Ending the White Male Monopoly of the Presidency

Lately, I have been troll-rated at DailyKos for saying, in no uncertain terms, that I do not believe Democrats should seek to elect another President of the United States in 2008 whose election perpetuates the 200-year exclusive white male monopoly of the American Presidency.       This white male monopoly was initially enforced with great brutality, including     slavery   and the legal status of women as virtual    chattel, while denying Blacks and women any and all formal participation in American Government.  

•  Tip Jar!

  by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:55:48 AM PDT

  •  not risky

    today?

    Teacher's name wasn't Ostrowski, right?

    by kindertotenlieder on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:10:09 AM PDT

    •  I would personally support Obama

      and not support Hillary.

      That has nothing to do with their race or gender but is my own, admittedly unprofessional, assessment of their electability.

      After the disasters that have been the recent Republican presidencies my own belief is that taking that party out of power is a moral obligation.

      If it means that this year, this time, the candidate who will dislodge them is a southern white male, Carter, Clinton, Edwards, and that is the political reality in which I live, I am going to support the candidate that can beat team red.

      I wish we could resurrect Barbara Jordan and run her, but while your diary is excellent, and raises many real issues, I would never support a candidate based on race or gender or both that I know would lose.

      I lived the McGovern campaign.  I don't want to do that again and I don't want to see another Nixon from our efforts.

      (And anyone who would troll rate such a well written diary is a poog.)

      by 7November on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:28:07 AM PDT

      •  P.S. please not Condoleeza Rice!

        As I thought back on this diary a bit more I just need to add.

        If we make the criterion only race/gender we face the prospect of a Condi campaign.

        That puts policy and the gender/race issues up against each other.  

        No, I would not vote for an African American Woman, as much as this nation needs to do that at some point, and damn soon, I would never vote based on that criterion above policy.

        I worked for Jackson in 88 after he won in Michigan and was chagrined to see the Blue Team essentially respond, quietly, to pick one of the white candidates to rally behind, assuming Jesse could not win.

        by 7November on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:32:40 AM PDT

        •  I worked for Jesse Jackson, too!

          And I remember the sense I had of waking up in a new and different world on the day when I discovered that Jesse Jackson had won the Michigan primary.  (Thank you for all of your efforts!)

          I wrote a diary a few weeks ago making it clear that when I advocate for electing a woman, I'm talking about a liberal Democratic woman.  But that pretty much should go without saying, because the premise of this site is that we are here to elect Democratic politicians.  That excludes a priori the likes of Condoleezza Rice, Ann Coulter and Elizabeth Dole.

          by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:57:48 AM PDT

          •  The day after the 88 Michigan primary

            That was really something wasn't it?  I'll never forget the feeling that day.  It seemed almost tangible that Jesse not only could win but would win the nomination.  The wins in the south had been almost expected, so they didn't carry the impact Michigan did.  Those of us working on the campaign knew a week out that we were going to do better in Michigan than the MSM was suggesting.  You probably remember they were all wrapped up in the story line of how it was going to be Gephart's last stand in the campaign.  The Jackson campaign was barely getting mention at all.  We knew better though.  They had me calling Jackson volunteers and supporters all over the midwest begging them to drop everything and come to Michigan immediately, because we were starting to find support in crazy places like Hamtramck.  We knew we were going to do well, we just didn't expect to win going away.  When that happened it was like the world was transformed overnight.  I don't think I'll ever have a higher high in partisan electoral politics than what we experienced that day.

            by ActivistGuy on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:25:29 AM PDT

            •  I remember Jesse Jackson's Michigan Win!

              I remember what I had for breakfast that morning and I remember the restaurant where I ate!  I remember reading the newspaper with a feeling of joy and vindication that I haven't felt since.  It was so powerful and historic.

              It led directly to the electoral success of the Clinton Admnistation in 1992, because Ron Brown became the Chairman of the Democratic Party and he united all of the Party behind Bill Clinton and ORGANIZED to create the conditions for Clinton's success.  

              Bill Clinton would surely say the same thing.  That's why Bill Clinton made Ron Brown Secretary of Commerce, bless Ron Brown's heart in great beyond!

              by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 12:48:52 PM PDT

            •  Absolutely... it was a great day

              I worked on Jackson's campaign. His win rekindled, if only briefly the real tangible hope that I had before the assassinations of Maritin and RFK in 1968, followed by the disgusting display by Daily's thugs both inside and outside the Democratic Convention that summer. I would love to feel that way again.

              I agree with another post that suggested that we need another Barbara Jordan type candidate.

              As it stands right now, I will vote no candidate who supports the Iraq invasion in any form, who supports discrimination against any group based on race, ethnicity gender, or sexual preference, or who supports the MCA.

              Using that criteria, Hilary doesn't get my support, while Obama will. He needs to stake out a stronger position on progressive issues. Catering to the right wing will lead to electoral failure. I don't buy FH's argument that an African-American has to pander to the right and right-center to win.

              by slatsg on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:48:18 PM PDT

          •  francislholland: a question for you...

            It true that there is an extremely low percentage of black membership here, and online in general.

            We cannot know for sure, but black membership on DailyKos is probably well under 5%.

            Another factor which seems pretty obvious: subjectivity. People  tend to see things from their own subjective point of view.

            We have a community in which the majority of members are of european descent. We're all human and therefore we tend to think subjectively.

            In such a situation, how can racial-identity and subjectivity not result in an aggregate problem of racial misunderstanding of the minority?

            As a black man, do you feel you're facing an un-level playing field here on DailyKos?

            by PaulGaskin on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:26:38 AM PDT

            •  I do feel that I face an unlevel playing field.

