( 2112 )

How far up in their own navels would the women’s wing of the Democratic Party establishment need to be to launch an “its our turn” slash ”we’re the victimized ones” based assault on the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama? Well pretty freakin’ far as it turns out. So fucking far in fact that a wide swath of their political and media voices have leapt down onto the field of Clinton and Obama’s electoral battle to the death to declare both sentiments about as loudly as humanly possible [throwing a dash of what a more cynical sort of man than I might consider racially tinged dismissiveness – which is I gotta tell you potentially the best idea Karl Rove has ever had]. It didn’t start Last Saturday night with Tina Fey’s much publicized “… bitches get things done” call to arms on SNL. That honor belongs to Gloria Steinem, who emerged shortly after Senator Clinton’s somewhat startling third place finish in Iowa to declare the country more sexist than it is racist. [since Melissa Harris-Lacewell has already eaten Steinem’s argument for lunch during a truly entertaining Democracy Now segment – I'll skip that whole thing where I take it apart myself]. Unfortunately the concept seems to have Christopher Lee like powers of self-resuscitation. Today’s On Point (NPR Boston) featured not one, not two, not three, but four adherents – one of whom – 1984’s Democratic VP nominee Geraldine Ferraro, cited [sans any hint of irony], the sexist evils of a CNN segment that had featured an Obama supporter but no Clinton supporter. Now I could type out a whole harangue on the horseshit hypocrisy of the statement in that context, or riff on the suffocating number of former Clinton hands employed by the MSM in general [and CNN in particular] but no, not me, I have another bone to pick with this space. Or rather, I have a couple of questions. First for both of you: Can Gloria Steinem, Tina Fey, Geraldine Ferraro, Pat Schroeder, Ellen Goodman, Katha Pollitt and their identity politics purveying compatriots count, or have they simply assumed that the rest of us can’t?

Now on to my formal open letter to GDF type thing: Ms Ferraro if you really want to make that kind of Balkanized identity argument you went with earlier today, that’s … well fucking fine with me. But regardless of what you may think, I can definitely count [so can a lot of people] and your argument – however eloquent and passionately delivered – simply doesn’t hold water once confronted by the context of actual numbers. Here’s how politically “sexist” our wonderful little nation is at this precise moment in its history. Twenty-Five women occupy major political positions, which is to say Governors, Senators and or top-tier cabinet posts [Sec State, Sec Defense, Attorney General, National Security Advisor, UN Ambassador] that’s right, back in 2006: Sarah Palin, R-Alaska joined the band of eight incumbent women governors: Janet Napolitano, D-Ariz., Jodi Rell, R-Conn.; Ruth Ann Minner, D-Del.; Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii; Kathleen Sebelius, D-Kan.; Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich.; Christine Gregoire , D-Wash. Historically speaking, a total of 29 women have served as governors: That’s 18 Democrats and 11 Republicans. Meanwhile, 33 women have served in the Senate: 20 Democrats and 13 Republicans and currently there are sixteen. On the cabinet posts side; at the moment there’s only the one – Condolezza Rice [who’ll just have to be counted twice here, since you seem to feel it should come to that] and there have only ever been five – or three individual women who’ve occupied five posts.  

Now here’s how “racist” the nation turns out to be at this particular moment in time. Three African Americans occupy comparable positions [and again, that’s counting Secretary Rice twice]. Historically there have been two governors … L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia and, of course, Deval Patrick. Meanwhile there have been three Senators [and Carol Mosley Braun also counts twice there] and four cabinet types or two individuals [Rice and Colin Powell] who’ve held two top tier posts each.  So you were explaining how our country’s more sexist than it is racist? Would you care try another one – using, you know, empirical data.

That’s not my point either though. In the end I only have one question to ask and it falls along the “we’ve struggled and worked hard and its our turn” slice up the power pie line of reasoning you’ve bought into. It goes like this:

If that’s really how you feel, why should African Americans continue to be a part of the Democratic Party’s demographic coalition? I mean, we clearly haven’t been on the receiving end of the aforementioned political power pie. [And please don’t answer my honest question by expanding my criteria and naming HUD secretaries and or those aging sickeningly gerrymandered congressional committee chairmen most of us are pretty darn embarrassed to catch on the cable news shows anyway.] You want to play the balkanization game, you did today, so it’s a fair question. So, lets play. If you’d rather avoid that, or think that maybe it’s not a fair question — that’s not ok. You’ve as much as said that your demographic wing of the party is “owed” the nomination. Fine. What do we get for providing the margin of victory. This is how tribal politics works [you knew that right]. So go ahead and outline the parameters of our [which is to say African Americans] cut, piece, apportionment, if your favored candidate, Senator Clinton, is the party’s nominee? You know, tell us what we’ll get in return for all of those votes you expect from us? Think fast though (tick tock), 

Glancing over her list of advisors and all
ies, didn’t exactly leave me overwhelmed by the number of possibilities. Meanwhile, on the other side: