Ahh Florida! We all know that Obama doesn't think you matter. That "the rulz" are more important than the real votes of over 1 million people. I am confident, however, that Hillary will fight to have your voice heard, so let's take a look at how Floridians answered the exit polls about race. The questions asked in FL further demonstrate how ludicrous these polls are to begin with. For example, when asked if the US is ready to elect a black President, 71% said yes. Of those voters, Clinton won the majority. Additionally, when asked if the US is ready to elect a woman President, 17% said no, and the majority of them voted for Obama. Using their very same logic it is starting to look like Obama supporters are a bunch of sexist cavemen. Hillary has been ridiculed by the Obama campaign and the media for daring to point out their own sexism. But did Hillary level accusations of sexism against the voters of Florida, or any voters for that matter? Of course not. That ought to give a lot of the sweeties pause to think about exactly what it is they're doing. And if they have any conscience at all they will be ashamed of themselves.

We Conflucians do not base our objection to Obama on his race. Lodging such accusations against us is intolerable and shameful behavior. Personally, I think it is a projection of the angst that many white Obama supporters feel about their own racist attitudes. I base this on their propensity to stereotype and pigeonhole different groups of people. The lesson to be learned form all of this is that in the end, when you make assumptions about people's actions based on their race, that's racism.

Hillary Clinton left Oregon late Friday night to focus her efforts on Kentucky before the state’s primary on Tuesday.

“My opponent said the other day he wasn’t coming back so I’ve got the whole state to myself. What a treat!” Clinton exclaimed at a Sunday afternoon rally at Western Kentucky University.

What was likely less of a treat was Pastor Paul Fryman’s sermon she heard Sunday morning at Bowling Green’s State Street United Methodist Church on marriage and adultery entitled “When the Devil Whispers Over Your Shoulder.”

The only thing he can say is that it was "less likely a treat". But then goes on to say that Clinton was smiling and singing with the congregation, and she saw a baby baptized:

Clinton did not speak at the service, nor was she recognized at any point from those on the alter, instead sitting quietly in the second pew praying and singing along with the rest of the congregation.

She smiled broadly as a baby was baptized and carried down the aisle by the pastor.

So if she didn't speak, didn't talk to the pastor, and smiled broadly, how in the hell does this "reporter" interpret that it was somehow "not a treat" for Sen Clinton to be there? Ahhh, of course. We all know, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. It's funny because her husband cheated on her. I mean, can't pass up an opportunity to throw that back out there. Just in case you didn't get it he adds:

Pastor Fryman launched into his sermon with Matthew 5, verse 27, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

The verse goes on to say anyone guilty is better off plucking out their eye or cutting off their hand lest they end up in hell.

Now is it just me, or is Mr. Marquardt trying to be clever here and throw in a reference to Michelle Obama's "rip his eyes out comment"(referring to Bill Clinton)? I mean, what other reason to quote part of the verse that the pastor didn't even use? I'm not sure, my susceptibility to conspiracy theories is at an all time high.

Is it really too much to ask for our media to not be blatantly sexist? Or at least not reduce everything to sex when a woman is involved? Can't they actually just report the news now and then? Marquardt spends more time talking about the sermon than what happened on the campaign trail.

Obama himself can call a reporter "sweetie" and there's barely a blip on the radar. Clinton happens to spend Sunday morning in church where the pastor happens to be talking about one of the ten commandments and its front page news. This kind of crap is everwhere you look, in every media outlet. They portray Clinton supporters as racist hicks based on no other indicators than the color of our skin, the degrees after our names, and the size of our bank accounts. Yet their bread and butter continues to be this sort of sexist banal drivel.

Lysistrata was written by the Greek playwright Aristophanes in 410 BC. It recounts how the women of Greece conspired to end the Peloponnesian War by withholding sex, among other things, from the men. This play has been praised as proto-feminist based on its strong female characters. Others have claimed it is meant to mock women by presenting their sexuality as dangerous and their libidos as insatiable. I like the first interpretation. In my opinion the women aren't weak because they want to please the men. Their weakness is that they want to be pleased themselves (just like men). Anything that was written over 2000 years ago and portrays women as strong capable leaders has to have some merit in my opinion.