              Any institution in which a 95-98% white majority effectively decides what a 2-5% black minority is allowed to say is inherently unfair and potentially oppressive.  

              Studies show that black and whites have fundamental differences of opinion about justice and equality in America.  Black AND WHITES DISAGREE ABOUT OJ SIMPSON

              Whites often find outrageous the opinions that predominate within Black communities.  Therefore, if a white majority at DailyKos punishes "outrageous" comments, it will necessarily prevent many Black from saying anything at all of meaning here.

              The only solution to this problem in the near term is to recognize and accept that opinions do often differ, but that another persons right to express an opinion does not depend on whether I am pleased to hear it or not.  

              I have never and will never ask people to stop "whining" about the war in Iraq, because that would be deeply offensive and demeaning.  As such the peope who share with us day after day that they believe that the war in Iraq is fundamental should understand when I speak day after day about the need for equity and justice here at home as well.

              It is very difficult for us to put ourselves "in the shoes" of another, particularly someone who does not share our skin-color and gender, but we will never understand one another until we endeavor to do so.

              by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:58:40 AM PDT

              •  Potentially oppressive?

                Any institution in which a 95-98% white majority effectively decides what a 2-5% black minority is allowed to say is inherently unfair and potentially oppressive.  

                Is it possible that such a situation could be anything other than oppressive?

                It's true that we don't know each other's race online until it has been revealed.

                Regardless of this, the current demographic reality of the internet lends its self to racially-subjective group-think.

                by PaulGaskin on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:02:16 AM PDT

                •  DK need not be oppressive to minority viewpoints

                  DK becomes oppressive to minority viewpoints when others censor our speech because they dislike our points of view.  

                  The only solution to this problem in the near term is to recognize and accept that opinions do often differ, but that another persons right to express an opinion does not depend on whether I am pleased to hear it or not.  

                  SNIP

                  It is very difficult for us to put ourselves "in the shoes" of another, particularly someone who does not share our skin-color and gender, but we will never understand one another until we endeavor to do so.

                  I don't like all of the books in the library, but I do not feel an affirmative duty to read each book decide which ones express "acceptable" opinions, and then remove from the library the ones that are "unacceptable" or offensive.  

                  I read the authors I find useful and ignore the ones that I don't because I realize that libraries must have diverse holdings directed to everyone if they are to be useful to anyone at all.

                  There is a negative peice about US Senator Barack Obama on the diary list right now.  I frankly don't know whether it gets the facts right or not, but it could certainly be characterized as a "smear" if a smear is MISdefined as reporting negative information about a candidate and drawing negative inferences.  Of course a smear is actually reporting FALSE information about a candidate and drawing negative inferences.  

                  When I report factual information about candidates, people at DK become enraged, troll-rate my diaries, and accuse me of being a "shill", a "plant", an "idiot", "stupid" and finally a "monkey".  Yet, when others criticize Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, I don't see any troll ratings of those diaries no matter what the diaries say and regardless of whether the diaries offer any links or substantiation for their negative claims.

                  The reason is simple:  A site dominated by Gore supporters will have more defenders of Gore than it has of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  But is such a site a "Democratic site" or, at what point, does it effectively become a merely a "Gore supporter site"?  Or, in effect, a "White Males for President" site (since their supporters are more in evidence)?  It's not an accusation, but I think it's a question worth asking.

                  To be fair to other opinions, Gore supporters must be prepared to let Gore be factually gored, just as they are willing to sit and do nothing when Hillary Clinton and and Barack Obama are taken to task, using facts or calumnies.

                  by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 11:44:25 AM PDT

      •  Obama has done nothing

        ...so far, that I have seen.
        Murtha did something.
        Waxman has done a lot of things.
        Kennedy has done a lot of things.

        But Obama is pretty.
        Sorry, but we already have a pretty President.
        Look what it's getting us.

        by mcmullet on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 07:38:26 PM PDT

  •  Of course, Obama and technically Richardson

    would also end the white male monopoly on the presidency.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:35:06 AM PDT

    •  so would Nancy Pelosi. n/t

      by lcork on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:51:28 AM PDT

      •  If there were a "Draft Pelosi" movement at DK,

        then the insistence that DK members want "the best person for the job" would have a greater ring of truth.  

        The fact that all of the "draft" movements seem to be directed at white men convinces me that people's imaginations are, in fact, girdled and constricted by traditional notions of what women and minorities are "qualified" to do.

        by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:03:56 AM PDT

        •  well, my hope

          is that once the new congress convenes in January and starts doing their job of oversight, investigation, etc. that impeachment of the President and Vice President will propel Nancy Pelosi into the Presidency somewhat before 2008.  I really think that once the barrier has been broken one time - even through impeachment - the country will be a whole lot more likely to put a non-white-male into the position by election.  I feel a lot of hope that this by-product of impeachment would have the effect of shattering the stereotype once and for all.

          Of course, I'm often wrong about this sort of thing :(

          by lcork on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:20:10 AM PDT

        •  hey francis

          did you happen to see this?  http://www.pelosi2007.org/

          from PaulGaskin 's signature line!  maybe there is a Draft Pelosi movement at Dkos?  I'm off to read some more about this.  Bye!

          by lcork on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:48:34 AM PDT

          •  That's a great site!

            That's what we should be working for.  We can get rid of Bush and "elect" the first woman President all at once.  

            Of course, if Pelosi became President in 2007, all of us would work to re-elect her in 2008, without exception.  That's the way our democracy works.

            by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 12:40:13 PM PDT

    •   ... where ending "white male monopoly,"

      rhetorically, is the only end.

      by MarketTrustee on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:52:41 AM PDT

  •  Benefit of the doubt today

    If these are truly your personal experiences, then out of respect for your sister, I'll withhold your morning donut.

