Glittering Eye picked up on my post on the Dems and noted:
too many of the disparate interest groups that form the backbone of today's Democratic Party have lost their moorings. When the NOW lined up behind Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal it suggested that their agenda had ceased being better lives and decent treatment for women in society and the workplace and had become unwavering support for Democrat politicians.
I too was a bit put off by that. Personally, I felt the attacks on Clinton were appalling, and all that attention on that fling was a waste of money and time. (Is anyone here so well off she wouldn't find better use for those hundreds of millions of dollars spent on frivolous investigations of trivial matters?) But the fact that not one question of sexual harrassment was raised, not even by Rep. Hyde and friends, also was curious. Perhaps they knew they couldn't score points with talk of harrassment -- after all, that's a liberal concern, and they were posing for social conservatives -- so they went after the philanderer question (a topic on which Hyde and Gingrich were experts).gEye also picks up on QandO's complaints of the cold eye the press has given Condoleezza Rice since her being named as Secretary of State. QandO notes that 200 black clergy have stepped up to protest, and wonders:
Where is the NAACP on this? Where is Jacksonâ€™s Rainbow/PUSH? I thought these organizations existed to stamp out the very sort of racist bigotry that is being used against Rice by the left.
Instead we are treated to the sound of crickets.
Apparently thereâ€™s a litmus test one has to pass before they can count on the NAACP or Rainbow/PUSHâ€™s support.
You canâ€™t just be the right color, you have to be of the right ideology. Otherwise, or so it seems, racism just isnâ€™t that big of a deal to them.
Of course, right-thinking is not a new phenomenon. It gained real cache in the modern era with Communism, where you had to have the right thoughts (as opposed to Nazisim, where you had to have the right genetics). But that technique was co-opted by the right in the recent decades, and now it seems only if you're a social conservative do you have any "values."
I have not seen any racist treatment of Rice in the talk about her, but, being of European descent, I'm not the one to make any categorical statements on that. But come on, she's replacing an African American. This seems to be about something other than race.
I, too, have questions about her qualifications to be chief diplomat of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. What are her credentials, aside from being caught flat-footed on 9/11? From what I've heard, she does not like to socialize and is not big on social occasions, so hobnobbing with the leaders of the world might not come naturally. Some people are people people and some are ideas people. Does she have any diplomatic experience? Any negotiating experience? Those are real questions. (Of course, the media isn't big on real questions, and would probably find more interest if Rice fired her tailor. You know, they focus on the important stuff.)
As a moderate, Rice scares the shit out of me. I really have the sense that she doesn't know what she's doing. Her arrogance and condescending attitude towards the 9/11 Commission certainly didn't win my sympathy, let alone my understanding just where the heck she's coming from. With Powell, I may have disagreed with some of his policies, but there was no question, at least from me, as to his qualifications. Now we're losing the man who rebuilt the Army in the aftermath of Vietnam, and we're getting a neocon wonk who has had no small part in getting us mired in another Vietnam.
As an American, I'm hoping that she surprises us all. Some people just need that one break where they suddenly become who they're going to be. Lord knows we need some help in foreign affairs. As a woman, I'm pulling for her, just to represent us well. There are lots of women in leadership positions in organizations, small businesses, regional groups, etc., and there are lots of women in government, but there aren't a lot of women in leadership positions in government. There seems to be an attitude against accepting women in strong federal government administration positions. If Rice fails to gain the public trust, then that's a missed opportunity to get Americans used to the idea of female national leaders. And that's a tragic failing in our country. (Which is perhaps a topic for another post.)
PS - Today is a red-letter day -- well, if you look at the archive calendar, all the days with new posts (beyond comments) are red-letter days -- but anyway, today, thanks to gEye, I got my first trackback. Now, I don't think I'm a dummy, and I've been in web development to varying degrees for some 10 years now. Yet I've had the hardest time understanding what trackback was all about. I mean I could understand the desire to trackback. It's cool to know someone else somewhere else picked up on something you wrote. But how did it work? Tonight I figured it out. All it took was that first ping, and then I saw. I only installed the feature, what, yesterday? So until I wrote this post, I had not seen that "URLs to ping" field before. Aha! That makes sense! Thanks gEye!