I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Gross
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Think Outside the "Man Box"

A Facebook friend put this up via CNN (There's also video at the link.):

Why men act out against women
By Anthony Porter, Special to CNN

Editor's note: TED is a nonprofit organization devoted to "Ideas worth spreading," which it distributes through talks posted on its website. Anthony Porter is co-founder of "A Call to Men," a national organization addressing domestic and sexual violence prevention and the promotion of healthy manhood.

(CNN) -- It's time for those of us who are good men to start acknowledging the role that male socialization plays in domestic and sexual violence. As good men, we must begin to acknowledge and own our responsibility to be part of the solution to ending violence against women and girls.

Change the World with Very Little Things

Did you ever realize that Jesus calls money "very little?" (Luke 16:10, check it out.) So trust and believe, those little things you do that you think mean nothing can mean everything. That's the case whether you're a believer or not. When we think of the Giants of History, the Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubmans, Frederick Douglasses and Medgar Evers - at the end of day, what they did was actually little.

Healthcare and Women

This is Michelle Obama on why women need healthcare reform. I mean really, pregnancy of a pre-existing condition? We need coverage for pap smears, mammograms, and abortion. Yes, abortion. (Not only is it not your body, it won't be your child.) And let's be clear ladies (and gentlemen), women make up the majority in this country. If we want it done, it will get done done.

Take a Number via SEIU Healthcare

I've gotten my number. Just trying to keep "Diana Prince" and "Wonder Woman" separate. Don't ask why. I don't know. ~ No1KState
__________________________________________________________________________________


We sent more than 10,000 letters to Congress in response to Peggy Robertson's story. Her insurance company had required that she get sterilized if she wanted to receive health insurance.

Members of Congress heard about it. The media reported on it. But we wondered, do our friends, family and neighbors realize how insurance companies have turned being a woman into a pre-existing condition?

Take your ticket for gender equity. Get yours, here: seiu.org/ticket

Women want equal coverage for the equal premiums they pay - plain and simple. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) is leading the charge, but we've got to get the word out. We built a tool to do just that - to demonstrate that it's time to deliver on health insurance reform.


When you take your "deli counter ticket," you'll receive a unique number. Post the number, along with this automatically-generated status update to Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere: I'm [your number] against discrimination by health insurers. Women deserve equal coverage for equal premiums. http://seiu.org/ticket #hc09

Your ticket is waiting. Take it, here: seiu.org/ticket

Right now, millions of American women aren't involved in the health care debate. They haven't called or written Congress. They haven't thought about health insurance reform much at all. But they're dealing with the health insurance system every day - paying more and getting less.

Women pay 30-40% more on the private insurance market as men. Common pregnancy and c-sections are considered "pre-existing conditions." And in some states, insurers can even deny coverage to victims of domestic violence.The bills before Congress will guarantee, once and for all, that women are treated fairly and equitably by insurers.

Let's demonstrate that women (and men!) across the country are calling for an end to discrimination against women by health insurers. Take your ticket now.

Thanks for speaking out,

Jessica Kutch
Online Campaign Manager
SEIU Healthcare

Just Keeping You Informed

"U.S. consumers, Prendergrast said, can also help by pressuring major electronic companies - from Apple to Sony - to certify that cell phones, computers and other products contain "conflict-free minerals," a campaign tactic popularized by the Sierra Leone-based film "Blood Diamonds." "

Rape Crisis in Congo Tied to Mining Activity

Monday 01 June 2009

by: Dominique Soguel Visit article original @ Women's eNews

Washington - Activists concerned by this year's escalation of sexual violence in eastern Congo are trying to turn up the heat on those benefitting - directly or indirectly - from illicit mineral extractions.

"Conflict minerals power our entire electronic industry," John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Project, told U.S. senators at a May 13 hearing on sexual violence in eastern Congo and Sudan.

The Enough Project is a Washington-based organization campaigning against genocide and crimes against humanity, including rape in eastern Congo.

Prendergast said that Congo would only have a chance at peace when something is done about the conflict-inducing demands of North America, Asia and Europe.

Eve Ensler, author of "The Vagina Monologues," helped launch an international awareness raising campaign called V-Day in 2007 to end sexual violence in eastern Congo.

UNICEF estimates that hundreds of thousands of girls have been raped in the last decade in the two eastern provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu.

A Single Nightmare

"Corporate greed, fueled by capitalist consumption, and the rape of women have merged into a single nightmare," Eve Ensler said at U.S. Senate hearings on May 13. "Women's bodies are the battleground of an economic war."

Ensler said that international mining companies with significant investments in eastern Congo value economic interest over the bodies of women by trading with rebels who use rape as a tactic of war in areas rich in coltan, gold and tin.

"Military solutions are no longer an option," she said. "All they do is bring about the rape of more women."

The United States has invested more than $700 million in humanitarian aid and peacekeeping to Congo, according to the U.S. Department of State.

Prendergast said this money will do nothing to root out the economic causes of eastern Congo's conflict and sexual violence.

He said a comprehensive long-term strategy to combat rape needs to change the economic calculus of armed groups.

Seeking Conflict-Free Minerals

Prendergast asked senators to support the Congo Conflict Minerals Act, which was introduced by Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold in April of this year.

The bill aims to break the link between resource exploitation and armed conflict in eastern Congo by requiring companies trading minerals with Congo or neighboring states to disclose mine locations and monitor the financing of armed groups in eastern Congo's mineral-rich areas.

"The sooner the illicit conflict minerals trade is eliminated, the sooner the people of Congo will benefit from their own resources," said Prendergrast.

U.S. consumers, Prendergrast said, can also help by pressuring major electronic companies - from Apple to Sony - to certify that cell phones, computers and other products contain "conflict-free minerals," a campaign tactic popularized by the Sierra Leone-based film "Blood Diamonds."

Such a process would use a tracking system for components, similar to that developed in 2007 under the Kimberly Process. This international certification scheme ensures that trade in rough diamonds doesn't fuel war, as it did in Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone during the 1990s.

Germany has already developed a pilot fingerprinting system for tin that could be expanded to other minerals and help establish certified trading chains, linking legitimate mining sites to the international market.

--------

Dominique Soguel is Women's eNews Arabic editor.
»

I'm Forced to Ask . . .

You know, I haven't really heard of anyone from the pro-choice camp murdering anybody for, I don't know, preventing women from having abortions. If you have, please drop a line. But how anyone can murder in the name of "pro-life" is beyond me, even if you argue they're ultimately saving lives.