    Looks like others are doing the same.

    For tomorrow, I propose a challenge: why don't you write a diary about Hillary that has nothing to do with identity politics? Tell us about her accomplishments or leadership or somesuch.

    by Icarus Ascending on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:14:46 AM PDT

    •  I will do that if U agree to challenge all those

      who ridicule the resume qualifications that I present to them.  I have never presented a positive about my candidate without immediately being told that it was irrelevant.  For example:

      Unfortunately, many people here do no see any contradiction between rejecting Hillary for being DLC while supporting men who are DLC.  Although I cannot prove that the reason for this contradiction is gender-bias, I cannot find any other credible reason why this would be so.  I have a right to my opinion about this, even it others get angry at me.  Although people offer many reasons for opposing my candidate, I believe many of those reasons are a pretext for historical biases against women.  I don't present this as a fact, but merely as my personal opinion.

      This, in any case, would explain why people disregard the fact that while Hillary and Edwards both are DLC and IWR, Hillary has a resume three times longer than Edwards' and that, objectively, would make her more qualified than Edwards.  I have pointed this out many times, but people seem only to get angrier and angrier about it.

      Sometimes, speaking with DKers about my candidate reminds me of what it was like for Blacks to take a poll test in the Jim Crow South in order to register to vote.  No amount of information was sufficient because all of the information presented was summarily disregarded.

      by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:13:18 AM PDT

      •  Okay, that did it

        Announcing that dKossers are like Jim Crow Southerners for disagreeing with you. I really didn't want to feed you today, but you're really asking for it.

        Just so you get it...

        1. The Clintons have been the #1 torch-carriers for the DLC since 1990. Clintonian DLC-like tactics are widely credited with losing us both houses of Congress for 12 nearly-unbroken years. While Edwards may be a member, he's not the standard-bearer, and triangulation isn't his rhetorical calling card, leading us to...

        2. Edwards uses language reminiscent of "class warfare" ("two Americas"), indicating a mindset and value structure less than cozy with big business. This counteracts his DLC membership in a way that Hillary's soft-boiled rhetoric does not.

        3. Edwards has engaged in real outreach to the netroots, chatting, listening, writing diaries at this site. Hillary Clinton has made it her business to ignore the people-powered movement entirely.

        4. Though neither were as full-throated in their support for Lamont as many of us would like, Edwards at least sent out an e-mail to Connecticut Dems AND showed up to rally for the people's choice. Hillary, lacking any real conviction, just played it safe, giving Lamont a tiny bit of money while keeping her substantial profile out of it. Typical Instiutional Inside-the-Beltway crap.

        by Icarus Ascending on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:28:05 AM PDT

        •  can someone spare me a donut?

          this is once again the kind of insidious and unnecessary kind of rhetoric that has me convinced you are here ONLY to disrupt:

          Sometimes, speaking with DKers about my candidate reminds me of what it was like for Blacks to take a poll test in the Jim Crow South in order to register to vote.  No amount of information was sufficient because all of the information presented was summarily disregarded.

          emphasis mine

          to equate dKos folks with being JIm Crow supporters is beyond the pale.

          one more thing.  if dKos is 2 - 5% black, that does not make the remainder of dKos 95 - 98% white.  we do have latinos here and asians and pacific islanders and native americans.  but such a polar divide  5 vs 95 fits your shtick i guess, even though it does not correspond to reality.

          please someone lend me a donut.  

          _______________

          it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

          -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

          by dadanation on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 12:10:01 PM PDT

          •  I Tipped the Troll

            But only because his blatant racist and sexist hypocrasy in the midst of a denial made me laugh.

            by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 01:18:10 PM PDT

            •  do i say "thank you?"

              why keep perpetuating this unhelpful and divisive stuff?  sadly i can not find humor in his doublespeak.  

              _______________

              it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

              -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

              by dadanation on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 01:38:10 PM PDT

            •  1:45 pacific standard time

              and the diary is no longer accessible. taken down?  deleted?  dunno.

              and chapi -- >sorry for snapping like that at you (as i kinda did above).  it was uncalled for and i apologize.

              _______________

              it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

              -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

              by dadanation on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 01:44:07 PM PDT

              •  Perfectly ok

                I deserve to be spanked for tipping a troll.

                by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 03:22:14 PM PDT

                •  and and then spank me... and me too

                  naughty naughty zoot, bad bad naughty bad zoot.

                  lol.

                  nah, just taking it all in stride.  but what is odd is that now the diary is back up again. i am beginning to fear the diary is a phantasm... occasionally materializing for brief stretches  of time t then disappear in a moment.

                  _______________

                  it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                  -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                  by dadanation on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:04:23 PM PDT

                  •  I'm Thinking That

                    Francis is taking it down and putting it back up repeatedly so that he can claim vandalism.

                    by ChapiNation386 on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 10:36:42 AM PDT

                    •  i think you may be right

                      as the on-again-off-again diary premise is part of his axe to grind today.  as far as i know, nobody except site administrators can delete a diary  -- that is except for the author...  

                      this whole ride-the-pony game of chase is really starting to make me feel so enervated...  

                      _______________

                      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                      by dadanation on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 10:52:03 AM PDT

      •  Uprated to offset ratings abuse.

        Disagreement =/= troll rating.

        by cowgirl on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:42:55 PM PDT

        •  Ah, cowgirl

          In case you missed it, he basically said we're Klansmen. In realityland, we call that a "smear."

