Women always come in Second

Someone had to say it.

But that being said, I heartily congratulate Obama's win. He does represent the least of us which is the most (majority) of us.

I  believe it is time for the empowerment of those of us who have been oppressed, suppressed and bullied our WHOLE lives.

Obama is a Win Win in so many ways!

Now we need to protect and really respect each other so that we make it to the Oval Office.

I have often said that without real equality  of all people nothing will ever change. Getting Obama (or HRC) into the White House will be a Big Historical Step in making equality a reality, finally.

The rise of the least of us (which is the most of us) in the political arena will be difficult to maintain if we continue to attack each other with demeaning slurs, and they've only just begun. Once the Republicans factor into the picture, after November, we will be in the fight of my lifetime and yours. You ain't seen nothing yet.

We've seen in the past how the good, JFK, MLK, have been quieted. This is where my PROTECT concern comes into play. We need to rise above the race baiting, the slurs and the threats that will come, I believe, from beyond the Democrat tent. Yes, even more than what we've already seen.

I suggest ignoring the ignorant hateful diaries that will flow on to this site and not encouraging them by responding with more negativity.

As excited as I am with the rise of Obama and the wondrous possibilities and all the doors that will be unpadlocked, it also worries me.  

So Women we know our job- nurturing and caring for our men, standing strongly beside them when they are doing good. Let's get in that White House one way or the other!

•  win win tips

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:44:43 AM PDT

•  Can Obama choose a woman?

  a Hispanic...another minority?

  Let's be honest, here...the main reason Senator Clinton got beaten so badly last evening is that she was willing to allow the men on her team to take the lead in getting negative. When she did that, she lost ground.

  by MrMichaelMT on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:48:34 AM PDT

  •  Let's hope so and Bill needs to stay out of

    the arena.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:58:05 AM PDT

    •  Bill can't

      He's a junkie. He's so addicted he can't, even though he knows it would be good for him. That's the problem. And the American people are seeing he won't leave her alone in the White House, either.

      by MrMichaelMT on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:10:13 AM PDT

  •  Rumors of Sebelius

    Rumors today that Kathleen Sebelius will endorse him on Tuesday, the governor of Kansas. She would be a strong VP possibility for him.

    by mishar on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:44:59 AM PDT

    •  Enough electoral votes?

      The math always counts. Byron Dorgan, one of the smartest senators in the country, never has a chance of getting a VP nod.

      by MrMichaelMT on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:01:00 AM PDT

•  Elections are about the voters.

  So far, the voters in five states out of fifty have made a preference known.
  Though we can't expect the lazy scripted national media to pay attention to the real process, it would be good if the netroots did.

  by hannah on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:52:46 AM PDT

  •  Yes.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:58:33 AM PDT

•  Ask Neil Kinnock.

  by bugscuffle on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:52:47 AM PDT

•  Always?

  Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, and Billie Jean King are just a handful of those who would quarrel with your title.

  Every group always comes in no better than second until  one of them wins.  To date, America has had no female, black, Hispanic, Jewish, atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Native American, homosexual, or transgendered President.  That does not mean that by default, any of those groups always come in second, or that this nation is not perfectly capable of electing the right candidate from any of those groups.  Not even to say that Sen. Clinton is the wrong candidate.

  by Jay Elias on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:53:37 AM PDT

  •  Those women were shredded to pieces in

    many ways also.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:03:54 AM PDT

    •  Sure...

      ...what national leader isn't?  (I assume you don't really mean to include Ms. King, who wasn't ever really shredded)  

      I mean, was the world so kind to John Kennedy, to Tony Blair, to Yitzhak Rabin?  Hell, was the world so nice to Bill Clinton?

      If you do just about anything in this world, someone is going to come after you, and the more you do, the more people will take their shot.  No matter what gender you are.  Again, not to suggest that gender isn't a major issue that Sen. Clinton has to overcome, or that it wasn't a major issue for all the other women I named.  But the fatalism here is what I take issue with.  Certainly, it would be very possible and still is that Sen. Clinton could well be the next President of the United States.  History is not written before it happens, and certainly not by gender alone anymore than by race alone.

      by Jay Elias on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:11:01 AM PDT

      •  Good points but

        the road seems too long sometimes. And sometimes a short cut makes sense. I'll go the distance with Hillary but if Obama wins it won't be difficult for me to support him.

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

        by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:15:54 AM PDT

        •  I agree...

          ...if you didn't see it when it first came out, you might want to check out Kerry Howley's op-ed in the NY Times about Hillary's candidacy as a former First Lady.

          I am largely indifferent to who wins the nomination.  But certainly, if it is a woman or a black man, that will have huge significance and value beyond anything either individual candidate has to offer.

          by Jay Elias on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:18:42 AM PDT

  •  Hillary did win a few states, as well.

    And she's still leading in most, if not all February 5th states.  Nobody should think this is over.

    by cjallen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:06:08 AM PDT

    •  I think its far from over

      but I will happily support either or.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:07:42 AM PDT

  •  i thought at least one of them was homosexual

    and surely most of them did not truly believe in God.

    by rontripp on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:25:39 AM PDT

•  You make a good point Roseeriter.

