OK, just a further clarification — the “lucky break” is for Obama, not for the women who would be effected by those policies. The “lucky break” is that he can safely address these issues without the sexists getting in a tiff, without looking like he’s “courting women.” He gets plausible deniability — from both sides (”see I’m concerned about women” AND “I don’t need to go after those special interests for women”).

As for immigration issues, I don’t think I live in any sort of utopia for immigration. Nor am I going to pretend that law enforcement is completely anti-racist or anti-bigotted. Yes, there are many immigrants who feel that they cannot report. And for some of them, this is based on actual experience. For others, it’s based on an outright fear of the legal system (esp. police) that comes from their experiences in their home countries, where to call the police and try to report DV or SA would be allowing the police to, at best, bribe them, and at worst rape and assault them themselves. That last one is a very real and very legitimate fear. And these are things that need to be addressed, and other options looked into. But in those cases we really could live in a utopian anti-racist, anti-bigotted area and it wouldn’t change a thing. And, to take it further, there are a hell of a lot of white, middle- and upper-class white women who have the same problems with law enforcement. No, they don’t face deportation, but they face other consequences that can be just as scary and just as fatal. So, this isn’t an issue that is exclusive to women of color or to immigrant women.

That said, the community here, at least the DV/SA community, has been very inclusive and very accomodating to a number of various needs to various women, based on what they need as an individual, not what they are perceived to need based on their race (white, latina, black, asian, american indian, or any other), class (middle, lower, working, or any other), immigration status (naturalized citizen, immigrant, or refugee; documented or undocumented), disability, sexuality, or gender identity. There isn’t deemed to be one way of helping, or even one way for each group — because the fact is, everyone has different needs. And it would be completely unhelpful to assume that a particular woman of color needed help in the same way that a particular white woman needed help. But it would be just as completely unhelpful to assume that they needed help in a different way.

Policing immigrants

(excerpt)

Such confusing, sometimes contradictory, policies and programs are only heightening immigrants’ fear and mistrust, say immigrant advocates and community activists.

Mayra Figueroa, the woman stopped in Houston, agrees.

“I have been living here for the last 17 years, and to have an officer stop me for no reason and ask for papers, it made me feel like he didn’t think I belong here,” said Figueroa. “It makes people feel that anytime that something happens to you, you can’t call police.”

[bold, mine]

Taking your point, Obama also includes text about women’s issues in other categories on his issues section, though he does miss issues on his main Web site.

Hmm, maybe your area is just less xenophobic at the moment? My state’s voters regularly pass legislation that is xenophobic and racist, I’m not sure that yours does.

Because it’s really difficult for immigrant women even in cases legal immigrants particularly Latinas but also Asian-Americans to report anything.

Because there’s no “civil rights” section on her Web site under “issues” does that mean she’s completely ignoring civil rights? Does this make them less of a priority, more of a priority or a priority at all because I have to search harder for them? Does that mean that she’s “distancing” herself from these issues?

It’s not equivalent. Because, although she doesn’t have a separate section for civil rights issues like Obama, she still discusses this within the issues on her website — she just put it under government reform. As I said earlier:

if he actually addressed these issues on the website within the context of other issues, rather than separating them out as women’s issues, I’d accept that. I’d think it’s stupid, but I’d accept it. But he hasn’t done that, either.

As for VAWA, I’m not going to pretend it’s perfect (esp. when you’ve got Bush trying to cut $100 million from it) — but I do have to wonder if our vastly different experiences with it have to do more with our different locations, or if you are equating VAWA immigration with U visas (which, frankly, it seems like you are, to me, because you keep referring to “other crimes” and so on). Again, I’m not going to pretend that it’s even close to perfect, but my experience simply hasn’t been the same as what you are describing.

As for the rest, I’m just going to keep going back to the fact that not all white women are the same. Not all white feminists are the same. Not all white women are inherently different than women of color (nor are their issues). There are a number of other intersections that can be even more important in a particular situation.

But I think it’s a cop out to claim that he’s oh so willing to promote women’s issues just because he is willing to address issues that effect both men and women (particularly when these are issues that Clinton is ALSO addressing).