          FYI, your continued uprating of obviously trollish comments is a violation.

          by Icarus Ascending on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:01:55 PM PDT

          •  YOU'VE decided the diarist is a troll.

            You've decided to troll rate him when...when...whenever.  That's your perrogative.  It's also your perrogative to abuse troll ratings.  It's also your perrogative to get upset that I don't tip you, and accuse me of following you around because I don't tip you.  But it's my perrogative to stop people from silencing voices just because they disagree with them.

            The diarist didn't call us Klansmen - literally, "basically", or any other way.  He implied that talking about his candidate in diaries where people have labeled him a troll is like when black people had to take the poll tests.  And no matter what those black people said, the questioners didn't listen...like when the diarist talks about...well anything.  It sounded like an analogy to me.  But then, I'm talking to someone who thinks it's appropriate to call a poster an ass and then gets angry enough to TR the person who TRed him for lobbing that personal insult (isn't that a violation?).  I think that's trollish.  

            So, now I'll go back to not responding to you (so I won't need your email, but thanks anyway) and you can go back to being mad that I don't tip you and troll rating the diarist.  Oh, and here's a pony:
            
            Have a great day!!

            by cowgirl on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:50:41 PM PDT

            •  Beautifully stated, cowgirl...n/t

              by Annalize5 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:07:39 PM PDT

            •  What's funny is how...

              ...I, acting alone, have put 12 of francislholland's comments in the troll bin in the last 4 days...

              ...I, acting alone, have given francislholland 112 troll ratings since Monday...

              You see I, Icarus, user 101933, personally and acting alone, am so determined to "abuse troll ratings" that I have cleverly created a vast deception to effect the illusion that there is near-unanimity on the subject of francislholland's trollishness.

              The eye-popping, possibly record-setting 112 troll ratings since Monday do not, of course, reflect poorly on this troll in any way. They just how stupid and abusive everyone other than Cowgirl is. You see, there is one user and one user alone who knows how ratings should be properly employed. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the DailyKos Decider, user 63707, Cowgirl.

              by Icarus Ascending on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:16:46 PM PDT

•  For many

  persistence is a virtue.  For others...not so much.

  by MLDB on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:59:46 AM PDT

•  why don't you run for president

  instead of whining about it!

  by terrypinder on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:59:54 AM PDT

  •  But wouldn't a Francis Holland victory extend

    the monopoly of wacky narsassists in the White House?

    by Bouwerie Boy on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:08:08 AM PDT

    •  "narsassists". criminy! is that deliberate? n/t

      by MarketTrustee on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:46:41 AM PDT

      •  :-) n/t

        by Bouwerie Boy on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:51:08 AM PDT

  •  Most settle for electing someone to represent us

    I don't want to be President.  I just want to see a President whose election manifests the triumph of equality in America's democracy.

    by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:00:32 AM PDT

•  The Prez should be the best person possible

  no matter their gender/race/sexual orientation/whatever

  isn't putting the issue in terms of ending the white male's monopoly just as racist/sexist as being a priori against a black female president on account of race/gender?

  just asking, Francis

  by Lepanto on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:01:11 AM PDT

  •  That question assumes that woman is not the best

    The insistence that we cannot elect someone who is not a white man because we have to elect the best candidate assumes that a white man IS the best candidate.  I do not agree with that premise.  

    In my opinion, the best person for the job, regardless of gender, is not a white man in this instance.

    I do not want to elect any of the white men running precisely because I want to elect the best person for the job without giving preference on the basis of gender or color.  In this case, the best person is not any of the candidates who is a white man, in my opinion.

    by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:07:11 AM PDT

    •  No, that's what you're reading into

      what the OP said. The OP takes the correct position: we should vote for that person best qualified to run the country irrespective of his/her gender and/or race. By insisting that we must elect a nonwhite nonmale, you are indulging in the racism and sexism you accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of perpetuating.

      Can we say "self-referential incoherency," boys and girls? I knew you could!

      by musing85 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:25:25 AM PDT

  •  Well, if that's the criteria....

    How do you explain Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, Nixon and yes, even Clinton, who was by no means the best candidate available.

    FH has a point that minority and women candidates are dismissed too easily. His mistake is to use Hillary's banner to carry on the struggle. Pelosi, yes. Boxer, yes. Obama, yes. HRC, no.

    by slatsg on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:02:31 PM PDT

•  Are you saying that DailyKos is a racist or

  sexist site?  Isn't that the entire premise of your diary series?

  I suspect that one or more persons will troll rate me for relating these facts and experiences and for expressing my opinion about them.  DK Trusted users might even remove the tags to this diary, effectively preventing other users and the general public from reading it in the future.

  by SallyCat on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:02:32 AM PDT

  •  I agree with you, however

    unfortunately that has never been the case in the past and I see no evidence that it has become the case in the present.  Our presidential candidates ARE NOT judged equally regardless of the gender and skin-color.  

    It is certainly possible that candidates will run for our nation's highest office without ever mentioning that they are women or members of skin-color minority groups.  My own experience in America does not allow me to raise this issue without reflecting on its historical roots and the influence of skin-color and gender.  When that day comes when we have even elected even one President who is NOT a white male, then perhaps slowly we will begin to forget that women and blacks were once excluded by law from all participation in our nation's governance.

    by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:08:37 AM PDT

    •  The point is - raise your arguments and

      stop whining.

      Stop bashing the users and existing system. Present a case for how it should be approached from a grassroots electoral level up to the presidency. You are creating a hostile environment towards your writing. You have well documented information - that a lot of us know about from having fought for civil rights and equal rights. You blanketly assume that you are right and we don't know squat.

