To all those that say Hillary would advance the cause of women

[DonCoquixote]

Because that glass ceiling would be busted, and finally we would have a Madam President.

Ask Cornell West how well having a Black President actually worked out for Black People.
Furthermore:

ask the right wingers who can freely take out posters showing Obama as a monkey, wtch doctor, any nasty African stereotype, and claim "they are not being racist."

Ask the Birthers who have gained a level of respectability that previous ages would have never given.

No one considers that the war on women could actually GAIN momentum, as attacks a women could be hidden as attacks on Hillary, especially with all the right wing women that will say "I am just speaking for the rights of all women, not women that want to be men like Hillary" Come on, you can read the Michelle Malkin columns already.

[Honeycombe8]

1. Hmmm. So electing a woman would actually HURT women's chances of being elected.

Interesting. Illogical and nonsensical, but an interesting argument.

[DURHAM D]

2. So you are just afraid of the discussion.

got it...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Fortunately, the Democratic Party has some progressive women as a counterbalance to Hillary.

I'd love to see my senator, Patty Murray, run against the likes Hillary.

[opiate69]

6. I would second that.. Patty Murray has always been a favorite of mine.

I have no idea if she would even entertain the idea, but, I have loved having her as my Senator for these past 20+ years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Murray would have my vote.

In the absence of Murray, Clinton would have my vote.

[Bake]

30. I'm sorry ... WHO?

Name recognition: Hillary Clinton: 1000
Patty WHO?



Bake

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Under that rubric we should run Madonna or Lady GaGa.

Either of whom would still be an improvement over Hillary.

[Bake]

34. Name recognition matters.

Scoff if you want, but it matters. Discount it at your own risk.

Bake

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Right. I mean she's only been in the senate for 22 years.

Elected to her first term when people still didn't know much about Hillary's husband.

[Bake]

33. And few people outside her state know who she is.

Laugh if you want, but name recognition IS an issue. People will not vote for someone whose name they don't recognize, unless they're just voting D or R.

Bake

[opiate69]

39. And she would have about, oh.. 3 years to improve that recognition.

While we`re on the subject, how was Obama`s recognition compared to Clinton`s in, oh say 2004?

[Buzz Clik]

4. Your contradictions seem to be in an infinite loop.

[Honeycombe8]

5. You may not grasp what women's rights is all about.

I don't know if it's the same as rights for Af. Americans. But the whole point of having women in power positions is to have women in power positions. To lead by example. It's not to pass specific laws favoring women or to cater to women, except maybe pursue women's rights issues in countries where women really are treated like chattel or slaves. Maybe that's needed in some areas occasionally. But mainly it is for women to be allowed to strut their stuff and show that they are full human beings, capable of leading. Which they are.

This, by the way, is what Obama has done quite well. He is highly regarded the world over. But even if he weren't, it means something that he was elected....twice. He has earned his right to be made fun of, villified, skewered, raked over the coals, and burned in efegy, just like every white President we've had.

That's what it's all about. I would vote for Hillary because I think she's tough, good at negotiation, knows how to handle Republicans, knows the score, has been to the dance before, and knows the foreign leaders which gives her a heads up in handling foreign policy. She's experienced. There's a lot to be said for that.

Doesn't mean my mind is closed to other candidates. It's early yet.

[DonCoquixote]

9. So

If President..no I wont use Sarah Palin... Let's say Liz Cheney runs in 2016, or Condi Rice, or (insert Republican Woman here), would you say that was good for women? Even if she finishes the job killing social security, or gets us into war with Iran?, or does a fine job cutting social programs on those working class riff raff and brown folk? Does havign someone who does a lot of what the powers that be want really elevate the rest, if he assists the very same killing machines that are doing the oppressing?

Let me make this personal. I am in Florida, a Latino. I know Marco Rubio is being primed, especially as he is a way to get Bush in power without the Bush name. Now, I am Rubio's age, and if I parted my hair a certain way, I could pass for his brother. Do I, as a Latino, think getting a Hispanic president is worth putting him in power? By all means, Hell NO, because he allows the power structure to gleefully feel that they are "not racist", because they are hiring a brown person to run the furnaces we would be coooked in. Nothing like throwing the crumbs to someone at the top, and saying "if you work hard, u can run the machine too", even though by now, that lie needed to die. The point is not to feel that if you are good, you can take the whip and have a few shots of driving slaves, the point is, at the very least, to STOP THE HARM, and stop anybody, even someone who looks like you or me, from taking up the whip.

now, allow me to comment on this:
"I would vote for Hillary because I think she's tough, good at negotiation, knows how to handle Republicans, knows the score, has been to the dance before, and knows the foreign leaders which gives her a heads up in handling foreign policy. She's experienced. There's a lot to be said for that. "

As far as negotiation, anyone who let Glass Steagall, The tecom act, or Nafta on board needs to have their skills questioned. We are still suffering from these, and yes, if Hillary was to come out affirmatively saying that the policies of the Bill Clinton era were wrong, I would bow to her. She has had more than a decade to do just that. What did we get instead, we got a war in Libya, we got war drums against Iran and Syria going full blast, and we got a support for her good friend (her words not mine) Musharaff, which is why even the Arab kids who love their I pods and Facebooks and Twitter hate us. If I am an experienced robber, I would do my job well, but would you want me to?