By the by, has anyone heard anything for Gloria Steinem or Geraldine Ferrarro responding to the racist and sexist attacks against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor? I mean, I know they didn't defend Michelle Obama much when she was being called an "angry black woman" or Pres. Obama's "baby mama," so I guess their silence here is par for the course. A little disappointing, though. A little disappointing. You know. They come across as only being interested in making white women the equal of white men, not in equality for all. Of course, I already thought Ferrarro was racist, but Steinem? I'm disappointed. Maybe they'll say something by the time Judge Sotomayor is confirmed.

And oh, yeah. I'm sure you've heard all the "colorblind" talk about how Sotomayor's race and gender shouldn't play a role in the decision to confirm and deny her. Which is odd. I mean, you never hear that about white men. Don't get me wrong, I know that's because white men are held as the "norm" and everything else is a deviation from the "norm." But, it just bothers me because the people making all the "colorblind" talk are conservatives who, you know, aren't exactly thrilled to have a more diverse court. They want to argue that her race and gender shouldn't matter in that they don't necessarily make her a better judge; they have more sense than to argue her race and gender make her a worse judge. But, with all the talk that she's too focused on her race and how she's an anti-white racist based on all of one phrase and her membership in the National Council of La Raza, the largest Latino civil rights group, I kinda get they feeling they'd like to if they could.

What really gets me is how they argue that a court of 9 white men can make just as good decisions as a court of 9 Latinas. To prove this, they point out that a court of 9 white men decided Brown vs Board of Education which overturned Plessy vs Ferguson, as though it wasn't 9 white men who decided Plessy vs Ferguson in the first place.

But, every time I hear someone say Sotomayor's race and gender shouldn't matter, it's like a cloud floats by right out of my reach. I can't quite get my mind to figure out why it bothers me. I guess because conservatives want to pretend that you don't have to take race and/or gender into consideration in order to reach a fair decision in choosing who to place on the Supreme Court. They call her an "affirmative action" pick, which is ironic in itself. They, of course, mean that she was chosen just because of her race and gender and nothing else. As if excusing her race and gender, she doesn't have any other qualifications. They question her depth of intelligence as though graduating in the top 2 of Princeton University is so easy a caveman could do. As though Bush did it. They question if she's smart enough to be on the court, as though she hasn't spent the past 17 years as a judge in the federal courts. They question her temperament, which actually doesn't bother me accept they use the word "temperament" as a euphemism for "she may not always decide for the rich, the white, or the corporations."

But, of course, affirmative action means we just made sure her race and gender didn't hold her back. I guess what conservatives don't want to publicly acknowledge is that due to historical and recent racism, if you just reach into a pool of judges "color-blindly" you'll probably pull out a white guy. I'm guess they would disagree, and Clarence Thomas would be their example, but according to their rhetoric, the only way to choose someone without regard to their race or gender would be to choose a white man. And that, of course, only furthers the cause of white male dominance, of patriarchy and racism. I guess that's what bothers me about the whole argument that Sotomayor's race and gender shouldn't matter. For conservatives, it seems like the only time race and gender don't matter, which probably means as much as anything else that it's the only time they don't notice, is when a white man is involved. And that's just plain racist and sexist and I wish I knew how to scream this to them and put a stop to it. If only, if only.

If only I could further crystallize my thoughts! We'll see in the coming days. I'll keep trying to think this out. Enough for tonight, though.

Update: Three Interesting, if Unrelated, Items (Previously Just Two)

Update: Three Interesting, if Unrelated Items

I'm not going to write about this. This particular post, I feel, is full. But, I do strongly encourage you read this post on racismreview.com honoring the abolitionist John Brown's birthday.
________________________________

My comments will come in italics:

Sex-starved Kenyan Sues over Boycott

I won't lie. As much as anything else, this is hilarious! But, above that, this indicates the power women have in regards to sex when we work as a group. Now. I know "Momma got needs," and so the fact that the boycott was only a week kinda worked in women's favor. It it was a year-long boycott or an indefinite boycott, maybe enough women would've fallen off the band wagon to make the other women's celibacy kind of pointless. I don't know. But women do have power in regards to sex when we work as a group. This applies to the US to the extent that, and here's something maybe politically incorrect, not all females having pre-marital and even marital sex really want to. They just want to be in a relationship. Undoubtedly this affects teenagers and maybe women in their early twenties more than it could maybe apply to other women. That said, how many of you unmarried ladies are having sex when you really don't want to, even if you do want to have sex? I guess I'm saying that more women want to wait to have sex, even if they don't necessarily want to wait till marriage. And if more women stuck to their guns, I think some of the pressure to have sex, especially on young girls, would lift. I could be wrong. I'm stating this completely from opinion with not a lot of scientific research.

I would also like to point out that this indicates the power women have when we work together, period, for anything. Sex may be the most apparent thing that occurs to women in regard to shared power, but here in the US, we have substantial political clout. Remember, women make up the majority of voters. Whatever we want, if we worked together, we could get. More days for family leave. Affirmative action. Equal pay. More vacation days. The US works more days out of the year than any other industrialized nation. The English and French don't understand how we maintain emotional and mental health with only 2 weeks of paid vacation. I don't think we do. And we certainly don't maintain any kind of political health. People are so busy and tired from one day to the next, they don't really pay attention to what's going on in their local, state, and federal governments. They don't really pay attention to policy debates. Sound bites stand in for substantative arguments.

Take healthcare, for example. The conservatives don't want public healthcare just for its own sake. Not that it's bad. Not about keeping government small. They just don't want public healthcare taking money from the large and power insurance companies. Have you heard these people? They'll go for healthcare reform so long as there's not the option to buy into government provide healthcare competing with the various private options. Two problems with this: 1) whatever happened to the concept of free market competition? 2) I thought anything provided by the government was substantially inferior to anything provided by the private sector. Why the worry about government insurance competing with private insurance? But what the publicans will say is that they don't want state beauracracy making decisions that doctors and patients should be making. If more voters would think about it, that argument is empty. First off, no one's suggesting government beauracracy make decisions that doctors should be making. Secondly, it's not like private insurance cos aren't denying claims and costing people their lives all the time. That's part of what's keep the cost of private insurance so high! Paying to have enough people to deny claims.

And speaking of healthcare and women, if enough women worked together to get single-payer healthcare, we could have it. I am woman, here me roar!