      So present you arguments, give us you proposed action plan, leave the HRC stuff out, and stop slamming the users of this site. Take a week or so off and let people regroup from your current round of bashing. We get fed up and don't put up with crap and insults. That's the way the site works.

      by SallyCat on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:12:46 AM PDT

      •  I'm puzzled by the diatribe against

        this guy.

        OK, he talks about himself in his diaries and whether he got troll rated yesterday.  So do others I've read.

        He's got main issue he talks about here - race.  How is that different than the gay focus diaries on the site or other specific issue diarists?

        He presents his commentaries with links and background info - I thought that was supposed to be 'linky goodness.'

        Yeah, sometimes his comments are meta - well that's not really unique to him either.

        Me, I found his comments today about the New Bedford riots interesting.  I'm more inclined to agree with the folks downthread who have said let't not elect people based on their color/gender...however, it sure would help to start out with more congressional representation that way, build up resumes, etc.

        So, overall, I like some of the diary, didn't like all of it.  Sameo stuff as the rest of dKos...what's the friggin' big deal?  Yes, I've perused his other material.  Geez, guys, move on.

        by lizpolaris on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:24:43 AM PDT

        •  Diatribe = attacks on DailyKos users and site

          He seems incapable of making his point without attacking the users attitudes and this site. When he's ready to write reasonably without tacking on attacks we'll reconsider.

          So...this old feminist who fought her way up the corporate ladder on merit will smack down these sexist diaries every day. The racism card is equally obnoxious and many of us have fought to get rid of discrimination. Let him make his arguments without the attacks.

          If he wants support for his cause - attacking dKos users isn't the answer. We are the boots on the ground and the new money game in politics.

          by SallyCat on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:32:46 AM PDT

          •  Agree the writing style could be improved

            and the defensiveness we could all live without.

            I'm a graying feminist also and I don't see this diary as sexist.  Saying that minorities and women are underrepresented in government doesn't seem sexist to me.  The statement 'don't vote for white men all the time' seems like a rhetorical overstatement to get attention rather than some evil intent.  I've sure seen rhetorical overstatement used a few times on the site.

            by lizpolaris on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:53:03 AM PDT

            •  I never said "don't vote for white men"

              I said, it is time to end the 43-term exclusive white-male monopoly of the US Presidency.

              I add to that this:  It is crucially important that we select the best person for the job, without discriminating on the basis of gender or skin color. In my opinion, the best person for the job is not one of the white men running, and so I can say that there is no contradiction in this instance between electing the best person for the job and electing a person who is not a white man.  In this case, the best person is not a white man.

              by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:11:19 AM PDT

              •  I would believe you Francis

                except you continually insert the race/gender card into your dissertations.

                Hence I find you to be disengenuous at best. What I find at worst I will refrain from mentioning in this post.

                by witchamakallit on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:39:36 AM PDT

                •  Race, gender

                  The most qualified African American woman for the presidency, right now, is Condoleeza Rice. With all due respect to those that want to eliminate racism and sexism in America, there is no way in bloody hell that she would get my vote.

                  To be fair, i wouldn't vote for Maxine Watters either, because there have been some corruption/nepotism issues in recent years that I find to be troubling.

                  That being said, i will vote for a white male liberal democrat (or even a moderate or conservative democrat) over a minority and/or female Republican every time.  

                  by Super Pretzel on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:52:25 AM PDT

                  •  We are only here about Democratic Candidates!

                    Lately at DK, whenever a diarist suggests that it might be useful to have a woman as President of the United States or on the US Supreme Court, after an uninterrupted string of 43 white male Presidents, some commenter immediately demands to know whether it would be useful for Ann Coulter or Condoleezza Rice to hold the Oval Office.  

                    In my opinion, this question is nothing more than a disingenuous debating device meant to distract readers from the real question, "Can DailyKos participants see any possible benefit to supporting the actual Democratic woman candidate who is running for the office over a Democratic male in 2008?"  The choice presented to us as Democrats is as between liberal Democrats who are actually running for the office.  This necessarily and obviously excludes Ann Coulter and Condoleezza Rice.
                    Intro
                    You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

                    Lately at DK, whenever a diarist suggests that it might be useful to have a woman as President of the United States or on the US Supreme Court, after an uninterrupted string of 43 white male Presidents, some commenter immediately demands to know whether it would be useful for Ann Coulter or Condoleezza Rice to hold the Oval Office. In my opinion, this question is nothing more than a disingenuous debating device meant to distract readers from the real question, "Can DailyKos participants see any possible benefit to supporting the actual Democratic woman candidate who is running for the office over a Democratic male in 2008?" The choice presented to us as Democrats is as between liberal Democrats who are actually running for the office. This necessarily and obviously excludes Ann Coulter and Condoleezza Rice.

                    URL:
                       http://
                    Label:
                       Image

                       * francislholland's diary :: ::
                    *

                    As the DailyKos FAQ says,

                       This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. DK FAQ

                    Since DailyKos is a Democratic blog, therefore in the context of the 2008 Presidential race, and as we discuss the Democratic candidates, it can and should be assumed that any discussion of the value of electing a woman President refers to a Liberal Democratic woman, the only one who has presented herself for our consideration thus far.  

                    No one at DailyKos is suggesting that we elect Ann Coulter or Condoleezza Rice as President.  That’s not the purpose of this site.  Therefore to constantly raise this faulty specter in the context of discussing the value of electing a Democratic woman is nothing less than a distracting and disingenuous rhetorical device unworthy of DailyKos Democrats.