I’m not sure I said he was promoting women issues as you define them. I think his record’s mixed. Good on some issues that impact many women and undefined on others that impact women. Clinton, the same. Both together on issues that might detrimentally impact many women. Like I said when it comes to women, I’m not thrilled with either. Clinton’s platform according to the links for her site below seems in many ways more geared towards White middle-class but I think that she and Obama are fighting hardest for those votes and taking a lot of voters for granted. But then that’s what the Democratic Party has come down to. Taking for granted voters from certain demographics while throwing them under the bus the rest of the time. Clinton’s rhetoric on race which she is fully aware that she’s doing is making it clear that she’s probably not taking voters for granted but instead alienating them. I don’t blame people who feel shut out by Clinton and especially her closest supporters are more hopeful about Obama. No I don’t.

I was answering the statement that Obamawas completely ignoring them. Which he’s not but then I guess it comes down to how you define “women’s issues” and I can see that we disagree. I do agree with his not putting women’s issues prominantly on a Web site set up for each candidate to examine their views on issues. I didn’t see Clinton’s section on “civil rights” (which is included on Obama’s issues page) either until I googled that term associated with her and ran into her plans for the DOJ civil right divisions which are similar to those proposed by Obama more prominantly on his issues page. I had questions for both candidates on these issues. I’m much more likely to cross paths with Obama who’s not written off my region than Clinton who apparently has so if I have the opportunity I will research these issues further.

There’s some agreement in goals between the two but Obama’s connection between civil rights and the CJS is much more apparent and a bit risky for a Democrat during a presidential election year. Clinton’s certainly not going that route. She’s strong on some educational issues but her connection and attempts-to-reform-after-the-fact on No Child Left Behind parallel her shifting position on the Iraq War issue.

Because there’s no “civil rights” section on her Web site under “issues” does that mean she’s completely ignoring civil rights? Does this make them less of a priority, more of a priority or a priority at all because I have to search harder for them? Does that mean that she’s “distancing” herself from these issues?

Hillary Clinton on the issues

Barack Obama on the issues

I think it’s a copout to write off issues under Obama’s “civil rights” sections which greatly impact women (if not White women to the same degree) as “lucky break” issues or to say that they are any less important because they also impact men. And to say that a candidate isn’t dealing with women issues at all or is ignoring them because they’re not categorized under “women’s issues”. I have already said that I think there’s women’s issues that he’s not openly addressing. But I’m not really impressed with either candidate that much so maybe those feelings aren’t relevant unless you have a horse in this race and I don’t, at least not between these two candidates.

But to write off the issues that he does address that impact women’s lives is not entirely fair and is also dismissive. Just because the issues under this section might not impact White women or White feminists doesn’t make them less women’s issues.

As to the statement someone made about Clinton being the ONLY candidate in this presidential election willing to discuss or embrace “women’s issues” openly because that’s not true. And I think it’s a pretty telling statement about , women, the party system in this country considering where these candidates are coming from.

To imply that she, or “white feminists” ONLY address the issue of abortion is to outright dismiss all of the work done by feminists of all colors (including white!!!!!!!) that go beyond the abortion issue, not to mention Clinton’s own work on these issues.

I don’t think that “white feminists” only address the issue of abortion. I didn’t say that though often I think that’s where a lionshare of the focus is but that’s a common observation not unique to me. I don’t think Clinton’s platform or that of White feminists, individually or collectively consists of only abortion.

What I did say or tried to say is that even with issues of reproductive choice and health that it’s not always the first issue that comes up. That doesn’t mean that it’s not an issue in any way except for those who believe that if it’s not the first issue mentioned or not the most important, then it’s not being considered at all. And often it comes up in discussions that aren’t just about legalizing abortion but in reducing abortions which by some White feminists gets conflated to meaning doing so at the legal and legislative levels, because I’m sure that you’ll agree choice regarding abortion means the freedom to have one and also the freedom not to have one.

I do think is that abortion tends to come out of their mouths (and keyboards) first before anything else when it comes to addressing reproductive health and “choice” kind of like it did here.

And other issues mentioned here that are part and parcel of “choice” which come up in discussions don’t get much mention at all.

As for VAWA, I agree it’s got wonderful componants and applications but “immigrant” women still get deported here FTMP if they report ANY crime including DV. The ones who don’t and get special visas, it’s very, very, very few, which is why in this region if not in some others, women still don’t come forward, because of the fear of deportation. It’s the same for hate crimes b/c Latinos including immigrants are one of the fastest growing groups impacted by hate crimes in parts of the country. So that means that if you or a family member gets assaulted by a group of men who hate your race and you being in the country, you can’t report it unless you want to risk exposure and deportation.