Story Highlights

• Kenyan sues activists, claims recent sex ban affected his marriage
• Women were urged to withhold sex to force political reform
• Activists not worried about lawsuit, claim sex boycott worked

NAIROBI, Kenya (CNN) -- A Kenyan man has sued activists who called on women to boycott sex to protest the growing divide in the nation's coalition government.

James Kimondo said the seven-day sex ban, which ended this week, resulted in stress, mental anguish, backaches and lack of sleep, his lawyer told the state-run Kenya Broadcasting Corp.

The lawsuit filed Friday claims lack of conjugal rights affected Kimondo's marriage and seeks undisclosed damages from the G-10, an umbrella group for women's activists, KBC said.

The women's caucus caused a national debate when it urged women to withhold sex to protest increasingly frosty relations between President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

Citizens of the east African nation are frustrated by a shaky coalition government, which was formed after post-election violence killed more than 1,000 people in 2008. The wrangling between Kibaki and Odinga has sparked fears of more violence.

Gender activists say they are not worried about the lawsuit.

"I have not been served with the papers, but I was told they are coming and I am eagerly waiting," said Ann Njogu, executive, director of Centers for Rights Education and Awareness. "It will be interesting to see the face of a man who is not willing to abstain for the sake of his country."

Despite the lawsuit, Njogu said, the boycott was successful.

"The principal leaders met as a result of the boycott, and I understand that they are setting up reforms to look into the country's internal security," she said.

Plans are under way for women activists to meet with Kibaki and Odinga, according to Njogu.

CNN's Faith Karimi contributed to this report.

All About Kenya
____________________________________

God Kept Him from Going Broke

CNN's Betty Nguyen sits down with Rev. Michael Beckwith about turning to God during these rough financial times.

To answer your question, you probably recognize this guy from being on Oprah.

Now, I make no secrets about my faith. And so I share this with you for two good reasons. One is that I truly believe God will speak to us if we'll only listen. And by listen, I mean sit down sometimes and listen they way you would listen to your significant other, or to your child, or to birds. I hardly think the problem is that God isn't speaking. I think the problem is that we aren't listening. And no. I'm not talking about "hearing voices," though some do. But I don't mean "hearing God," the way people make jokes that it's okay to talk to God, but not okay if God talks to you. No. I'm not talking about scizophrenic hallucinations. I'm talking about listening to God, hearing God speak in those quiet moments that we have to ourselves. Though, working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, I guess I can understand how most people don't have time for a quiet moment to hear God speak to them. But watch what can happen when you do listen:



The other reason I posted this video is to share the thought of investing your values and beliefs. Invest in green companies. Companies with unions. Companies that do right by others. That's the only way, or at least one of very few ways, we'll get Big Business to pay attention to the needs of people. And, it's a demonstration of Christianity in action. Affecting the world by the way we invest is something Christians ought to do. Now, if you ask me, this will only work if you're trying to "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." God will only bless the efforts that truly represent his call for justice and righteousness. I think the failure of abstinence-only education should serve as an indication that God won't bless efforts to force our moral standards on others. But, "forcing" people to serve and help others I believe is okay.

Yes He Did!! Whew!!

Today, President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act which correct the decision the Supreme Court made last year that in order to sue for pay discrimination, a worker had to filed within 180 days of the first unequal check. Yeah, our Supreme Court made that decision 5-4. No, not conservative to liberal; but completely ignorant and cold to the understanding and common sensible. So, yeah, I'm really hyped about this new development. Oh, and by the way, this Act is an act, as it were, of affirmative action.

In other news, it turns out Pres Obama might be attending a dinner to honor confederate general Robert E Lee. Besides the fact that I could've sworn the South lost, a White House spokesperson is saying they weren't aware of the confederate tie to some Alfalfa Club Dinner. Now that they know, Obama had better not go.

Here's video of Pres Obama signing the Ledbetter Act.

Sad But Encouraging News Out of Africa

October 28, 2008

Court Rules Niger Failed by Allowing Girl’s Slavery
By Lydia Polgreen

DAKAR, Senegal — A West African regional court ruled Monday that the government of Niger had failed to protect a young woman sold into slavery at the age of 12.

The landmark ruling, the first of its kind by a regional tribunal now sitting in Niamey, Niger’s capital, ordered the government to pay about $19,000 in damages to the woman, Hadijatou Mani, who is now 24.

Slavery is outlawed throughout Africa, but it persists in pockets of Niger, Mali, Mauritania and amid conflicts like the one in northern Uganda. Antislavery organizations estimate that 43,000 people are enslaved in Niger alone, where nomadic tribes like the Tuareg and Toubou have for centuries held members of other ethnic groups as slaves.

Ms. Mani’s experience was typical of the practice. She was born into a traditional slave class and sold to Souleymane Naroua when she was 12 for about $500.

Ms. Mani told court officials that Mr. Naroua had forced her to work his fields for a decade. She also claimed that he raped her repeatedly over the years.

“I was beaten so many times I would run back to my family,” she told the BBC. “Then after a day or two I would be brought back.”

Ms. Mani brought her case to the court this year, arguing that the Niger government had failed to enforce its antislavery laws.

She had initially sought protection under Niger’s laws. In 2005, Mr. Naroua gave her a certificate freeing her, but when she tried to get married he claimed that she was already married to him.

A local court ruled for Ms. Mani, but a higher court reversed the judgment. In an absurd twist, Ms. Mani, who had gone ahead and married the other man, was sentenced to six months in jail for bigamy. She was released after serving two months.

“Nobody deserves to be enslaved,” Ms. Mani said in a statement. “We are all equal and deserve to be treated the same. I hope that everybody in slavery today can find their freedom. No woman should suffer the way I did.”

Slavery has long been tolerated in Niger. The Niamey government outlawed the practice in 2003, but it continues in the remote reaches of the vast, arid and impoverished nation that straddles the Sahara.

Antislavery organizations hailed the decision as an important victory against deeply entrenched social customs.

“For 17 years, we have been working towards bringing slavery to the attention of the authorities,” said Ilguilas Weila, president of Timidria, a Niger antislavery advocacy group, in a statement. “This verdict means that the state of Niger will now have to resolve this problem once and for all.”

The Community Court of Justice, the entity that ruled against Niger, is a judicial arm of Ecowas, a political and trade group of West African nations. The court, which can sit in any of the member nations, was created in 2000 and has made a number of important rulings.