We have been talking a lot lately about the "sweetie" commenters that will try to butter us up and convince us that we must "take them back". Most women have been through this before. They will promise you the moon and the stars if you just give them one more chance. This time it ain't working. I know I'm a man, but I am right there with you all. I propose that we, like Lysistrata's women, make a pledge of solidarity to resist the call to "make nice" with "the boyz". Until they come to their senses and ditch Obama, the party's over.

This really is a test for what appears to be a new brand of feminists. Women have far too many times acquiesced to further the goals of men. Women's suffrage is an example:

During the American Civil War and immediately after little was heard of the movement, but in 1869 the National Woman Suffrage Association was formed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, with the object of securing an amendment to the United States Constitution in favor of woman suffrage, thus opposing passage of the Fifteenth Amendment without it being changed to include female suffrage.

Another more conservative suffrage organization, the American Woman Suffrage Association, headed by Lucy Stone, was also formed at this time by those who believed that suffrage should be brought about by amendments to the various state constitutions. They supported the proposed the 15th amendment as written.

Many women opposed the 15th amendment which gave black men the right to vote because it didn't include women, but in the end many deferred. The reasoning was that any movement toward universal suffrage was good for all suffragists. Unfortunately it was another 50 years before women got the vote.

There are plenty of other examples. Feminists in the '60's allied with men to end the Vietnam War, only to have the men abandon them once their goal was accomplished. See, the war did end, but afterward when women wanted to pass the ERA, support from a lot of those men evaporated. According to NOW, Ronald Reagan, who opposed the ERA, got much of his advantage from men:

November: Exit polls on election day show that for the first time ever recorded, men and women vote quite differently in the race. AP/NBC News reports that men backed Reagan by a 56- 36% edge, but women split their votes 47-45%.

I was recently reminded of this type of behavior in the gay community when many (John "crybaby" Aravosis to be more specific) wanted to throw transgendered people under the bus to get the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed.

The moral of the story: Anyone who says that transgendered people have always been accepted as part of the gay community is simply wrong. A little over ten years ago, NGLTF, the group that was quite possibly at the forefront of pushing the inclusion of T in LGB (and who is leading the effort to include trans in ENDA) didn't even use the T themselves. So the question remains, if NGLTF has only accepted transgendered people as part of the community for a little over ten years, when did the rest of the gay community do the same, and has it yet?

Always there is the promise to "come back for you later". Well I for one have heard that tale one too many times. We all need to stick to our guns. Hillary must be our nominee. Promises and sweet talk will not work this time. These promises, I should add, are more and more resembling threats as they get increasingly desperate. Not going to work. Not this time. We have the power, and we're going to use it.

Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Before today, only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

Hillary has always promoted a state by state strategy for marriage equality, and this news from California shows how it can be achieved. She has said on the record that states should provide for marriage rights and that the federal government should not stand in the way. As she told The Philadelphia Gay News in an interview.

What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn’t have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time.

What does Barack Obama have to say? The blank page speaks for itself.

Click for bigger image

So where does Obama stand on gay issues? Most of the time it depends on who he is pandering to at the time. But he has repeatedly shown that he just doesn't get it. Obama likes to make grand statements about reconciliation and bringing people together, Like when he told the The Advocate:

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

This is complete BS. As a gay man I have no desire to reach out to the rabid "faith community" that would like to see me burn in hell:

Obama surrounds himself with self-loathing ex-gays like Donnie McClurkin, who had this to say about his own homosexuality:

"Love is pulling you one way and lust is pulling you another and your relationship with Jesus is tearing you," McClurkin told the media. He now "counsels adolescent boys that homosexuality is a choice they can overcome," the New York Times reported.

This is reminiscent of Obama's call to bring the pro-choice/anti-choice forces together to find common ground. As if there were some sort of compromise to be made. Listen up Barry, these kind of issues require bold stands to defend what is right. Would you have suggested negotiating with the segregationists during the civil rights movement? Well, maybe YOU would have, but a principled, courageous, defiant candidate would not.