                    And yet the inapposite and irrelevant questions and comments continue about Ann Coulter and Condoleezza Rice:

                       I tend to judge people on their positions (12+ / 0-)
                       Recommended by:
                       Malacandra, Donna Z, jfern, highacidity, besieged by bush, AaronBa, liberal atheist, Turkana, Arken, SundayHighway, MadGeorgiaDem, TheBlaz, righteousbabe
                       I'm not going to vote for or against someone based on the color of their skin or their sex.  Say, maybe I should prefer Condi over any of the Democratic candidates, since she's the only black woman even being discussed.  
                       by Delirium on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:02:26 PM PST Comment

                    Again, this is a Democratic site.  It can and should be assumed that, at this site, when discussing the value of electing a woman President, we are discussing the value of electing a liberal Democratic woman, the only one who is a candidate within our Party.  But look how many people recommended this comment that really is utterly inapposite as DEMOCRATS at DailyKos pick their Presidential candidate.  

                    As Martian Chronic commented yesterday,

                       I've actually had long arguments with francisholland about that very thing, and he acknowledged that . . . He wouldn't think that you were a racist for refusing to vote for Alan Keyes or Ann Coulter.    
                       by martianchronic on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:10:12 AM PST http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Is it sexist to repeatedly attempt to derail debate of this about electing a Democratic woman President with irrelevant and inapposite about Republicans?  It is very hard to distinguish whether that behavior is motivated by sexism or not.  

                    HILLARY AND THE DEBATE OVER SEXISM AT DK

                    by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:18:55 AM PDT

          •  THANK YOU!

            He's been accusing me of Sexism since I posted a comment on one of his diaries saying that I didn't care what the genital organs [gender] of the candidate were, I cared about whether or not they were going to take positions in line with my own.  

            The Diarist has then proceeded to respond to numerous responses (in the comments and in his diaries) that we have to vote on the issues of race and gender alone.  

            Sounds like sexism and racism to me, and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks that.

            by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 03:38:27 PM PDT

          •  So, should he ignore the racist comments directed

            at him?  And since when is the diarist the only one who "attacks" sexist comments?  
            Maybe it's just me, but if someone calls a black man a monkey (several times) after he's told everyone it's offensive to him because he is black, I think that earns him the right to be pissed off.  But that's just me.

            by cowgirl on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:52:22 PM PDT

            •  No,

              He shouldn't ignore the racist comment directed at him. As a matter of fact, the person that directed it at him has been banned. Many of us called for the end of that behavior. They.are.gone. There are still some problems here with bigotry and sexism and we will deal with it when it comes up.

              Can it be said that the comment should not have been made, but this does not justify the smear tactics used by the diarist at the same time (trying to tie the comment onto someone that didn't say it)?

              Can we say that both conditions can be true?

              Can we also agree that our choice in candidates is personal and if someone chooses someone francis doesn't like that it is a cheap tactic for them to imply that the person is racist or sexist if that candidate is not black or female--while at the same time saying they aren't doing this so transparently that it is obvious to someone older than 3.

              This country needs to have a minority/female/female minority president. I'm with him 100% on this, but I still don't like how he is going about this. It is starting to remind me of the SL battles and francis is good at sewing dissent instead of making a good argument.

              I think, in the end, people will see what francis is up to. It is always reflecting back we see how the battle got started. If francis was sincere we would see him behave differently. This is going to be one of those ugly battles that causes tempers to flare and pie to be thrown. I can feel it coming.

              I hope this time it is short and sweet because we have work to do and we'll look a lot more dignified without whipped cream all over our faces.

              by SeattleLiberal on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:43:33 PM PDT

        •  Read the diarist's body of work

          He's an unabashed supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton. No problem with that; this is a forum for the exchange of ideas and, if it comes to that, vigorous debate.

          The problem comes when people post arguments against putting HRC at the head of the ticket. The diarist's typical response is that the poster is [a] uninformed, [b] motivated by personal dislike of HRC (for the record, I hope she has a long and distinguished career representing New York in the Senate), or [c] applying one standard to her and a different one to the rest of the presidential field.

          And argument [c] is where he runs off the rails. He is saying in effect that people who don't want her nominated are either prejudiced themselves (he conflates race and sex discrimination) or unwilling to combat prejudice. And that offends many of us, myself included.

          The diarist would like to make history by putting someone other than a white male in the White House. I'd rather see the war in Iraq wound up, the dynastization of American politics come to an end, and control of the Democratic Party seized from the hands of self-appointed mandarins. HRC fails on all counts.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:48:12 AM PDT

  •  I'm not a racist, but.... I'm not sexist, but....

    I'm not homophobic, but....

    I see tons of racist, sexist and homophobic comments on this site every day.

    Unfortunately in our racist, sexist, homophobe culture, we all share a little bit of those evil germs. Trying to deny that you are at least a little bit all of those things, regardless of your race, sex, sexuality, etc. is a lie.

    And this site reflects it. Sad but true.

    The worst racist, sexist and homophobic comments are usually saved for our enemies. If you don't think you're sexist, have you posted anything about Ann Coulter lately? What did you say? What names did you call her? What do you think of Hillary Clinton? Not homophobic? What about Mary Cheney? What about Ted Stevens? What kinds of comments did you post or read about them?

    by carrieboberry on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:11:23 AM PDT

    •  Great observation

      We need to separate the "ism" from the "ist."  All of us are affected by what we call racism, sexism and homophobia, and sometimes perpetuate it with our comments, even if we are not ideologically committed racists, sexists or homophobes.

      by Colorado Luis on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:14:47 AM PDT

    •  I made comments about Barbara Bush

      in an open thread and George W.