VAWA helping immigrant women who are undocumented is also hindered by whether or not the local law enforcement agency (because much of the crime is covered under local or state statutes) has an agreement or not to declare immigration a “federal issue” and not enforce immigration laws (which doesn’t automatically mean they won’t do like if approached by a crime victim who’s undocumented) or whether they have usually through city ordinance agreed to do enforcement of immigration law beyond what they customarily did under policy.

But it’s not just VAWA that should get the credit or most of the credit, it’s women who work together at the grass-roots level often despite much opposing political pressure, doing work that’s not always safe who have also made a dent in regards to issues impacting women and violence.

And as long as there’s any hint of “criminalization” or “security” involving this immigration issue, this isn’t going to change, VAWA or not. How can these women report DV or any crime if local LE agencies are getting funding from federal agencies to involve themselves further in enforcing immigration laws? Do you think in this type of climate, they feel safe doing so? Maybe in your neck of the woods but not in many other places and it’s not getting easier, it’s getting harder. I don’t think that will change under a Democratic president.

Besides, the Republicans aren’t the only ones criminalizing these women before they can even come forward to report DV or other crimes, not by a long shot. And speaking of violence, do you believe raids like the ones currently going on in cities in Michigan count? Is that a conducive environment for reporting crimes including those committed by family members? It’s not.

And like I said, I’m waiting for either or preferably both candidates to speak on these raids and how they impact women and their families. Hopefully, they will soon.

Clinton and Obama have the same problem on what’s labeled immigration issues. They say they don’t want to break up families or make them choose but their other solutions for immigration “reform” contradict these other statements because their solutions will increase not decrease the breaking up of families and problems with what they call a “broken system”. But it’s a system that criminalizes women for being “undocumented” and then expects them to report crimes against them apparently.

Also addressing violence against women of color, often means addressing forms of violence against men of color. But then does that make it still a “women’s issue”? To many women, yes, including the ones who lead and belong to organizations of women addresssing violence that impacts them and their families. Women are also instrumental on working on these issues. Grant money for preventive or interventive programs has dried up in favor of anti-terrorist or homeland security grant funding. I didn’t see anything on Obama or Clinton’s sight that has addressed this issue pertaining to women and violence.

I think both class and race apply to strategies with dealing with different forms of violence. I’ve found that both in research and in working with individuals and groups. Violence impacts differently on race, gender and class among other demograghics and just as importantly how the CJS handles it or addresses it, differs as much too. It’s more adversarial to many women based not just on class but also on race. Since candidates from both major parties both want to appear “tough on crime”, there’s often not much difference between the two.

There’s much more to add but I’m out of time.

I realize that women have worked on the issues that you mention, the ones that also effect men. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s much “safer” to talk about those issues because they aren’t considered “women’s issues.” You and I may recognize that these issues effect women and that their success has been largely attributable to women. But I think it’s a cop out to claim that he’s oh so willing to promote women’s issues just because he is willing to address issues that effect both men and women (particularly when these are issues that Clinton is ALSO addressing). What issues are there that don’t effect women in any way and that women aren’t instrumental in getting pushed forward? Cuz, frankly, I don’t know of any. In fact, if you want to go by that way of thinking, then McCain is also addressing women’s issues. All those issues he addresses, those effect women, too. And there are women out there working on those issues. So, I’m not going to say it’s not great that Obama is addressing those issues (but, then, so is Clinton). But, that doesn’t change the fact that she also addresses these other issues (in a much more open, and positive, way). If it was one or the other, I’d see your point. But it’s not.

And, yes, I absolutely agree that reproductive rights must include more than abortion. And, apparently Clinton does, too. But she’s willing to talk about all of those issues on her website (and, no, not just abortion). To imply that she, or “white feminists” ONLY address the issue of abortion is to outright dismiss all of the work done by feminists of all colors (including white!!!!!!!) that go beyond the abortion issue, not to mention Clinton’s own work on these issues.

And the issues of violence against women of color may require a variety of ways of handling it (although, working in this field and studying these reports myself, I’d argue it’s a lot more about class than race when it comes to various strategies). But, all of these strategies are going to require VAWA. And I want to see that addressed right up front, not hidden away on some .pdf file. And, btw, speaking of VAWA, when it comes to immigrant women, there has been nothing more helpful to these women who experience domestic violence than VAWA. It’s only through VAWA that they were finally able to come forward and seek help to get out of a violent relationship without fear of losing their immigration status (or of being deported for being undocumented). It’s only through VAWA that these women can stay in this country without staying in a violent relationship for years.