On gay rights, (as with so many other issues) Obama obviously does not get it. A statement to the The Advocate is telling about his own personal take on homosexuality:

Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

As a gay man I can't tell you how many times a straight man has said to me (thinking it was complimentary), that he was surprised to find out I was gay and that I hadn't tried to come on to him. It's nice that Barry shares this same kind of frat boy mentality.

HIllary Clinton is the only candidate that not only "gets" the gay community, she knows how to help us get the rights we deserve. Today's development in California yet again demonstrates that Hillary is always thinking one step ahead, and that only she can help gay people realize the dream of full and equal rights.

*UPDATE* I think it is fitting that this ruling should come down today, May 15th, as Bloggers Unite for Human Rights

]]> http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/?p=826 Tue, 13 May 2008 22:40:12 +0000 riverdaughter http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/?p=826 See this link from Taylor Marsh's site for an opportunity to get the message out that women's voices will be heard this primary season. The PAC is planning to run the ad several major newspapers this weekend. Here's the ad:

Not So Fast…
Hillary’s Voice is OUR Voice,
And She’s Speaking for All of Us

We are the women of this nation. We are rich and poor, young and old, married with kids, married without kids, single moms, gay, straight, and widowed. We are every color. We are of every religion. We are from all political parties.

We love our country. Now more than ever, so much of what we cherish is at risk – our homes and our health, our safety and our planet, our children and our values. We raise our voices, in one glorious, defiant chorus, to tell the world that these times demand strength, courage and vision.

And that is why we stand united in our unwavering support for Hillary Clinton.

As Senator Clinton campaigns, she speaks with our voice. She carries our hopes, dreams and aspirations with her and transforms them into policies that can make our nation great again.

We know that Hillary will not rest until every American has health insurance, every child can start school ready to learn, every young person has a chance to attend college, every worker will have a safe job at decent wages. She will not rest until our men and women in the military receive the care they deserve and America foreign policy is grounded in human rights and military strength.

We know this because we have seen her do this -- at home and around the world.

We cannot stand by as a cacophony of voices demand that she step aside to smooth the road for another.

Women risked all they held dear to make this country great. They put their lives on the line in all our quests for justice – from Abigail Adams to Sojourner Truth to Susan B. Anthony to Eleanor Roosevelt to Fannie Lou Hamer to Barbara Jordan to Dolores Huerta to Hillary herself.

We know that when women vote, Democrats win. Now it is the responsibility of our party to hear our voices and count all our votes.

We want Hillary to stay in this race until every vote is cast, every vote is counted, and we are convinced our voices are heard.

WE SUPPORT HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

Here's a link to the rest of the details. This may be the only way we get past the media filter. At least the DNC and the others will know that we are not going quietly and we *will* make trouble for them in the fall. It's worth a try.

I want to thank everyone out there who has been working so hard for Hillary the last few weeks. For me this has been an incredible experience. I have never had the opportunity to have such a close up view of politics in my life. It has also been a lot of fun, and makes me proud to be an American. I took the picture above at the event with Maya Angelou that I wrote about in my first post here about a week ago. I was really struck by the many facets of Hillary Clinton. She is brilliant yet friendly, tough but warm, wonky yet charming, and by far the most unflappable politician I have known in my lifetime.

One of the things that had the most impact on me was watching parents bring their kids to these events. I heard more than one mother say they wanted their daughter to see history in the making. They wanted to bring their daughters (and sons) to see that anyone in this country can grow up to be President. I saw kids in turn becoming excited about the political process. They were seeing first hand how this country works. As a teacher, I only wish all kids could have these kind of experiences so that they might realize that what they learn in school really does have a connection to what happens to them in "real life".

When I was growing up my idea of the face of a President was very different than it is today. There were boundries set up to what it might look like. This election, if nothing else, has shattered those boundries. Now when I think of the face of our future Presidents the potential is limitless. Tomorrow NC and IN are going to show the rest of the country who we want our next President to be, and we know that it is going to be Hillary Clinton, Madame President:

Now, if you are an NC or IN resident, make sure you get out and VOTE tomorrow, and you all, along with everyone else should proceed down to the bar below and place your orders.....