[dsc]

19. You do know who the President is

don't you? Hillary is responsible for executing Obama's foreign policy. BTW just what should she call Musharaff when we are asking him to help us, a fucking scumbucket?

[DonCoquixote]

23. actually,

why not just get the hell out of pakistan, soince we know damned well that both Musharaff and his rivals LIED to us while taking our aid. And frankly, Obama's foriegn policy is a perfect twin to Bill Clinton's...You think he is forcing her to threaten war with Iran and Syria, just like Bill did, despite her best wishes? People cannot have her be an amazon and a shrinking violet at the same time.

[Honeycombe8]

37. I stopped reading your post at the 1st sentence. It's clear you didn't understand my post.

Electing Hillary Clinton is NOT about furthering the cause of women.

It's a perk that she happens to be female and would break new ground. BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO VOTE FOR ANYONE TO BE PRESIDENT, and if she wins, she will win for the reason Obama won: Voters think she'll be a good President, and she's a heck of a campaigner with a good game on the ground. If she wins, she'll win for the same reason ANYONE wins the Presidency...even white men.

That Obama was half black was NOT the reason I voted for him for President. It's a perk that he was and that he broke new ground, and a ceiling was cracked. BUT THE FACT THAT OBAMA WAS A MINORITY WAS NOT A REASON TO VOTE FOR HIM, and I did NOT vote for him because of it.

That's what it's all about. Not having a screening device for race or gender or religion or whatever.

It really is someone who has a bias who sees Hillary or Obama as "furthering a cause." Someone who hasn't gotten with the program yet, hasn't risen above his/her own biases. Not saying you are one of those, and even if you were, it wouldn't make you bad.

[DonCoquixote]

40. I actually agree with you on some things

Just like I will not vote for a Rubio, or an Antoniom just because they are Hispanics. We need good people, and the basis of Good must be nothing more or less than clearly stated policies. Frankly, I could care less if Satan himself ran for office, if Satan promised to keep the FDR policies in place, and keep us out of war, I would be Lucifer 2016. What I complain about is that there are people who do want just that, who think that even if Hillary or (insert person here) ran and did things that any liberal would wince at, it would still advance the cause.

And I do nto think you are bad either. Frankly, when I argue on here, it is because I think the person on the other end has a shot oif hearing me; it's not like the teabagger relatives I do nto speak with, for I realize that speaking with them as futile at best, dangerous at worst.

Keep on Rockin in the Free World.

[ProSense]

7. Actually,

"Ask Cornell West how well having a Black President actually worked out for Black People. "

...ask me.

Will the Supreme Court Render the Fair Sentencing Act Less Fair?

(Also posted on ACSBlog.)

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) is actually only kind of fair. The passage of the 2010 law, which reduced the crack to powder mandatory minimum ratio in federal cocaine sentences from 100:1 to 18:1, was a significant step in the direction of fairness. While we applaud this change, we also look forward to the day when Congress adopts the actually fair ratio of 1:1. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on two FSA cases, Hill v. United States and Dorsey v. United States, both out of the Seventh Circuit. In these cases, the Court will decide whether people whose offense predates the enactment of the FSA but who were sentenced afterwards should be sentenced based on the old 100:1 ratio or the new 18:1 ratio. If the Court rules the wrong way, a sizeable class of people will be excluded from Congress’ attempt to restore fairness and racial neutrality to federal cocaine sentencing, and the kind-of-Fair Sentencing Act will become even less fair.

Congress created the 100:1 sentencing disparity in 1986. It left little legislative history behind, and it acted based on unsupported beliefs that crack is more addictive than powder cocaine, that it caused crime, that it caused psychosis and death, that young people were particularly prone to becoming addicted to it, and that crack’s low cost and ease of manufacture would lead to even more widespread use of it. Congress knows now that none of this is true. Indeed, as early as 1996, a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the physiological and psychoactive effects of cocaine are similar regardless of whether it is in the form of powder or crack.

The scientifically unjustifiable 100:1 ratio meant that people faced a minimum of five years imprisonment for offenses involving five grams of crack cocaine. Five grams is the weight of two pennies. That’s worth repeating: five grams is the weight of two pennies and resulted in a minimum of five years in federal prison. Most disturbingly, because the majority of people arrested for crack offense are black, the 100:1 ratio resulted in vast racial disparities in the average lengths of sentences for comparable offenses, and even meant that African Americans were serving a comparable amount of time in prison for non-violent drug offenses (as of 2006, an average of 58.7 months) as whites were for violent offenses (an average of 61.7 months). By the time Congress and the president took action to remedy this injustice by reducing the ratio to 18:1, the old ratio had become the most notorious policy representing the unfair treatment of African Americans in our criminal justice system.