But its limited ability to enforce them has sapped its influence.

Earlier this year, the court ordered the government of Gambia to release a journalist who had been missing for two years and was believed to be in government custody. Gambia ignored the judgment.

It's Not Your Kid!

I have no problem with not selling candy or soda.

But new Virginia pharmacies that will sell no birth control?

As far as I can tell, it's okay to control when, where, with whom, and how many kids you have. If you're relying on the death of Onan died because he refused to impregnate their late brother's wife and be responsible for a child who wouldn't legally be there's, let me remind you that having a child, especially a son, was a woman's social security at the time. You're comparing apples to fish. Yes. Apples to fish.

Give people whatever birth control they request and their doctors' prescribe. The world is overpopulated. God isn't gonna be upset that not every emission of sperm and ovulation leads to the birth of a child. Er . . . duh!

At least their intentions are laid bare for all to see as the stores are named Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy. Whatever.

Mommy Wars

This whole Sarah Palin for VP thing has brought to public discussion something that's usually kept among women: the mommy wars. Who's the better mother? The one who stays home or the one who works?

Now. I was raised by a working mother. Not only was she a teacher, she was into local politics and civil associations. She spent a lot of time in our church's Baptist Association and a Sunday school teacher. I remember when she joined the Rotary Club. She was a member of a group called the "Extension Homemaker's Club." Then, she started the family business. I mean, to make a longer story short, my mother was busy. And there were times when she was home enough. And not so much that I wanted her attention, though, there were times when I did, but more because I just wanted my mother at home with me where I could get to here when I needed her. And because she had always intended on being very involved in lots of other activities, she only had two children. I'm the younger.

My father . . . well, I just be honest. When he wasn't physically absent due to work, he was emotionally absent and sometimes just emotionally unavailable.

Now, looking back on my childhood. I can hardly think of a sporting event she missed either of mine or my brother's. She even attended a few school band and chamber choir concerts. She even attended at least one showing of every play I ever did. One incident I remember was when I had to do a skit for my church's Baptist Association's meeting the same Sunday our pastor was preaching at another church. She came with me to see the skit - and I was marvelous by the way. The pastor, now my former pastor, actually got upset about the fact my mother came with me instead of following her. This pastor is extremely sexist and patriarchal, and actually told my father to get on to my mother for haven chosen to come with me instead of him. At the time, I wanted to hug my mother, but we're not that affection of a family. Of course she was going to chose her child over a man who was probably going to preach a sermon we had already hard before.

As I look ahead to my future and the prospects of having children, as much as I hate the thought of being like my mother, I'll probably be involved in a number of different things myself. It'd be nice if my husband made enough so that I wouldn't have to work, but that aside, I know I'll be busy just like my mother.

So, where do I stand on the issue of the "mommy wars"? I stand with my personal and every woman's personal decision. Being a stay-at-home mother makes you no better than a working mother and visa verse. It's up to the woman and it's nobody decision but hers. And ladies, if you're afraid you intended will want you to work and you want to stay home, or want you to stay home when you want to work, guess what - he's not your intended. The decision is yours and yours alone. The only time when there's an exception is when theirs an issue with the family's financial situation in which case, it should be a joint decision.

Now that that's been said, let's get down to the bottom of the issue. The question is what kind of mother Palin's been, the question is what kind of father her husband's been. Not only did her daughter get pregnant and her baby son has Downs Syndrome, her husband's daughter got pregnant and his baby son has Downs Syndrome, too.

So, the issue with the "mommy wars" isn't really about motherhood. Is it? No. It's about fatherhood. If more fathers were at home and involved with their children, there would be less demand on mothers. And I have no intentions of voting for Palin at all, but there should be no questions about how's she to manage being VP and a mother when the woman has a husband.

In fact, there shouldn't be any so-called "mommy war," there should be a "mother vs father" war. Fathers step up! I know you think providing for your family is enough. I know that may have been all your father did. So what. He was wrong and so are you. Your children need your time and emotional involvement, too. Let me make it perfectly clear: it's babysitting when you're watching someone else kid; when it's your child, it's called being a father!

And I just heard Rachel Maddow quote John McCain saying that Sarah Palin was his "soul mate." I'm telling ya, Cindy better watch out.

And lastly, this whole notion that Palin's more experienced than Obama is false and the argument is wrongheaded. A person's level of experience doesn't guarantee a successful outcome and could make things worse.

The More Things Change . . .

In my estimation, this article details the historic tension between white feminists and feminists of color. It's why so many white women could only see history being made by Hillary Clinton and could ignore the history being made by Barack Obama. Is why when someone decides to play a game of whose most oppressed, white women always cry about black men being given the right to vote before they were, never mind that black women couldn't vote, and black men's voting rights were complicated eradicated by the time white women got to vote. There are some white feminist would drop all other issues relating to nonwhite women altogether.

1921: Alice Paul Pulls the Strings

By Freda Kirchwey

This article appeared in the March 2, 1921 edition of The Nation.
July 31, 2008

Women won the right to vote in 1919, but African-American women continue to be disenfranchised. At the National Women's Party convention in 1921, their pleas for representation were rebuffed by suffragist leader Alice Paul. The Nation's outraged correspondent Freda Kirchway reports.

The spirit of the National Woman's Party convention at Washington last week was summed up in two striking sentences. Said a disheartened delegate after the last day's session: "This is the machine age." Said one of the leaders of the Party to another delegate who tried to plead for a free consideration of a real program: "At a convention human intelligence reaches its lowest ebb."

That was what it amounted to; the leaders acted on the theory of an amiable contempt for their followers; the rank and file, either cynically or enthusiastically, watched the wishes of the leaders become the law of the convention. With quiet precision the Woman's Party machine--a veritable tank--rolled over the assembly, crushing protestants of all sorts, leaving the way clear--for what? If anyone left the convention with a distinct idea of what the Party will do now that it has solemnly disbanded and solemnly reorganized, it is, perhaps, Alice Paul and the Executive Committee and some members of the Advisory Council and a few State chairmen. The rank and file, not realizing that their intelligence was at a low ebb, are vaguely disappointed. They do not know what their party will do; they only know that no action was taken in behalf of the Negro women, who have not yet got the vote in spite of the Nineteenth Amendment; that birth control and maternity endowment and most of the questions that stir the minds of modern women were ignored; that disarmament was ruled out; and that the program finally adopted--the majority report of the resolutions committee--declared vaguely against "legal disabilities" and for "equality" leaving the future definition of those terms and their translation into action to the executive board. The only specific application of the word equality appeared in the demand that it be "won and maintained in any association of nations that may be established"!