The reason Riverdaughter invited me to start posting here was to give you guys an idea of what is happening in North Carolina leading up to the primary. I posted the video above because until about a week ago it had been sitting at the top of the Raleigh News and Observer's website for about a month. Personally I don't think Blackwell is all that funny, but I guess that is rather subjective. He tends to lean to the conservative side, and we all know that they don't do "teh funny" all that well (in full disclosure he has done unflattering cartoons of Hillary as well). Having said that, I think it is a good indication of what the media is pushing in NC.

Meanwhile, the N&O has taken notice of the "male media types dissing Clinton":

Comments by male pundits and political analysts about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have so often crossed the line that, by now, even a seemingly innocent metaphor can get a guy in trouble.

Consider a recent incident in which MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, host of "Countdown," was talking to a guest about the likelihood of Clinton being persuaded by a Democratic Party official to drop out of the presidential race.

Olbermann said it would take "somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

Oops. Huffington Post blogger Rachel Sklar took Olbermann into "a room" for that comment.

Seemingly innocent? didn't seem that innocent to me. But what do I know, I'm not a woman like the author of this art... wait, Danny Hooley, oh well it could be a woman's name I guess. Anyway, Pat Hawkins, leader of the Democratic Women of Wake County will come to Hillary's defense, right? Well maybe not so much:

Pat Hawkins, leader of Democratic Women of Wake County, says not all topics of discussion are necessarily sexist on the surface -- discussion of Clinton's voice, for example.

"I can understand that," she says. "I was just listening to her, and she had a quality to her voice that isn't pleasing, especially when she gets going. I can see where they would pick that up.

Furthermore, we can forget all about this anyway because the media is now on Clinton's side,

In Clinton's case, she's gotten a bit of a break from the media recently, thanks to bad press for rival Barack Obama and her win in Pennsylvania.

Conservative commentators have mostly laid off the gender talk now that they're rooting (wink-wink) for Clinton over Obama and praising her as a "fighter" worthy of a seat at the boys' club.

Um, I don't think it was conservative commentators that were necessarily the ones that were dissing Clinton (any more than usual) in the first place. Maybe our more liberal commentators like KO didn't get the memo.

Finally I think there was one line in the article that about sums it all up:

...But it's a perceived media problem...

OK, I get it now. They're all not really sexist, its just my perception that is out of whack. Thanks for setting me straight N&O! Feel free to contact the N&O or Pat Hawkins and let them know what you think.

UPDATE: Almost forgot to mention, this article is posted int the Lifestyles section. I guess the Politcs section was full.....

Update: It's even worse than it looks at first glance. The fundraising entity would enable big money donors to contribute up to $28,500 with the majority of that money going to the DNC. In other words, Oprah and her friends can get over that pesky $2300 rule and donate 10 times that amount to the DNC. But they're going to want something for that money. There is no quid without a pro quo. The DNC is going to have to dance to their tune. This stinks big time.

Tuesday, April 29, 3:30, BPB (Bio Physics Building) 130:

“The myth and reality of gender equality and women's empowerment in the Middle East and North Africa Region.”  Lecture by Nadereh Chamlou.

Sponsored by the Office of International Affairs (OIA), the Women’s Studies Program, and the Middle East Studies Group

About the Speaker:

Nadereh Chamlou is Senior Advisor at the World Bank's Middle East and North Africa Region.  In this capacity she also leads the Region's gender agenda and advises on the Bank's policy and advisory work.  In her 27 years with the World Bank, she has worked in technical and managerial positions across the World Bank Group in such areas as economic management, private sector development, financial sector development, oil & gas, telecom, power, infrastructure, environment, corporate governance, and the knowledge economy.  In addition to the Middle East and North Africa, her country experience extends to Mexico, former Yugoslavia, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and Papua New Guinea.  She co-authored a World Bank flagship report on “Corporate Governance:  A Framework for Implementation”; was the principal author of”  “Gender and Development in the Middle East and North Africa Region – Women in the Public Sphere”; and “The Environment for Women’s Entrepreneurship in the Middle East and North Africa Region.”  She is a graduate of Georgetown's School of Foreign Service and holds a Masters Degree in Economics.