  The Neo-cons are not going to go away anytime soon.  They spent 20 or more years building up this movement to control the power of the World. No matter who our candidate is, we are in for the fight of our lives. And above all, we don't know what Bush will do with the time he has left. We need to be spending our time watching and investigating every move he makes. If the repubs. cannot win by popular vote, they will try to win by any means possible. Expect Fear.

  by Owllwoman on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:59:09 AM PDT

•  what

  by alextmw on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:02:29 AM PDT

•  Don't blame misogyny for Clintons' bad moves

  lately.  Obama is catching up to her nationally and a large part of it is the way the Clintons -- Bill and Hillary -- have run their campaign.  Particularly how Bill has come across in the press lately.

  I have been leaning Hillary and frankly, after seeing Bill comment pointedly last night "Well -- Jesse Jackson won South Carolina"... I am getting increasingly turned off.  That is so clearly an attempt divide the 2008 contest along racial lines.

  Yes, "the Republicans can and will do worse".  I know that.  But we are longing to elect a candidate whom we can actually admire.  The above is NOT admirable behavior... it flies in the face of what we articulate as Democratic values.  

  If Hillary and her campaign do not take a higher road in their quest for the nomination, I am switching to Obama.  They are both excellent candidates for the presidency, and it does matter to me to choose the one whose conduct (and by extension, whose campaign's conduct) has been more admirable and less shameful.

  by Torta on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:02:41 AM PDT

  •  I'm concerned about Bill's interference also

    Things could be very different if he removed himself and let her be just Hillary.

    Women often do better when they get that man out of their lives.. lol

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:06:28 AM PDT

    •  Not to be contrary for its own sake....

      ...but do any of us know her well enough to say that her choosing to involve Bill isn't her being "just Hillary"?

      by Jay Elias on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:12:52 AM PDT

      •  I don't know, two heads are better than one?

        I'm not a politician, but there probably is some kind of strategy. One thought is to get OBAMA in the lead so he gets more of the scrutiny. And you know that's coming.

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

        by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:19:01 AM PDT

        •  I am simply saying...

          ....that whether her choices are good or bad, we have no reason to suspect they are not her choices.

          by Jay Elias on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:21:22 AM PDT

          •  true enough.

            "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

            by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:22:41 AM PDT

        •  I think you're missing something important

          HC, in the debate, got booed when she went just a little too far over the line with Obama.  She was pushing, but she pushed harder than she should have.  Then the attacks on Obama directly from her dropped off, and Bill started attacking him with increasingly hostile rhetoric.  She clearly planned to go on the attack with him from the beginning, but realized she couldn't push it too far, and when she tried to do so anyway through a surrogate, her campaign got slapped down in a major way by voters.

          This was exactly what happened in New Hampshire to Edwards and Obama after they attacked her in New Hampshire, except this time Edwards was smart enough not to get caught in the middle of it.  Didn't help him much, but didn't hurt him either.

          Clinton's strategy this week was inherently sexist: she put the man front and center to be the attack dog and tried to appear more diplomatic and nice.  

          Last week, I had just started viewing Clinton more favorably when suddenly all this crap came up and now I'm really glad she got trounced.  

          by juliewolf on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:26:47 AM PDT

          •  I don't think anyone missed that

            that's why she did so badly last night.
            I personally don't know or can only imagine the friggin' guts it takes to put oneself in that arena for good or for bad.

            Regardless, there are other reasons to keep hoping for a bigger picture to emerge that is better than the real status quo.

            "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

            by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:34:24 AM PDT

          •  I've found my own voice, and his name is Bill...

            by ben masel on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:56:02 AM PDT

            •  lol- I'm your puppet' song comes to mind

              "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

              by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:11:52 AM PDT

  •  A physician friend of mine had lived and

    worked in upstate New York when Hillary stomped Lazio.  He remembers fondly how she was intelligent, yet down to earth.  She visited schools and hospitals and many people commented on how she seemed to be a person to whom they could truly relate.  Although I am guilty of spouting off myself, primarily due to frustration with the administration, I do think the level of discourse needs to rise.  Save the barbs for the Republicans.

    by Habanero on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:00:50 AM PDT

•  this bothers me

  "So Women we know our job- nurturing and caring for our men, standing strongly beside them when they are doing good. Let's get in that White House one way or the other!"

  are you saying Obama would be good for us and we should support him? because if you remember the debate, there were a couple of times during the sit down/discuss part where he had no prob supporting race issues, but seemed to forget about gender. it took Hillary to remind him . . .  

  i'll vote for him if he gets the nod, but if you think i'm going to stand strongly beside him (and nurture/care), you are wrong. i'll be challenging him to remember that i exist. as much as i don't think he's the strongest for the job, i do think that America will vote for him over a woman. it's a man thing, ya know ;) and it does nothing for our ceiling.

  bottom line, Obama may be your win/win, but i'm not so sure he's mine. but i will support him, convinced or not in the GE.

  by nycstray on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:10:19 AM PDT

  •  That statement is some of my

    sour grapes that Hillary didn't win last night.