You know what? I told Eliza that I have no issue with dealing with issues that impact White women. I’m a White woman. But what I have an issue is looking at issues as to how they impact White women and then defining them as “women’s issues” and then taking issues that impact women of color and maybe not White women as much or at all and calling those “lucky break” issues or issues that just happen to include women, because there under Obama’s platform after saying that he doesn’t address “women’s issues” at all. I agree with what you said about him not being honest about addressing a lot of “women issues” but that’s not the same as saying he doesn’t address them at all simply because they might be issues that are inclusive of women but not necessarily White women at all or to the same degree. And it’s kind of dismissive to say that the issues that impact women that he does address are “lucky break” issues because many women put a lot of work into those issues.

I just wish White feminists would be more honest about saying, hey these are issues that pertain to women like me and I care about them and advocate for them, rather than say they impact all women or all women in the same way and it’s a one-sized-fits-all platform to address them. That’s the sentiment that seems to be pervasive and I think in itself, it’s damn divisive.

Are they not “women’s issues” because they include men of color (i.e. racial profiling for example, disparities in drug law enforcements) or because they might not include White women in many circumstances? I think that’s a valid question but if that makes me fostering division between White women and women of color, then I guess that’s another way of saying it’s not going to be answered.

Though I don’t think anything I’ve written so far has been about creating a division. What I and others have written about here is the division which already exists and it’s not exactly news. You yourself have said that issues that impact the lives of many women that Obama addresses are just cases where those women including those who have worked damn hard on some of these issues are just “lucky breaks” that they are included. No, they weren’t “lucky breaks” any more than the inclusion of women under Clinton’s platform are, one would hope.

Violence against women effects women of color in even greater numbers than white women (not significantly greater, but greater none the less). Unequal pay effects women of color even more than white women. Women of color DO want access to reproductive health care — and yes, many of them DO want access to abortions.

Where did I say this wasn’t true? I didn’t. But even within these issues there are differences in impact, dynamics and yes, strategies for addressing them. Domestic violence, for example, there’s an excellent chapter on the impact of that issue by race and class in a anthology titled, “Policing the National Body”. If I can find it, I’ll post a link to it. But it talked about how strategies to address it which mostly address how it impacts White women have been not helpful or detrimental to women of color and their communities. It kind of put some words to some experiences I had or had seen.

Did I ever say abortion wasn’t an issue? But you know what, although abortion is an important issue, many times when you say “reproductive care” or “choice”, it doesn’t come up first like it just did in your statement. Other issues do like freedom to choose and from having choice imposed on you (and that includes contraception and abortion) safe neighborhoods, safe medical care for all medical conditions, and in ways seems far more encompassing than most White feminists’ definitions of “choice”. Being free from occupation either here or abroad. Being free of state-sanctioned abuse and rape. Being able to raise your children (because choice includes families) in a healthy and safe environment.

Sometimes I think that we don’t understand that what’s “best” for White women might not be best for other women or all women and can in fact be detrimental. Even including White women, it’s not that simple. Take DV for example. The strategies to help women facing DV help themselves may be beneficial for a lot of women but at best not helpful and at worst lethal for women dealing with LE related DV for example. I read the platforms of candidates on issues pertaining to women and their quality of life issues and think it’s much more damn complicated.

Violence against women? Yes, women of color are impacted by violence disproportionately compared to White women but again, the platform of that issue is more geared towards addressing the violence of White women sometimes to the detriment of women of color and their communities. It also doesn’t address the broad division (a real division, not one of my making, sorry) between the protect and serving of White women and the policing of women (and men, because often separating issues by gender isn’t as neatly done for women of color as it is for White women but that doesn’t make issues any less about women) of color.

I think there were some White feminists who actually argued against your statement that women of color are impacted more by pay disparities, saying that White women were more impacted? I don’t agree with that and I don’t think that you do either.