It may, of course, be asserted that since this mild and hypothetical program was adopted by a vote of the convention it was therefore the will of the convention, but one is forced to wonder whether the result would have been the same if a dissenting delegate or a minority committeeman had presented the winning report, and if Alice Paul's program had included disarmament or birth control or the enfranchisement of Negro women. I, for one, would back Miss Paul's chances on either side she chose to support. When the minority report recommending disarmament was before the house it was opposed vehemently by several ardent militarists of the order who declare: "I am as much against war as anybody in this room, but when the world is on fire . . . " From the point of view of the leaders this opposition was undesirable; the majority report would only be weakened by militarist adherents. Presently the floor was taken by a well-known pacifist who set herself squarely on the side of immediate, complete disarmament and then proceeded on other grounds to an effective attack on the disarmament program. Later in the day this same pacifist--who is also a radical and a feminist--had a program of her own in the field in opposition to the majority report. This new dissenting program was specific. It demanded, in addition to the removal of the legal disabilities of women, the rewriting of the existing laws of marriage, divorce, guardianship; and sexual morality on a basis of equality; the abolition of illegitimacy; the establishment of motherhood endowment and of the legal right of a woman who chooses homemaking as her profession to an equal share in the family income; the repeal of all laws against the dissemination of information regarding birth control.

These proposals were sternly opposed by the machine. The leaders declared that such a program was too vague; they declared that it was too definite; they declared that it was too comprehensive; they claimed that the majority program could be interpreted to include all those demands and more besides. But in expounding the majority program they were cautious; not one of the leaders specifically stated, for example, that it should be interpreted to cover the question of birth control. "And after all, that's the acid test," said one of the younger delegates. The new program received the support of a few of the less orthodox members of the Advisory Council, but its most persuasive advocates were among the young Party workers who charged that the majority report offered no more inspiration than the programs of other women's organizations which they had long been trained to look down upon as cautious, respectable, dull. Again the leaders were worried; they couldn't let the idea get about that only middle-aged respectability stood for the majority report. And presently a couple of the younger workers rose from their seats and opposed the radical program and swore by all the suffrage prophets that the majority report offered inspiration enough for any feminist. And it was well known to those who hung about in the lobby or watched the play from the wings, that Alice Paul had spoken the word necessary to make the pacifist oppose disarmament and the young radicals oppose the radical program.

Some day the story of the working of the National Women's Party machine will be told. It will be an interesting story, full of strange contradictions. It will tell of valiant self-sacrifice and magnificent defiance coupled with an incongruous willingness to appeal to the tradition of feminine weakness. It will be full of idealism and steadfast purpose and yet of a readiness to use any trick or pretense that might bring that purpose nearer to fulfillment. It will tell of independence and individual heroism existing side by side with obedience bordering on subservience. It will show sympathy and ruthlessness walking together. But that story cannot be written until the people who know it get out from under the spell of the Alice Paul legend. Today any attempt would be futile.

The efforts--finally successful--of the birth control advocates to secure a chance to speak at the convention would form an amusing chapter of that story. At the second day's session representatives of women's organizations with legislative programs made brief addresses stating their aims. Even old-time enemies of the Woman's Party were given a place. For weeks before the convention the head of the Voluntary Parenthood League had been in correspondence with the Party leaders demanding her chance to be heard. First the leaders refused, then they demurred, finally they surrendered; but their written objections to the presence of this organization on the platform of the convention were redolent with the faint fragrance of Victorian delicacy and reserve.

The efforts--wholly unsuccessful--of the representatives of the colored women would form a tragic chapter of the same story. A delegation of sixty women sent by colored women's organizations in fourteen States arrived in Washington several days before the convention. They requested an interview with Alice Paul so that they might take up with her the question of the disfranchisement of the women of their race. They were told Miss Paul was too busy to see them. They said they would wait till she had time. Finally, grudgingly, she yielded. The colored women presented their case in the form of a dignified memorial--which read as follows:

We have come here as members of various organizations and from different sections representing the five million colored women of this country. We are deeply appreciative of the heroic devotion of the National Woman's Party to the women's suffrage movement and of the tremendous sacrifices made under your leadership in securing the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

We revere the names of the pioneers to whom you will do honor while here, not only because they believed in the inherent rights of women, but of humanity at large, and gave themselves to the fight against slavery in the United States.

The world has moved forward in these seventy years and the colored women of this country have been moving with it. They know the value of the ballot, if honestly used, to right the wrongs of any class. Knowing this, they have also come today to call your attention to the flagrant violations of the intent and purposes of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in the elections of 1920. These violations occurred in the Southern States, where is to be found the great mass of colored women, and it has not been made secret that wherever white women did not use the ballot, it was counted worthwhile to relinquish it in order that it might be denied colored women.

Complete evidence of violations of the Nineteenth Amendment could be obtained only by Federal investigation. There is, however, sufficient evidence available to justify a demand for such an inquiry. We are handing you herewith a pamphlet with verified cases of the disfranchisement of our women.

The National Woman's Party stands in the forefront of the organizations that have undergone all the pains of travail to bring into existence the Nineteenth Amendment. We can not then believe that you will permit this amendment to be so distorted in its interpretation that it shall lose its power and effectiveness. Five million women in the United States can not be denied their rights without all the women of the United States feeling the effect of that denial. No women are free until all are free.

Therefore, we are assembled to ask that you will use your influence to have the convention of the National Woman's Party appoint a special committee to ask Congress for an investigation of the violations of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in the elections of 1920.

Miss Paul was indifferent to this appeal and resented the presence of the delegation. Their chance of being heard at the convention was gone. A Southern organizer told the one active supporter of the colored women--a white woman and a delegate from New York--that the Women's Party was pledged not to raise the race issue in the South; that this was the price it paid for ratification. But no such sinister motive is necessary to explain the treatment of the colored delegation; they were simply an interruption, an obstacle to the smooth working of the machine. Their leading members were not allowed to ride in the elevators of the Hotel Washington where the convention was held, until finally they made a stand for their rights. And only by the use of tactics bordering on Alice Paul's own for vigor and persistence, did their spokesman--the delegate from New York--get a moment to present a resolution in their behalf-a resolution which was promptly defeated and which left the question precisely where it stood.
The attitude of Alice Paul and her supporters toward these disturbers of the peace--Negro women and birth control advocates alike--was the attitude of all established authorities. "Why do these people harass us?" asked Miss Paul. "Why do they want to spoil our convention?" The answer, that never occurred to her, was this: "For the very same reason that made you disturb the peace and harass the authorities in your peculiarly effective and irritating way: because they want to further the cause they believe in."