      I don't recall having ever made a comment about the Bush twins, Mary Cheney, or other political children. I've never personally insulted HRC - politically yes. I did not and do not read those diaries that are hateful unless I accidentally find myself in the middle of one.

      I openly defend all positions here...unless they are attack positions. IF HRC wasnts to run for Pres - she needs to do it on merit - not because she's a woman. That's what those of us in the equal rights movement wanted then and now. Recognition on merit.

      by SallyCat on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:16:18 AM PDT

      •  Recognition on merit presupposes equality of

        opportunity.  I'm writing about the lack of equality of opportunity.  We have an opportunity to choose a president who will be a man or a woman, based on merit.  I'm writing about what we do with that opportunity and why, and whether we really do choose based on merit.  I don't think that we do.

        by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:36:41 AM PDT

        •  Write about - don't attack DailyKos users

          I'm going to sound like a broken record on your diaries until you get the point.

          So now you think that HRC didn't get there on merit?
          or Obama didn't get there on merit or Bill Richardson?

          Make up your mind.

          Write a diary on what needs to be done to elect a candidate. Pick on theme - focus on it daily. Don't keep adding extra issues...you're writing reads like a summary of a history book. Not a specific daily thesis.

          by SallyCat on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:42:03 AM PDT

          •  I hope Franics...

            I'm going to sound like a broken record on your diaries until you get the point.

            does exactly the same thing.

            by Annalize5 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:06:32 AM PDT

        •  So-Called "Benign Neglect" Lives Here....

          I am dismayed every time I see a pundit or a politico (like HRC) praise Moynihan to the rafters!!!  The current Supreme Court Case, the Political 'Ceilings', rank disinterest here to critical issues like the Voting Rights Act, Resegregation of America, and Latino and Indian Rights make clear to me that America's 'Long National Nightmare' on Race and Ethnic Equality of Opportunity is far from over, and will not get there by itself!!!

          by serrano on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:02:56 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          here you demonstrate insight on the conditions of "opportunity." and you've done so before.

          having been chastised myself about the quality of my written style, it hurts me to see commentary of your topics constantly degenerate to speculation about your motives. i understand that one doesn't always discover or present thesis in orderly fashion. indeed, there are times procedural rules are unnessesary.

          take care.

          by MarketTrustee on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:37:48 AM PDT

    •  Yes, and I also see

      a lot of people on this site who consider it their righteous duty to go around being "OFFENDED!!!" by totally run-of-the-mill comments that offend their highly sensitive Political Correctness radars.

      They tend to descend upon unsuspecting commenters who obviously mean no harm--commenters who have obviously done no harm--because they just can't pass up a chance to be "OFFENDED!!!"

      It gets tiresome pretty quickly.

      by Icarus Ascending on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:34:24 AM PDT

    •  I Call:

      Ann Coulter a delusional lunatic in need of psychiatric evaluation.

      Hilary Clinton a person who voted for the Iraq war.

      Mary Cheney a person who I have no opinion of besides intense disagreement with who she supported for President/Vice President in 2004.

      Ted Stevens an old man whose 250 million dollar bridge to nowhere is an indictment of the current corruption in the US Government.

      And I call Francis L Holland an intellectually dishonest racist sexist sophist who devotes his time and energy to schilling for Hilary Clinton and insists that if you don't vote for Candidate-XY you are obviously a sexist/racist white liberal male who hates any and all minorities.

      by ChapiNation386 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 03:45:43 PM PDT

  •  I'm not making broad generalizations, but facts

    I am not drawing broad conclusions from the fact that people have called me "monkey" in comments while half a dozen other people tipped those comments.

    Nor am I drawing broad conclusions from the fact that only 2% of DailyKos participants are black, even though the Democratic Party has as much as 50% black participation in primary states.  

    I do think, however, that these issues are worth discussing and addressing.

    by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:13:47 AM PDT

    •  Who called you monkey

      Name them or post the link.

      You know what, if I were a republican, and wanted to sow discord on this site just to be destructive and cynically pretended to actually be a Hillary Clinton supporter but wanted to "foment" discord and turn away people from this site, I would do exactly what you are doing.

      by bam bam on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:18:27 AM PDT

      •  He was called a 'monkey'

        by someone highlighting his mischeivious nature, which I can see you've spotted yourself.

        He cried racism, to which everyone was like "uh... we have no idea what race you are"

        So now he sticks that photo at the top of every diary.  This guy is a riot.

        by BleedingKnuckleLiberal on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:25:49 AM PDT

        •  A Lot of the Outrage Here, I Think

          stems from the fact that people don't really want to confront the issues of race.  This guy is an admittedly imperfect messenger, but he raises issues that are relevant and should be considered on their merit, not by demeaning him and seeking to discount any credibility he might have.

          I thought DKos was above 'Swiftboating'!!!

          I found his story about New Bedford, w/which I have some familiarity, to be very, very moving.  This is an instructive personal story.

          Cape Verdeans are very interesting folks.  One of my early Mentors and Heroes was a guy named Charley Fortes, who came up in the Union on the docks of New Bedford.  He was one of the most dedicated, tough, smart, and compassionate individuals I have ever known.  

          DKos, methinks thou dost protest too much!!!!!

          by serrano on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:09:03 AM PDT

          •  It's really not

            It's that dKos users suspect that francislholland is a troll posing as an HRC supporter who is here only to sew the bitter seed of intra-blog warfare. If you read his past diaries/comments, it's a pretty compelling conclusion. He has resisted all encouragement to prove otherwise.

