by francislholland, Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 07:15:20 AM EST
Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com.
I am very pleased to see this discussion
continuing about the need to make strides for gender and color justice in 2008. So much so, that I have excerpted heavily from your diary and cited you at my Francis L. Holland Blog, where Blacks who feel excluded from the "whitosphere" go for information about the ongoing debate within the whitosphere over equality. http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007
Silence always favors the status quo. I am certain that the time has come to name and end 43-consecutive term white male monopoly of the American Presidency.
by Chris Bowers, Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:30:55 PM EST
Joe Klein today
(emphasis mine):I'm afraid I'm going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called "surge" are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.
The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who argues that those who favor the increase in troops are either cynical or delusional. Mostly the latter. Delusional neocons like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, to be precise. But what about retired General Jack Keane--whom Krugman doesn't mention--and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years? They are serious people
.Washington Post Editorial yesterday
(emphasis mine):Without a surge, Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman warn, the war will be lost. This is a serious argument
, and the two senators have been principled and even courageous in making it.
As someone who opposed the war from long before it began, and thus was long branded as "not serious" as a result, it is remarkable to me how those who now support escalation are immediately branded as "serious" by those who do not support escalation but who did support the war in the first place. In fact, the entire Washington Post editorial yesterday
seemed simply to be a defense of the people who support escalation as "serious" and otherwise good people, even if the Washington Post itself can't bring itself to personally step onto the ashbin of history. This isn't surprising really, since another serious commentator, Richard Cohen, has recently stated
that the main reason he opposed supported the war was because he didn't want to throw his lot with the unserious, dirty hippies who opposed it.
There may be disagreements within the DLC-nexus of pundits from time to time, but as we can see form the DLC-nexus pundits are dealing with the current schism over escalation, maintaining the power and image of the punditry nexus itself is more important than any short term schism. For Joe Klein and Fred Hyatt, the most important point is that the people who wrongly support escalation are still serious
and worthy of our attention. They are not, heaven forbid, any of those unserious, dirty fucking hippies who are not worthy of serious attention. To co-opt their favorite word for a moment, this causes rather "serious" problems, as Digby noted in a piece about Jonathan Chait
by Thresholder, Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 07:40:28 AM EST
The possible candidacies of Barrak and Hillary raise the issues of race and gender in American politics and society.
I'd like to probe these underlying issues. Set aside Barrak and Hillary as individual candidates.
Just asking a question here.
* Are white Americans ready to break through their racial prejudice and consider embracing leadership in a black man?
* Are white Americans ready to break through their racial prejudice and consider embracing leadership in a woman?
* Which of these prejudices runs deeper and will be harder to break through?
Poll and my thoughts on the flip side. In taking the poll, please reflect the world you live in personally. I'd like to get a feel for that. If someone knows of good polling on the topic, that could make a good response post.
by Chris Bowers, Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 04:48:41 PM EST
Here are some items that caught my eye this evening:
- Women make up only 23% of elected officials in state legislatures, but women make up 30% of elected Democrats in state legislatures. All policy positions aside, that fact alone should explain why there is a gender gap in the electorate. The Democratic Party is more favorable to women not only in terms of policy, but also in the manner of its operation.
- In the still undecided Pennsylvania House, look for a preliminary result in the last outstanding election tomorrow. If the provisional votes are counted in that election, it seems likely that Democrats will win the Pennsylvania House. Expect this one to go all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Unless I am mistaken, in Pennsylvania, you only need the House and the Governor in order to redraw electoral maps. It would not be hard to draw new maps that would make Democratic pickups in PA-04, PA-07 and PA-08 more so less permanent, and that would make PA-06 and PA-15 much more inviting targets. In other words, a lot hinges on the outcome of this one state legislature race in Chester County. I do not think it is difficult to argue that it is more important than any of the recounts taking place for U.S. House of Representatives seat.
- According to a new study, paid political advertising is about all of the election coverage people get these days:Television viewers in crucial Midwest states got more political information in the weeks leading up to the midterm elections from campaign advertisements than from news coverage, according to a new study.
In the seven markets studied, newscasts aired almost 4 1/2 minutes of paid political ads during a 30-minute broadcast, while only offering 1 minute 43 seconds of election news coverage.
News organizations are supposed to cover stories that factor into the public interest, aren't they? Maybe I'm just an overly dedicated citizen, but I would image that elections are in the public interest. In my mind, there is only one way to deal with this irresponsible lapse in political coverage by news organizations: convene a blogger ethics panel.
- Mystery Pollster looks at the aftermath of generic poll polls versus the actual House popular vote.
- Meta-note: Don't expect me to back at full blogging strength until around mid-Tuesday. I am traveling back to Philadelphia tomorrow, for one thing. However, the real reason is that blogging, especially at the high standards MyDD has established, is actually very hard. While juicy news stoires or poll numbers can provide good quicker hitters for the front-page, most good articles with original content take a few hours of prep time. This includes extensive news and blogosphere surfing, thinking up new ideas, researching and outlining the idea, and then actually writing the post. (Given my high number of typos, you might notice that I rush through the editing portion of this process). The piece I wrote this morning on the netroots and 2008, for example, took about five hours of prep time before it was ready to post. Usually, a full day of blogging includes not only posting three or four articles, including at least one entirely original piece, but also preparing articles for the following day. Thus, when I go on vacation, it takes some time to get over the vacation and back into the full blogging cycle. That is why I am currently posting a round-up thread instead of a full original piece
Anyway, this is a Sunday night open thread. How was your Thanksgiving?
by mkfox, Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:52:55 PM EDT
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defends gay marriage, not because the Constitution defends lifestyles (whether homosexuality is genetic or not) but because it prohibits arbitrary gender discrimination.