In the lobby, among the futile opponents of the machine, there was much discussion of the cause of their leaders' hostility to all that was new and clear-cut. The great fighting issue was gone; if the organization was to continue it must turn its attention to other issues and work for them one at a time or several together, not only in Congress but in the States. Would the leaders evolve out of their vague program an issue which they could again attack with military precision and on which they could hope again to raise their disciplined volunteer army? Would they justify their tactics, as they had so often done before, by the brilliant success of their results? Or were they only greedy of power, eager to hold the final decision close in their own hands, unwilling to trust to the desires of their followers? Or were they, perhaps, only half awake to the fulness of life? Absorbed in a task of immense proportions, for years they had forfeited, as soldiers must, the common enterprises of life--love, marriage, children, the economic struggle. Had they thereby lost touch with the plain demands of modern women who are more interested in their opportunities for personal expansion and economic freedom and the right to bear children when they choose than they are in the presence of women in the councils of an unborn or dying League of Nations? The opponents of the machine never decided those questions; the Alice Paul legend hung too closely over them and its phrases sounded in their ears through the closed doors of the convention hall.

Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
About Freda KirchweyFreda Kirchwey was a former managing editor, literary editor, editor and, ultimately, publisher of The Nation. She died in 1976.

More about Sarah Palin

. . . from Americans United for Change.

At Americans United for Change, we've already done a little digging, and it turns out Sarah Palin fits in perfectly with John McCain's backwards energy policy, disregard for the environment, and cozy relationship with Big Oil.

Palin has argued again and again in favor of oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, despite clear dangers to surrounding wildlife.

This year, Palin sued the federal government for adding polar bears to the endangered species list, arguing the move would interfere with oil and gas drilling efforts.

Palin's close relationship with Big Oil fits right in with John McCain's reckless energy plan: take millions in campaign donations from oil companies, and in return give them massive tax breaks and free reign to drill in environmentally sensitive areas.

Now understand, I am not Taylor Marsh fan. She was a Clinton hold-old. But even she's hating on Sarah Palin, so you know this can't be good.

If you got more to say, you can leave your comments here or at Americans United for Change or with Taylor Marsh. Err . . . preferably here, though. Personally, I think she's wrong on any possibly policy matter, and is just in line for McCain's 3rd wife. And what does this say about Johnny Mac's "judgement?" Basically, he has none.

Girl-child Just Ain't Safe in a House Full of Men

Sexual Assault in Military 'Jaw-Dropping,' Lawmaker Says

July 31, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A congresswoman said Thursday that
her "jaw dropped" when military doctors told her that
four in 10 women at a veterans hospital reported being
sexually assaulted while in the military.

A government report indicates that the numbers could be
even higher.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, spoke before a House
panel investigating the way the military handles reports
of sexual assault.

She said she recently visited a Veterans Affairs
hospital in the Los Angeles area, where women told her
horror stories of being raped in the military.

"My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent
of the female veterans seen there say they were victims
of sexual assault while serving in the military," said
Harman, who has long sought better protection of women
in the military.

"Twenty-nine percent say they were raped during their
military service. They spoke of their continued terror,
feelings of helplessness and downward spirals many of
their lives have taken since.

"We have an epidemic here," she said. "Women serving in
the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a
fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."

As of July 24, 100 women had died in Iraq, according to
the Pentagon.

In 2007, Harman said, only 181 out of 2,212 reports of
military sexual assaults, or 8 percent, were referred to
courts martial. By comparison, she said, 40 percent of
those arrested in the civilian world on such charges are
prosecuted.

Defense statistics show that military commanders took
unspecified action, which can include anything from
punishment to dismissal, in an additional 419 cases.

But when it came time for the military to defend itself,
the panel was told that the Pentagon's top official on
sexual abuse, Dr. Kaye Whitley, was ordered not to show
up despite a subpoena.

"I don't know what you're trying to cover up here, but
we're not going to allow it," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-
California, said to the Defense official who relayed the
news of Whitley's no-show. "This is unacceptable."

Rep. John Tierney, the panel's chairman and a Democrat
from Massachusetts, angrily responded, "these actions by
the Defense Department are inexplicable."

"The Defense Department appears to be willfully and
blatantly advising Dr. Whitley not to comply with a duly
authorized congressional subpoena," Tierney said.

An Army official who did testify said the Army takes
allegations of sexual abuse extremely seriously.

"Even one sexual assault violates the very essence of
what it means to be a soldier, and it's a betrayal of
the Army's core values," Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle said.

The committee also heard from Mary Lauterbach, the
mother of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, a 20-year-old
pregnant Marine who was killed in December, allegedly by
a fellow Marine.

Mary Lauterbach said her daughter filed a rape claim
with the military against Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean
seven months before he was accused of killing her.

"I believe that Maria would be alive today if the
Marines had provided a more effective system to protect
the victims of sexual assault," she said.

In the months after her daughter filed the rape claim,
she said, the military didn't seem to take her
seriously, and the onus was on "Maria to connect the
dots."

"The victim should not have the burden to generate
evidence for the command," Lauterbach told the
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs.
"Maria is dead, but there will be many more victims in
the future, I promise you. I'm here to ask you to do
what you can to help change how the military treats
victims of crime and to ensure the victims receive the
support and protection they need and they deserve."

Another woman, Ingrid Torres, described being raped on a
U.S. base in Korea when she worked with the American Red
Cross.

"I was raped while I slept," she said.

The man who assaulted her, she said, was a flight
director who was found guilty and dismissed from the Air
Force.

Fighting back tears, Torres added, "he still comes after
me in my dreams."

The Government Accountability Office released
preliminary results from an investigation into sexual
assaults in the military and the Coast Guard. The GAO
found that the "occurrences of sexual assault may be
exceeding the rates being reported."

"At the 14 installations where GAO administered its
survey, 103 service members indicated that they had been
sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of
these, 52 service members indicated that they did not
report the sexual assault," the GAO said.