            And in ANY event, TRing BleedingKnuckleLiberal just for requesting that a suspected troll confirm his identity constitutes rating abuse, and I'm TRing in turn.

            Remove yours and I'll remove mine ASAP.

            by Icarus Ascending on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:23:27 AM PDT

          •  I long...

            for a series of constructive diaries on race and the Democratic party.

            by BleedingKnuckleLiberal on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

            •  I Would Truly Love to See It

              I have been mightily frustrate at what seems to be a distinct lack of interest here in what I consider to be a huge barrier to the dream of equal opportunity in our country.  It's a set of issues that has done much to define my life and efforts.  

              Just seemed like your comments were harsh.  I'll rescind TR.

              by serrano on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:27:27 AM PDT

              •  thank you :-) n/t

                by BleedingKnuckleLiberal on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

        •  I'm actually glad

          about the picture. Even though I have a male cousin named Frances, I just assumed he was a woman. Not dutch, but definitely female.

          by mbair on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:19:26 AM PDT

        •  That isn't exactly true.

          He disclosed his race in a comment.  3 hours later, downthread, stardate called him a monkey for the first time.  Francis reminded stardate that he was black and that calling him a monkey was racist.  stardate continued calling him a monkey.  Then, Mr Bula joined in, also after knowing the diarist's race.  

          So, you may not have know what race he was, but those two did.  You don't support racist comments on dkos, do you?
          
          stardate (It's a great picture, [slur redacted]. You have no sense)
          Mr Bula (you still said it, you fork-toungued [slur redacted])

          by cowgirl on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:10:37 PM PDT

          •  Why would you think I do?

            Odd question.  

            I would presume you already know the answer is 'no', so your motivation for asking the question is interesting.  You don't support divisive obsessional narcissistic trollish diaries, do you?

            by BleedingKnuckleLiberal on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:17:50 PM PDT

            •  Some people rec racist and/or sexist comments.

              Yes, it's true.  Sometimes they do it under the guise of "free speech".  Some want to 'reclaim' the most offensive slur in the English language (for free speech!) which has never had anything but a evil, hateful meaning...which makes me wonder why they'd want to reclaim it/use it.  

              So, I was genuinely curious about whether you thought it was appropriate to call a black man a monkey after he repeatedly said that he was black and that it was offensive and racist.

              As for your question, my answer is no.  But, I don't happen to think this diary is divisive, obsessional, narcissistic, or trollish.  Obviously, YMDV.  

              by cowgirl on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:35:01 PM PDT

              •  Taken as whole

                I think the diary series fits all of those adjectives.  Narcissistic is a new one, but I gotta say I've never seen a guy kick off all his diaries with a captioned self portrait before.

                The one thing I wasn't sure of is if he knew he was being trollish.  Actually, the more I read through his stuff, the more I suspect he doesn't know.

                That means I'm less annoyed than I was.  I thought this guy was some performance-art type guy just looking to stir stuff up, and maybe blog about his "adventures on DKos" elsewhere.  Now I think he's just being himself.

                So I'm gonna leave him to it.  There'll be another diary tomorrow I'm sure, written in the same tone as all the rest.  I'm gonna leave it to others to TR or not, as they see fit.

                I'm outta here!

                by BleedingKnuckleLiberal on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:53:25 PM PDT

                •  I think I'm outta here too.

                  I only continued to read his diaries because I thought he was getting treated unfairly, but that seems to be letting up.  There are finally some good non-2008 diaries floating around, so I'm going to read some of them!

                  PS - civility appreciated.

                  by cowgirl on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 06:59:42 PM PDT

      •  Stardate did on multiple occasions

        stardate

        stardate

        Mr. Bula called me epithets that were stricken from the comments by TU's before I could see them. But they were referred to in comments that are visible.

        by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:26:17 AM PDT

      •  Respond to Repub's by calling them "monkey"?

        Even if I were a Republican, that hardly seems like a rational response, and it seems like a strong way to discredit Democrats, calling people "monkey" because you don't like their diaries and comments.

        by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:29:05 AM PDT

        •  help. link trouble

          your personal story about your older sister being killed really upset me.  and i followed the link to the site you provided about this tragedy only to find the link took me to boston (a brief article in the harvard crimson) to fill me in on a black panther march in support of bobby seale.

          perhaps you mixed up a link here?

          _______________

          it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

          -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

          by dadanation on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 12:17:17 PM PDT

•  well, I don't think non-white-maleness should be

  ...an excluding factor for serious consideration for nomination.  I'd say it's more significant that probably 30+ percent of the Democratic "base" is non-white, and of course a majority of the base is female.  So, exclusively nominating white males is pretty non-representative of who Democrats actually are.
  Obviously we should run someone we think can win, and someone who represents progressive/liberal values well, and I don't think we should shut out candidates just because "swing voters won't go for a woman/black/hispanic/asian/jew/etc."  Accomodating prejudice helps perpetuate it.
  Is there some risk involved?  Sure.  But people admire political courage.  And we should be willing to take risks if we hope to achieve great rewards.

  by megaplayboy on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:03:36 AM PDT

  •  Agreed and highly recommended!

    I couldn't have (and never have) said it better!

    by francislholland on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:10:20 AM PDT

•  Does anyone think we ever get "the best man"?

  by Grant Caesar Peters on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:05:51 AM PDT

•  *

  

  by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:05:56 AM PDT

  •  Francis Holland has some very real concerns.

    I don't think he's trolling at all.

    I'm unfamiliar with him but he has some very valid points in this diary and the previous one in which he was called a monkey.

    by PaulGaskin on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:08:02 AM PDT

•  Outside of Obama, name one Black Candidate