    But I like Obama a lot too.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:20:27 AM PDT

•  Ann Richards would have been perfect

  I scanned the comments looking to hear of some possible VP candidate...but didn't see any names.

  It has to be somebody in the Ann Richards mold, smart and able to kick back quick come debate time.

  Molly Ivins used to talk about all these excellent Texas mayors, but I just don't see a big name on the horizon.

  Geraldine Ferraro was a "who is that" moment.

  Who would you suggest as potential VP considerations?

  by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:38:25 AM PDT

  •  Maxine Waters comes to mind.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:42:49 AM PDT

    •  The key is "balance" and "teamwork"

      Is the Arizona Governor pretty popular? (can't spell her name, barely got Ferrarro rite)

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:51:43 AM PDT

      •  Napolitano.

        Fam must be from Naples.  I like The Michigan Gov, but she was born in Canada.  Napolitano is pretty conservative, or so I've heard.  A lot of Obama supporters like Sebelius, of Kansas, but she is also pretty conservative.  I think it's a moot point- I think Daschle has been their guy all along, with a plan to run strong in the Dakotas.

        by cjallen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:02:31 AM PDT

        •  DAKOTAS?? Damn?

          The Montana Farmer Senator Crewcut would be more valuable, doncha think?

          by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:06:46 AM PDT

          •  I'd rather put someone on the ticket

            who is either from a safe seat, or who is currently not holding a seat which we'd have to defend.  And we do pretty well in Congressional races in the Dakotas, and Barack already has organization there, so it's realistic.  You know that among the counties in Iowa that voted strongest for Bush, the ones that border South Dakota are included, and Obama won those solidly in the caucus.  It's because of Daschle's people, I'd bet.  Daschle's old staff are working for Obama.  He's from a red state, which Obama will campaign in (or so he's said), wouldn't leave a seat that'd have to be defended, and has a lot longer federal record than Obama.  He'd be a good pick.  I'd rather he pick Edwards, who is also from a red state and wouldn't leave a seat open (and who has a very different kind of appeal than Obama, which I think would be good), but I don't get to choose the running mate.

            by cjallen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:14:50 AM PDT

            •  Napolitano brings a lot of interesting things

              to the campaign, including a proven ability to win in a red state, a chance to connect with Western voters, the opportunity to patch up with women voters, and a continuance of the change theme.

              Daschle, on the other hand, is damaged goods.  Not only did he lose his most recent election, but for years as Senate Minority and then Majority Leader he came to symbolize Democratic Liberalism.  Conservatives really don't like him at all.

              Liberals remember his inability to stop the Iraq war, and we don't like him much either.

              As far as change is concerned, well, he looks like more of the same old, same old.

              by litho on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:45:55 AM PDT

              •  Yeah, Napolitano is popular in Arizona

                a purple state, as it's congressional delegation proves.  She'd kick McCain's ass.  I hope she does.  The big thing preventing her from being the rnning mate- rumors she's a lesbian.

                by cjallen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:50:03 AM PDT

                •  Is she?

                  If she is, it might be too much on the ticket for one year.

                  If she's not, we can deal with rumors.

                  by litho on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:55:07 AM PDT

                  •  ?

                    Don't know.  Ann Richards couldn't deal with the rumors effectively enough.

                    by cjallen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:02:09 AM PDT

                    •  The convention is a long way away

                      If Obama builds up enough of a groundswell between now and then, maybe he could take a chance on a lesbian as running mate.

                      As it is, we're already asking the American public a lot when we put up a black man (or a white woman) for president.  Asking for a homosexual on top might be a bit much.

                      by litho on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:36:43 AM PDT

              •  Cheif of Staff maybe for Daeshle, but NO losers

                fresh faces, new ideas....And Cheneys daughter broke through the LBGT ceiling, right??

                by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:49:00 AM PDT

    •  I'm thinking of a woman in a Red State

      type balance, a Sandra Day O'Conner type background.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:55:38 AM PDT

•  Nancy Pelosi

  is one reason why I don't care if it's a woman or a man in the white house.  Here's a woman who had an opportunity to do something with the power - and has failed miserably - at least from a democratic perspective.  

  by sunsquared on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:50:49 AM PDT

•  Obama is very impressive

  I am still studying the field, and undecided, mind you, but he is quite impressive. My main concern is that he frequently punts on issues.

  We owe it to all candidates to assess them as fairly as we can (given that what the mainstream media allows us to see is sometimes not fair or representative). We must also be watchful of our rhetoric, lest it give encouragement to folks who are looking for an excuse to engage in violence.  I am old enough to remember some wonderful voices cruelly silenced in the past. It's time for America to become "the grownup" in this and subsequent campaigns.

  by Deep Harm on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:59:56 AM PDT