There is a back story to this, and this proposed law may help to fix that too. The main employer of these contractors is the State department, other contractors in theatre may hire them too, but that is secondary. And the reason that State uses them is that there is toxic bad blood between State and Defense across the entire range of issues both departments deal with. State looks down on soldiers as crudeand Defense despises state for its callous ineptitude in stumbling into pointless wars. And it gets worse form there. This law would in effect require State people to trust their lives to defense people, and require Defense people to give a shit about State people getting iced, and just maybe, maybe, cooperation on that farily primal issue might offer benefits across the entire range of issues both departments deal with.

And if not, no problem - the contractors are a f*cking disgrace that undermines us all over the world and it has to be fixed yesterday, even if only for utilitarian reasons.

Obama has done more substantive work to hold contractors accountable than Clinton has.

I suppose that depends — Clinton has done a hell of a lot more to hold contractors accountable NOW. She is the one speaking out (loudly) and demanding federal investigations into the acts that have already occurred. Which would also effect how they are held accountable in the future. Obama is working on future contractor’s accountable.

As a white feminist, I have needs and issues that I want addressed. I do not want them to be addressed at the expense of any other issues affecting women, be them poorer or richer than me, women of color, women with children, women without children. But I also do not want to be expected to pretend that my issues don’t exist, that they can be put aside or simply less important, more trivial.

If you could show that the issues you’ve outlined here were somehow NOT addressed by Clinton (some in betters ways, some in not as effective or direct ways, but in 99.9% of the cases so close to the way Obama is addressing them) then you might have a point. But that’s not the case. So you’ve got a bunch of issues effecting both men and women that Obama is addressing, but so is Clinton. Then you’ve got some of those “white women’s issues” (despite the fact that all of these issues DO effect women of color as well) that Clinton addresses and Obama distances himself from. That’s not just bad for white women, that’s bad for all women. As much as you want to paint the great divide between women of color and white women, it’s just not as great and expansive as you seem to think. Violence against women effects women of color in even greater numbers than white women (not significantly greater, but greater none the less). Unequal pay effects women of color even more than white women. Women of color DO want access to reproductive health care — and yes, many of them DO want access to abortions.

FTR, I know that Obama has technically addressed a number of these “trivial white women’s issues” in his downloadable .pdf file. But the fact that this is the ONLY category that appears in the downloadable plan but is completely invisible on his website shows how much he is willing to distance himself from these issues, and how he’s willing to sell women out to get where he wants to be. Because we all know damn well that few people will actually go and read up on the issues on the website — but significantly fewer are actually going to read the .pdf file. At best they’ll look at the issues, and I know several men already who have commented on how refreshing it is to see a candidate not be “side tracked” by “women’s issues.” And, if he actually addressed these issues on the website within the context of other issues, rather than separating them out as women’s issues, I’d accept that. I’d think it’s stupid, but I’d accept it. But he hasn’t done that, either.

I didn’t know about the legislation but it would be a great start to see someone and hopefully more people in Congress actually push to hold them accountable for their crimes, because like you said, if the military isn’t or can’t provide security, then private contractors will be hired to do so if there’s a demand for it. But I don’t think that bill will pass unless the Congress will back any democratic president with the guts to push for it once in office and unless the Congress will override what would probably be a McCain veto.

Replacing them would be logistically difficult, I would think. I’d rather see them gone but I’d rather see the military withdrawn as well and I’d rather have people in the Senate who don’t just knee-jerkedly buy into what they were told by a commander in chief with a clearly petty and phony argument to invade Iraq and support that war, only experiencing buyer’s remorse when a hell of a lot of bad water has gone under the bridge and it starts to impact polls.

I’m not so sure I consider it just a “lucky break” on the issues impacting women that Obama does endorse, because that implies that women weren’t considered that all when these issues were being addressed and I don’t think that’s true. That’s also discounting the women who work on these so-called issues which impact themselves as well as men because it is women who do a lot of the work on these issues including raising the attention of governmental officials about them to make them a priority. I know women do this work because I’ve worked alongside them. But I’m aware that to many White feminists, these aren’t “women’s issues”, they are side issues that aren’t counted often because they are viewed as being issues that women are just add-ons to, except when there’s some spare time and they detract from the *real* women issues. That’s why I have some serious difficulties with feminism. What’s a “women’s issue” is much more than what seems to be included in the platforms.

Racially profiling, voting issues and hate crimes are not just issues which women are addenums to. Women are impacted by these issues as well, perhaps they’re just not always or in some cases ever White women so they’re seen as “lucky break” issues.

I do agree that dismissing “women’s issues” such as those which impact women much more than men isn’t right. But your comment that he’s doing so isn’t 100% accurate, unless you dismiss the issues that he’s worked on that impact many women and I think to do so is offensive and just concerns me more about the lack of inclusiveness in Clinton’s definition of “women’s issues” because these issues that impact women don’t matter any less because they impact men as well. That doesn’t make them any less “women issues”. Because they don’t impact White women at all or to the same degree as women of color doesn’t make them less “women issues” either. But then seeing the intersection which impacts many “women’s issues” has never been our strong point in addressing issues which impact women.

As for the “women’s issues”, sometimes, I think it’s a “lucky break” that women of color are included at all in that when White feminists including Clinton address these issues but then I remember that it’s women of color who’ve done a lot of the work on these issues as well, in health, the workforce and education among others along with White women. I’m not sure there’s really an issue that impacts women that’s a “lucky break” considering all the hard work that women have done in different communities.

Is Clinton better on “women’s issues”? As you define them clearly. Probably other women as well as they define them. I think her record is very mixed. I think Obama’s very mixed. But as stated, I have serious concerns about both candidates.

It’s definitely not a “lucky break” for the women who either are impacted by issues that aren’t being covered by either candidate nor is it a “lucky break” for women who are impacted negatively by decisions made by candidates including those being presented as better on women’s issues. There’s issues that impact women in this country including many who can’t vote that frankly neither candidate impresses me on. There’s women working on them but they are likely dealing with either a lack of meaningful support by either candidate or that candidate holds a view that’s counterproductive or even harmful to them.

I’m not going to split hairs to decide whether it’s worse for Iraqi women to be raped by members of the military or the Blackwater employees which I guess makes Obama far, far worse on this issue than Clinton. Or whether the 15-year-old girl who was burned after being raped and killed as was her family would have had it much worse if a mercanary would have done it. I’m not convinced they’re held accountable either way. And I’m not sure that a vote for sending the military over there (which of course cleared the path for contracters and their mercanaries) puts someone on much better if any footing than opposing the contractor later on.

I don’t see one as worse than the other because it’s the system in place in Iraq of entitlement and occupation among other things that contributes to the crimes and misconduct of both. You can have good people trying to do a good job, you can have bad people trying to do harm but if you have a corrupted war based on lies that many people (except apparently politicians) can see through, expect serious human rights violations only they won’t necessarily be called that. As for talk of an “exit plan”, well it took long enough for those two words to enter into the discussion of this war, hasn’t it?

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the first thing a Democrat in office started a war themselves to *prove* they’re just as hawish or as good at being Republicans as the Republicans are.

Clinton’s signing on to Bernie Sander’s ban is good anti-mercenary publicity, and I’m glad she did it for that reason.

But as a law, the bill is a bad idea and will never be implemented — not even if Clinton becomes president. We simply don’t have enough trained security personnel to replace 100% of private security contractors in Iraq in six months, which is what the bill calls for. And we can’t pull them out without replacing them, because there are tons of Americans in Iraq who actually need security (you can’t run an airport in Bagdad without security; you can’t have diplomats anywhere in Iraq without security; etc).

Clinton only endorsed it because she knows that it will never pass the Senate, not even if a bunch more Democrats win Senate seats in November.

In contrast, Obama originated (not just co-sponsored) S.674 in February 2007, which would end criminal immunity for Blackwater and other mercenaries for crimes committed in Iraq. As far as I can tell, Obama was the first Senator to write legislation to hold contractors in Iraq responsible for crimes they commit, and he did it before this was an issue anyone in the media was paying attention to. In other words, it appears to have been an actual attempt to address the problem, not just political pandering.

s.674 won’t become law while Bush holds the veto pen. But if either Clinton or Obama is elected, s.674 — or something very like it — will almost certainly become law. And the law Clinton co-sponsored will not.

Obama has done more substantive work to hold contractors accountable than Clinton has.