Against this backdrop and in light of the FSA’s legislative history, it is clear that Congress intended the new ratio to go into effect immediately upon receiving the president’s signature. On this point, Attorney General Eric Holder agrees with us. This term, we’ll find out if the Supreme Court agrees as well when it rules on Hill and Dorsey.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/will-supreme-court-render-fair-sentencing-act-less-fair

Justice Is Served

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today

Then there is that little law that's going to benefit millions of African Americans.

HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523

Ask, the Harris sisters:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/03/10/kamala-and-maya-harris-on-obama-and-sisterhood.html

[Honeycombe8]

38. Obama wasn't elected to cater to one minority group. He was elected to represent ALL the people,

as well as the people collectively, and protect the country.

Included in that is protection and pushing an agenda that helps increase opportunities for poorer and middle class people, many of whom are black.

It's not Obama's job to be an activist for the black cause, any more than it would be Hillary's job to be an activist in this country for the women's cause, except to defend civil and privacy rights, like any other President should.

[cali]

8. what a crock of crap

Your post is pathetic.

[DonCoquixote]

10. ok

well, as HRC is likely to win in 2016, we will see. Do not be surprised if many women find that Hillary has no iontention of leading them up, save as means to polish her crown.

[BainsBane]

11. Right, we should stay in the kitchen

so that misogynists don't get upset by having a woman as president. Why should we be as advanced as Liberia, Brazil, or Pakistan by having a woman head of state. Let's stay in the dark ages forever, just to please the most idiotic in the nation. Nice try. I'm not falling for it.

[DonCoquixote]

17. No

There are plenty of women who I would see up there, Janet Napolitano, Kathless Sibelius, Gillebrand, but what I attack is this idea that getting Hillary will advance women. it may blow up, just as in many ways, Obama has blown up in our face.

[BainsBane]

18. What is particular about Secretary Clinton?

Or Obama. The right hates. That is who they are. Moreover, you don't specify why Clinton or Obama are unique, just that allowing women and people of color access to higher office will backfire.

[DonCoquixote]

21. why clinton and obama are unique

Becuase both of them talked as if they were going to go to war with the GOP, and then did the opposite. We do not know how a Liz Warren, or Kathleen Sibelious, Or Janet Napolitano, or Kristine Gillebrand, or any number of the hyper qualified candidates would act. We do know how Obama and Clinton would act, and did act, which is to say, they both sought to make "friends" out of the GOP, and chraged on despite being hated for it. When Clinton said that she would support MCCain over Obama, and when Obama ditched Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod, the sign was hung up: "we are open to screw over our base."

Now, let me clear something up:
"Moreover, you don't specify why Clinton or Obama are unique, just that allowing women and people of color access to higher office will backfire. "

Attem,tping to paint me as a bigot shows a lack of originaliity. If I need to list the tons of Afro-Americans, Women, or comibaintion of the two that would be great candidates in 2016, I glaldy will, actually, I already did some (especially Sibelius and Napolitano, two strong governors that managed to govern two very red states) I would love to see a Shiela jackson Lee or Maxine Waters demolish Jeb in a debate. Hell, as much as I have been frustrated with her at times, let's talk Nancy Pelosi. Let's talk Carol Mosely Brown. All of the people I have mentioned are solidly left of Obama and Clinton.

[BainsBane]

26. Blaming Obama and Clinton for the insanity of the hateful GOP

is absurd. I didn't paint you as anything. Your works speak for themselves.

[DonCoquixote]

36. ypou accused me of

not wanting women or black candidates, then I listed several of them, all of whom have thick resumes (especiall Napolitano and Sibelius) who would be GREAT PRESIDENTS and furthermore, GREAT CANDIDATES. I know that a trick of discussion is to accuse someone of bigotry around here at DU, do not get mad if I demolish that old line.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

12. Fuck Cornel West and the birthers. Both are equally as nutty... nt

[RiffRandell]

16. Exactly! n/t

[msanthrope]

13. "Cornell West" is a group of buildings...Cornel West is still upset he didn't get better tickets to

the first Inaugural.

[brooklynite]

14. And yet, despite all those criticisms, who got elected last year?

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Right now -and it's early- my preferred Candidate for 2016 is Elizabeth Warren.

Not because she's a woman, but because she's got the right attitude about the right things.

[lunatica]

22. Well fuck. Let's only fight for our rights when it's easy then

[DonCoquixote]

24. Just because Hillary is female

does not mean she will fight for your rights, she may bury them when it suits her.

[lunatica]

25. I said we. Yet I believe you're wrong

She's been fighting for women's and children's rights for decades.

[BainsBane]

27. Clearly you haven't paid attention to anything she has done

in the past four years, but please proceed.

[DonCoquixote]

35. like Libya?

Like supporting Muburak, like Pakistan? Like letting Bill sink Ashley Judd's run for the Senate?

again, I say this, if she comes out against NAFTA, against the telecom act, or for glass steagall, then I will be right next to you in the Hillary 2016 headquarters, with pizza and red bull. She is niot even SoS, so there is no excuse for her not to speak out, period.

[HappyMe]

28. She may not even run.

So I'm really not going to worry about this now.

[joeybee12]

29. It would...let's face it, those racist scum out there are the loudest, but

they're becoming more and more the fringe...the first in anything gets sh*t like that tossed at them.