2008

Today I will be appearing on NPR's News and Notes last show of the year. I will be appearing with Ms. Jasmyne Cannick and Michael Cobb Bowen.

Tentative topics involve Pakistan, R. Kelly, Kwaanza and our New Year's resolutions. I have one to big to announce, but will leave that for the show ... unless you show me yours first.

In the meantime, I resolve to watch more performance art, especially if it involves Mike Gravel.

He's so profound my head hurts --which means, it's awfully good.

Honestly, I think he is the first presidential candidate / performance artist.

.

Thank you, Zimbel!

There are certain facts that are so obvious about America that a court would take "judicial notice" of them (recognize them as common knowledge on which no proof was necessary). For example, "There has never been a Black or woman president or vice president of the United States." Adam Nagourney's NYT Article

And yet pointing these facts out remains politically controversial, probably because, in a country that is only 35% white and male, the white male monopoly can only exist in a democracy if we all continue to pretend that it does NOT exist. (I was banned from participating at one site just days after posing the question with a diary entitled, "Will the White Male Monopoly End in 2008?")

If we do mention the white male monopoly of the presidency and vice presidency, we are supposed to pretend that it occurs by happenstance or as a result of unknowable "pipeline" style factors.

Lisa said at my blog yesterday:

"You are racist with your descriptions of the general white public never voting for a black man for President."

And to that Zimbel responded, very convincingly with a statistical argument:

A string of 43 white male presidents isn't enough to support his conclusion?

Okay- how about the string of roughly 200 national executive candidates of major parties that were white male (save one exception, Ferraro). If we completely omit race from the question, is it fair that roughly half of the population (females) are represented by roughly 0.5% of executive candidates? Isn't a 1:100 ratio of candidates versus population good evidence of sexism? And, yes, I know that this number skyrockets to an amazing roughly 2% (and about 1:35) if you discount all the time prior to the 19th amendment's ratification. Still seems like sexism to me. Zimbel

All the king's white men.

The fact is that the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency is indefensible in a "democracy" from a statistical standpoint, and so defenders of the monopoly argue that I and others are "racist" to even mention the statistics. If no one forcefully says otherwise than defenders of the white male monopoly (who can be of any gender and skin color) will continue to insist that the monopoly is simply the product of statistical happenstance.

Newt Gingrich is considering running for president of the United States and is being taken seriously. There are at least half a dozen Black congressmen and congresswomen with more elective experience than Newt and with better poll number nationally, so why don't they announce that they're considering running for president?

Why do so few Black people and women raise these trial baloons, making the presidential trial baloon mostly a white man's sport?

The answer is simple: Any white man in the public eye can announce that he is considering running for president, even if he has never held elective office (e.g. Wesley Clark) and immediately be taken more seriously even than 90% of the Black people and women who have held elective office for decades.

Do people who insist on supporting presidential and vice presidential candidates who are white men effectively collude to perpetuate the white male monopoly of the presidency and vice presidency? Should we all just ignore the fact that supporting white male candidates in 2008 perpetuates the 200-year monopoly, and must we ignore the fact that supporting Blacks, women and Latinos tends to end the monopoly? Is the 200-year white male monopoly of the presidency and vice presidency even relevant to the question of who we should elect in 2008. I think that it goes beyond mere relevance to being essential to the question of who we are as a nation and who we want to be.

I encourage more women and Blacks to announce that they are considering running for president, senator and governor in the future, if only to better accustom the public to considering all of the possibilities.

For too long we have been dominated and monopolized by the excess credibility of white men and the excess credulity that the American public gives to white men. And that's why George W. Bush is president of the United States today.

[Ed. Note]: Content removed for reasons explained in the comment thread. Here is a visual approximation of the diarist's efforts.

A leader can govern and govern well, even without a penis.

Cross-posted with other irreverancies at the

But, because of recent advances in technology and culture, the penis has been largely eclipsed as a tool of national governance and international diplomacy.

Candidates and supporters who believe we can win the presidency on a wave of apologies should learn the lessons of history.

Cross-posted at MyDD.

NEW YORK - Democrat

John Edwards said Tuesday that honesty and openness were essential qualities for a president, and that he was proud to acknowledge his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of

Iraq was a mistake . . .

"If you asked me what I think the most important personal characteristics of the next president are, I would say honesty, openness and decency," he said. "There's not a single voter in America who doesn't understand that their president is human, and their president will sometimes makes mistakes." Yahoo.News

In the September 30, 2004 debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry, the word "mistake" arose 13 times in the context of Iraq, offering Bush ample opportunity to admit that he had made at least one mistake.  Kerry admitted to having made significant mistakes while George Bush admitted to none.

BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but . . . it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.

Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.