Geraldine Ferraro recently made some scurrilous, divisive comments that instantly reminded me of the post-civil war schism between abolitionists and feminists.

Here's what Ferraro said:

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

As I was surfing the news this morning, I came across this article whose title just says it all:

Bush officials: Congress irrelevant on Iraq

The article is from the Army Times, not exactly one of your radical news outlets.

The sad thing is that the title grabs me because it's pretty much true, despite the fact that so many people worked so hard to make it otherwise.

I have been watching and occasionally reading some of the candidate diaries and I'm wondering if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton have said anything that would indicate that they intend to do anything about prosecuting Bush, Cheney or any of the other members of the administration that richly deserve an opportunity to account for their actions before a court of law.

Last week I was working up material for a letter to Nancy Pelosi on the impeachment issue, some of which I diaried here. I wrote a bunch of letters that said what was on my mind but I couldn't use because they were too snarky or lacking in concision. On the other hand, I enjoyed writing them.

I was thinking that probably a lot of other folks around here had either written or had thought about writing such letters.

I'll share one of mine below the fold; if you've got a back stock of snark or things that you have always wanted to say to Nancy Pelosi but restrained yourself, go ahead and post it in the comments.

Back in the 60's when I was a kid, I remember a lot of talk about the Democrats being "soft on crime." I remember people telling me that if the Democrats were elected in 1968 that the country would go down the tubes because criminals were out of control, the cities were unsafe and the Democrats (who at the time had the presidency and large majorities in the legislature) were either unwilling or unable to do anything about it.  

Forty years later, the Democrats were voted into the majority in both houses of Congress to stop a crime wave perpetrated by the Bush administration. Some Democrats are willing and even eager to do what they were elected to do.

Sadly, the Democratic leadership, with Nancy Pelosi running the show, is unwilling to try to do anything about these crimes.

I was watching the PBS Newshour the other night and they had former Senator David Boren on to talk about the Billion Dollar Baby Club's plans for the 2008 elections.

Waaaahhh! David Boren says we have polarized politics and partisan gridlock.

The problem with partisan politicians in Washington is not that they cannot agree, the problem is that they are unwilling to listen to their constituents.

The other day some folks visited Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY, member of the House Judiciary Committee) at his office to ask him to support Rep. Robert Wexler's call for impeachment proceedings to commence. I wanted to send him an email, however he does not accept emails from constituents outside his district.

I will snail-mail a version of this; however, the Electronic Frontier Foundation says on its contacting congress page that it may take as much as 3 months for postal mail to reach a congressperson due to homeland security measures. So, I figured I'd post it here in hopes that Mr. Nadler may perhaps see it while Homeland Security is reading it, cataloging my views and cross-referencing them with my grocery bills to see if I support impeachment and eat falafels.

If there's somebody in Nadler's district that would like to pass on a link to this by email click here. Or, if you feel moved you could call him at 202-225-5635 or write him at 2334 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Here's a little ditty for you and the family to sing around the Christmas Tree. Y'all know the tune, Santa Claus is Coming to Town; belt it out and have some fun, sing it on your neighbors porch - enjoy!

Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC is a man in a hurry to help big corporations consolidate their hold on the major media and drive smaller players out of the market.

Yesterday, Martin and his Republican associates on the commission did the dirty deed in behalf of their corporate masters:

Despite warnings from Congress and media watchdog orgs, the FCC voted 3-2 on Tuesday to approve chairman Kevin J. Martin's landmark proposal loosening the ban on newspaper-broadcaster cross-ownership and allowing companies to own both a newspaper and TV station in the nation's top 20 markets. link

A friend of mine told me about a conversation he overheard between two coworkers about a restaurant one of them had visited, the one said to the other, "the food was lousy and the portions were too small."

Think about that for a second. (taps foot... but not like Larry Craig)

It seems to me that the comment that she made may be applicable to another conundrum that's been bugging me lately.

"The Democrats in Congress are spineless, useless, strategically challenged, bought off by corporations, etc. - and there aren't enough of them."

Robert Wexler is making the case for putting impeachment on the table, and he makes a good argument.

Here's the link to the Palm Beach Post article.

Some excerpts follow below the bump:

A lot of importance in life is attached to being in the right place at the right time and doing the right thing then and there. They say to everything there is a season.

Is it now the season to press serious investigations, prosecutions and maybe even impeachment of the Bush administration even if it means causing controversy?

Yes.

Want to know why? Follow me over the bump...

A lot of virtual ink has been spilled about how the controversy over the immigration issue benefits Democrats. If framed correctly, the immigration issue could benefit progressives and, should the Democrats take up a progressive view of immigration, pull in lots of independent and even some Republican voters.

Intrigued? Walk this way...

Newsflash
Gog News Service
December 6, 2007

In wake of NIE, Bush announces new Iran policy

WASHINGTON - In an early morning announcement today, President Bush outlined a new set of demands for Iran, prompted by the release of a new NIE this week which stated with high confidence that Iran had ceased its programs to build a nuclear weapon in 2003.

It appears that an economic muckstorm is about to hit the American people, one that will likely hurt most Americans, but may have outsized effects on the middle class, while the rich and well-connected will lose only "paper value." It appears that the sources of this muckstorm are related to deregulation, the lax oversight of regulators and the blatant crony corruption of the Bush administration. This economic muckstorm may wind up having effects far beyond everybody losing some money/value, it may also rearrange our political system.

Follow me over the jump...

America is at what I think is an historical tipping point. It's sort of like a turning point, but on the edge of a precipice. There's a long way to go down, but we can get to the bottom pretty quickly from here.

I've been listening to the candidates natter on about change and I began to think about the kind of change that we need. In the last 20 years or so we've had escalating political and economic realities that amount to radical CHANGE.

Over the past couple of days I've been reading through the comments to various diaries by folks who have apparently finished their candidate shopping early and are supporting one candidate or another. I find it sad that many of these folks seem more focused on the "electability" of their candidate or are more focused on getting any Democrat into the White House than they are on getting some important issues addressed.

I'll state my agenda for this election right up front here; my primary issues are (1) restoring the Constitution and the rule of law (which requires that the Bush administration be called to account legally for its crimes) and, (2) ending the war in Iraq and preventing any further illegal wars of aggression against other countries. I am not committed to any candidate yet.

A lot of folks seem to think that a Hillary presidency would be a continuation of the Bill Clinton presidency, a notion that Hillary has encouraged. While there are a number of good things that Bill Clinton did, there are some other things that need to never happen again - especially his policies of regime change and military intervention (remember Operation Desert Fox?) in Iraq, which Dubya continued.

Further, Bill Clinton (with the agreement of the craven Democratic leadership in Congress) swept the crimes of the Bush administration under the rug. They did this in order to "get along" with Republicans in Congress. Clinton's decision to let Bush the elder off the hook has had disasterous consequences; Hillary has given no indication that she will not do the very same thing and the Democratic "leadership" in Congress appears to be following that very path now.

Sherman, set the time machine for the 1990's...