the reason for my search is that one of my opponents is kevin johnson the famous (locally) basketball star. the word on the street is the the SPOA (cops union) endorsed him because they all got to meet with him and get autographs. i have heard other things on the street that make me dig deeper.

muriel

California’s doing the delegate thing tomorrow even in the face of purges by both candidates b/c after all, Californians are just so untrustworthy. They’re all practically at the same time and the Obama one is closer. Most of the people I know who are going out for positions for the convention are women and they’re split between the two.

I wouldn’t support racist treatment of Senator Obama; so why am I supposed to be okay with sexist treatment of Senator Clinton? I am not okay with it and I hope I never will be.

So you do speak out against racist treatment of Obama when it happens, right? Because it happens. Where I work, we discuss the latest examples every day. And most of those I work with are women, not men. What else is interesting is how Black women in particular get rendered invisible when it comes to discussing the impact of the involvement of women in the Democratic campaign and election process. When most articles talk about the involvement of women, they talk about Hillary Clinton’s supporters and how an unprecedented number of women are involved solely because she’s running. Yet, buried in these same articles are references made that an unprecedented number of Black women in certain states but also overall are involving themselves in Obama campaign. They’re not viewed as “women” though by these articles and not really included as a focus because they’re not supporting or working for the female candidate.

The thing to do in this case is to write what’s truth, that an unprecedented number of women are getting involved in this year’s Democratic campaign and election process, regardless of what candidate they support.

The US is falling behind many countries on how women are perceived as potential leaders, even Chile and Argentina are more progressive.

I can’t speak for those countries but the U.S. isn’t really progress in terms of how it sees men of color and women (incuding women of color) as potential leaders. After all, even though White women might not be seen as potential leaders to the extent of White men (and I think it’s arguable whether they are seen as moreso than Black men or other men of color), but probably much more than women of color are at this point. Because you know what? There’s a woman of color who is running for president, at least one and what do you hear or read about her?

Men of color obtained the right to vote in this country before women. The pecking order still persists. Unfortunately, things change slowly. A man of color will almost certainly be elected President before a woman will. It pisses me off, too. But in the overall scheme of things, it represents progress.

I’m not so sure about this and I don’t think you can base the probability on the history of the sufferage movements. I do think what men of color and women do in common is that whoever does get elected first (or possibly even simultaneously), most likely that person will be a Republican. There are also cases like with Obama of biracial or multi-racial candidates perhaps getting elected.