The office found that the military and Coast Guard have
established policies to address sexual assault but that
the implementation of the programs is hampered by an
array of factors, including that "most, but not all,
commanders support the programs."

"Left unchecked, these challenges can discourage or
prevent some service members from using the programs
when needed," the GAO said.

Tierney said, "what's at stake here goes to the very
core of the values of the military and the nation
itself.

"When our sons and daughters put their lives on the line
to defend the rest of us, the last thing they should
fear is being attacked by one of our own.

Ain't I a Woman

Err, uh, yes. I am.

Admittedly I infrequently tackle issues of importance to woman. I have my reasons for this, maybe I'll post on them later. But there are somethings concerning women's rights that just gets to me.

Let me put a few things out there (or, skip foward to * and read this):

1 - I hardly believe there's some "ambition gap" between the sexes. Income gap? Sure. Domestic responsibilities gap? You betcha! But "ambition gap?" Please. As the saying goes, "Every woman needs a wife." That includes me.

2 - I know "W" was supposed to stand for "Women for Bush," but right now, "W" pretty much stands for, "Why?" or perhaps even, "What?!" This recent administration has been bad for women. Court appointees. Reproductive rights. Equal pay. Healthcare. Family leave. War. Any issue of which women have some special concern has been given the enemy combatant treatment. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that McCain would be to women's rights what Bush has been to America's civil rights. Similarly, there's not doubt in my mind that Barack Obama will do as much if not more for women than he will for people of color.

3 - I used to be anti-abortion, even through Women Studies 050 - Intro to Women's Studies. I felt abortion was something women did after having been stupid. Then I took Black Women's History and learned about slavewomen's infanticide. Lord knows I would not have been mad had my slavemother killed me. And sometimes, it wasn't infanticed, but the shear dearth of resources that led to an infants death. Even though slaveholders didn't like their money being manipulated by the free-choice of property, they certainly couldn't prove that a baby died because his/her mother killed him/her. That made me think of society's impact on women's decision to have abortions.

Plus, there was the fact that I used to respond to the issue with this: Don't step in mud and expect me to clean it up. It finally dawned on my at some point that a woman's decision to have an abortion had nothing to do with me at all.

4 - Hillary Clinton is not champion or symbol of women's rights. Her campaign was basically about a woman's right to act like a man. And although that argument does have merit, it's just not an argument I find compelling enough to draw any passion. It's much like the actual fact that racial equality is more or less black people's rights to act white. Doesn't exactly do it for me.
________________________

That said.

*Now, the Bush administration is trying to pass off some cruddy reasoning as "conscience" for basically restricting a woman's access to contraceptives in an emergency situation, rape for example. Read up on it. A woman who's been raped has a right to contraceptives, and it's not for anyone to make the decision for her. Should she end up pregnant against her will, it amounts to being raped all over again.

I Need a Laugh. How About You?

First, we have to address serious issues. Half Of U.S. Cases Of AIDS Are Among Black Americans. That's devastating. We're definitely gonna have to be more aggressive as a community addressing the issue with more compassion as well as being realistic about sexual activity and the responsibility to be safe and tested.

But go to Jack and Jill for that. I just want what one might call a break. So, here's some clips from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report.

Michelle Obama Is Blogging!

I discovered the news at prometheus6.org. But, here she is. From now own, you can look for her at blogher.com or in my sidebar.



Let's Talk
by Michelle Obama

Hi everybody,

I’m excited to be posting on BlogHer. Not only because blogging is something I’ve actually been able to beat my daughters to; but because it gives me the opportunity to tell you a little bit about them, my husband, myself, and our experiences traveling all over this great country.


Over the course of this campaign, I’ve been hosting roundtable discussions with working women all across America. I’m there to talk about my husband, of course – but more importantly, I’m there to listen. We talk about what it’s like to play multiple roles at once and what it’s like to feel stretched thin between the demands of a career and family.

And of course, we talk about our children. How they’re the first thing we think about when we wake up in the morning, and the last thing we think about when we go to bed at night. I know that no matter where I am – work, the campaign trail, wherever – my girls are always on my mind.


to finish reading, click here

It's About Time!

First, a quick note concerning my opinion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe needs to hold free and fair elections. Yes, he'd probably lose. In that case, he'd need to allow the democratically elected officials come to power. Yes, he and his supporters in government would probably also lose the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. That's where the IMF and World Bank come in - quit giving lend countries these bogus loans with the economic terms that promote the sort of corruption we've seen arise in the developing countries were you lend money. Considering the years of slavery and colonialism, I can hardly see how any country in Africa doesn't have a budget surplus due to the reparations owed by the West. That aside, if the point is to grow a prosperous and dynamic economy that can support the country, you can't lend the money only to those in power. You have to do macro-lending and allow countries to develop more than one cash-crop.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of African countries and their business relations to the West, if Big Oil would pay Nigeria and the people in the Delta their fair due, and treat the workers with due respect, so-called extremists wouldn't disrupt oil production.

Oh, and a note about Condoleeza Rice: When are you going to turn you humanitarianism on your boss, George "W is for War-Lord" Bush?

U.N. Security Council Says Sexual Violence Akin to War Crimes

By Maggie Farley, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 20, 2008
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council affirmed Thursday that rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, and called for measures to combat such attacks.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced the U.S.-sponsored resolution at a special session attended by diplomats from 60 nations.

Rice said the resolution brought an end to a debate about whether sexual violence was a security issue and belonged on the council's agenda. A similar resolution last year failed to pass, with several members disputing the need for it.

"I am proud that today we respond to that lingering question with a resounding yes," she told the Security Council. "This world body now acknowledges that sexual violence in conflict zones is indeed a security concern."

We affirm that sexual violence profoundly affects not only the health and safety of women, but the economic and social stability of their nations."

The resolution established U.N. procedures to monitor sexual violence in armed conflicts and called for the secretary-general to report in one year on their implementation. It also urges the U.N. to impose sanctions on violators.

Advocacy groups pushed the issue back onto the council agenda after China, Russia and South Africa said last year that sexual violence was an unfortunate byproduct of war and one that was addressed by a number of U.N. agencies, but was not a matter of international peace and security.

The resolution also urged the secretary-general to clamp down on peacekeepers who prey on vulnerable women and children instead of protecting them.

Despite an attempt by the U.N. to revamp the regulations and culture among peacekeepers and staffers after incidents of sexual exploitation over the last few years in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, reports of further abuses surfaced last year in several countries.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the council that he was committed to "zero tolerance" and "zero impunity" for sexual abuse by U.N. personnel and urged countries that provide troops to follow through with prosecution because the U.N. has no authority to try the perpetrators.

He pledged to strengthen the world body's code of conduct and hold supervisors accountable for assaults committed by soldiers and staffers.

The presence of high-level female officials at Thursday's meeting was deliberate. Rice chaired the gathering. France's secretary of state for human rights, Rama Yade, called for the prosecution of sexual violence at the International Criminal Court. British Atty. Gen. Patricia Scotland denounced recent attacks on women in Zimbabwe, especially the killing Wednesday of the mayor's wife in the capital, Harare.

The wives of the U.S. and British ambassadors to the United Nations also have worked to raise awareness that rape is a deliberate war tactic meant to intimidate and destroy communities, as seen in the former Yugoslav federation, Sudan's Darfur region and Congo.

After adopting the resolution, the council held an informal session to condemn increasing violence in Zimbabwe in the run-up to the June 27 presidential runoff election.

Next week, the Security Council will have its first formal meeting on the violence there and will be briefed by U.N. envoy Haile Menkerios, who was in Zimbabwe on Thursday.

South Africa, China and Russia have blocked official discussion so far, saying it would be interfering in a nation's internal affairs.

Rice cited concern among council members that "free and fair elections cannot possibly be held" in Zimbabwe because of the increasing intimidation of and violence against the opposition by the government of President Robert Mugabe, who is seeking reelection.

"I think that the mood in the room was one of extraordinary concern and a desire for President Mugabe to hear that there is tremendous international concern about what is happening in his country," the secretary of State told reporters after the meeting.

"I don't see anything that President Mugabe has done that has been helpful to Zimbabwean people, so maybe it's time for international pressure."

Four Year Wait? (Updated)

I guess should preface this by saying I was watching MSNBC when a viewer asked why Barack Obama's failure to win the white blue-collar voting bloc was seen as a bigger problem than Hillary Clinton's failure to win the African American voting bloc. What Joe Scarborough explained is that African Americans are the most loyal Democratic voters; that Clinton isn't really worried about losing African American voters to John McCain in November. Of course, Rachel Maddow had to point out that since 1964, no Democrat, including Bill Clinton, had won a majority of white male voters; that it shouldn't be a big deal that Obama can't secure the white male vote during the Democratic primary.

So. Hillary Clinton seems to presume that the African American vote is guaranteed even if she's viewed as having stolen the nomination from Obama, the first viable black candidate. I think African Americans should prove her wrong. No, I'm not suggesting that we vote for McCain. I didn't just drink a large glass of stupid. What I suggest is that we African Americans, and any other voters of conscience, either vote for Cynthia McKinney, the former Georgia congresswoman who is the frontrunner for the Green Party presidential nominee; or, vote for Ralph Nader, even though I think he's a bit cloudy; or, not at all.

Yeah, I said it. Essentially, I'm advocating that African Americans essentially phone it in in November. We've gone through far worse than what four years of John McCain might offer. So, yeah, let's forget this election. I'm loathe the campaign the Clintons' have been running. I loathe whatever plans John McCain might have, which I already know includes ending any and all legal affirmative action (And let me point out, few white workers or students are displaced by affirmative action; and, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women.)

But I'm really disturbed by the notion that African American votes can be taken so lightly. I'm disturbed by the notion that in the name of breaking the hardest, highest glass ceiling women face, the first viable black presidential candidate can be tossed under the bus. I strongly reject some of the reasons he'd make a "bad" president, most of which is, at least partially, racist.

• "He's all fluff." Interpretation: Black people are great speakers, but they never actually do anything about the problem the speech is on.
• "He's a snake oil salesman." Interpretation: Black people are very sly and cunning, and always looking for the next mark for their next con.
• "All he has are speeches." 1st Interpretation: All black can do is talk. They're to lazy to do anything else and aren't bright enough to know what else to do. 2nd Interpretation: All he has is speeches. That's make him unqualified. Don't make him the Affirmative Action president.
• Etc and so on.

Those and others hearken back to racist notions that supposedly explain black inferiority. The Clinton campaign has been playing the race card. And when others play the race card against Obama, even though some Republicans come to his defense, the Clintons use the "controversy" against him. I mean, the only argument Hillary Clinton is making is basically that Obama's all fluff, and unvetted fluff at that.

So what she feels she'd make the better president? George W Bush thought he'd make a better president than Al Gore and John Kerry. And so what there're some who haven't voted yet? Those same voters hadn't voted in elections before.

And what's their major policy differences? The fact that he doesn't have a health coverage mandate? Or, the fact that he's not proposing a Middle East umbrella under which any country that promised not to acquire nuclear weapons would be protected by the US military industrial complex should Iran attack them. Yeah, forget the fact that the most recent NIE said the Iranians weren't trying to build nuclear weapons. Forget the fact that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the "crazy" leader we must guard against, doesn't even have control over the military, and the Supreme Ayatollah has acknowledged that attacking Israel or any US ally isn't worth the risk. Yeah, ignore all that. Just like she ignored the NIE before the Iraq resolution. I mean, she's arguing that she'll be best to handle an emergency, but she keeps making these awful decisions under specious reasoning, and is now threatening to nuke Iran if they attack one of "umbrella" allies. I'm not alone in thinking threatening Iran with nukes as a bad idea.

Had she dropped out earlier, she would've made an absolutely incredible vice presidential candidate, and an unbeatable ticket. With his "speeches" and inspiration, Obama would've changed the political landscape and gotten some good policies passed. With her as vice president and his willingness to listen, they would've gotten very strong legislation passed. His presidency will show that the country is actually left of center. Americans actually care about each other and aren't going to cede our country to the wealthiest 1% and multinational corporations. And if she were the vice president those eight years, the country would be ready for her more wonkish style in 2016. She would've walked right through the elections. I guess she didn't want to wait that long. So, she's willing to undo Obama, and if she doesn't win the presidency this year, she can try again in 2012.

So really, why is she continuing her candidacy. The only way she can win, and "win," is that Obama implodes, and it doesn't appear that they may happen; or, that she blows him up. If she's willing to destroy his candidacy to benefit her own, then yes, I say African Americans should not vote for her. Other voters of principle are invited to join us.