As for the mercenaries vs. the war — look, I’m not going to defend the war. I’m not going to defend Clinton’s vote (although, I’m not convinced, based on Obama’s party-line voting since then, that he would have actually been the only Senator besides Wellstone to not vote for it. Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn’t — but his voting record since that hasn’t made me think that’s the obvious choice he would have made). That said, it happened, we can’t undo the past. We have to go forward. And I sure as hell am not going to pretend that the military isn’t often a disgusting breeding grounds of sexual assault - against female soldiers and female civilians. And I’m not going to pretend that the military always does something about it when it happens. BUT, at least there are potential consequences (yes, we need to put pressure on them to actually enforce them, but they are there). It’s the mercenaries, not the military, that have the outright immunity to rape Iraqi women AND American women. It’s the mercenaries that the Justice Dept. will be unable to take any criminal action against (or, most certainly, unwilling to do so) regardless of how much evidence, regardless of anything. It’s the mercenaries that are protected from being made to answer in a court of law — either criminal or civil. So, as bad as the military is, I’d say the mercenaries are far worse. And voting against getting rid of mercenaries AT THIS TIME, is, IMO, even worse than voting to get into a war in 2003. Nobody — NOBODY — knew that the war was going to be this long or this bad (yes, many of knew it was the wrong thing to do — I’m not saying that it was “OK” to have voted for the war), but we KNOW what’s happening with the mercenaries. We KNOW how bad it is for the war, for the Iraqis, for women. To vote that way when you know the extent of how bad it will be is, IMO, worse.

It’s that a $3 trillion war sucks up a lot of money, time, and resources that are not then available to accomplish anything else. Honestly, I don’t think either a President Clinton or a President Obama will be able to do much until they resolve that very problem.

I understand that. But, as I said, I’m not so sure that overall Clinton will be significantly worse in this area — but I have more reason to believe that after that, Clinton will actually address some of these other issues that I, personally, think are important.

As for Obama’s votes, I’m surprised he was there to vote at all recently. He and Clinton have been on the campaign trail so long, they forgot their day jobs. :-P

I suppose –but they both voted on these bills, so there ya go.

As for the article — eh, it’s good for what it is. Everything she says in it is true, and I agree with it. But it still comes across to me as focusing almost exclusively on Obama and the racism he has to deal with, with some crusts tossed in about the sexism Clinton deals with just so she can pretend it’s about both of them. And, if it were an article written for a predominantly Clinton-supporter-based audience, I’d be fine with that. But it’s not, it’s the Nation — just take one look at the front page and it’s pretty clear where they lean. So, they’re primarily addressing Obama supporters, but coming across as wagging their fingers at Clinton supporters. Plus, the examples she uses make it seem like the sexism is so petty that one would almost wonder why anyone would care. Why didn’t she use some of the more blatant and disgusting and over the top examples? Oh, right.

As for Obama’s votes, I’m surprised he was there to vote at all recently. He and Clinton have been on the campaign trail so long, they forgot their day jobs. :-P

Hey, apropos of this whole discussion, anyone see Patricia Williams’ Nation column? Iz to be read.

Radfem — I get that you don’t support either candidate, and I deeply admire that. I agree that neither candidate is perfect on any (let alone all) of the issues. But, I do have to wonder — do you also argue against Obama? Or is it only Clinton? And is it only white feminists who support Clinton that seem to get you so worked up?

Thank you for getting it. I do appreciate that. No, I’m not for either one but that said, I definitely do agree with points made on this thread critical on Clinton pertaining to her platform being largely for women like her which it is and for her campaign throwing a lot of women under the bus which it has done. And I agree with Donna’s excellent posting on this issue.

That’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t support Clinton. But she’s treated as if she’s the only candidate who cares about women’s issues and that’s not even true. There’s actually more than two political parties including those running female candidates with strong histories with women’s issues. As far as Obama’s record on “women’s issues”, it might help to look closer at the intersection principle raised earlier on this thread to find out some areas where he has emphasized.

Examining Obama’s Web site on civil rights issues, there’s a lot under that section including federal incentives to local LE agencies to eliminate racial profiling and strengthening the ability of the US DOJ particularly its Civil Rights Division to address civil rights violations. Both of these definitely should be included as women’s issues because it’s not just men of color who are racially profiled (in fact, Black women were the most commonly profiled by airport security/U.S. Customs in some major airports). And it’s not just men of color who are racially discriminated and/or harassed in the workplace, in housing, education, justice system and so forth.

Voting rights, yeah that’s a huge one that doesn’t just impact men of color (and it’s impacted different demogaphics in different ways), but many women as well. It wasn’t just men of color who were thrown under the bus so to speak by the Democratic Party which ignored pleas by representatives in Florida to look into allegations of misconduct disenfranchising African-American voters for example. How many female voters were betrayed after already being disenfranchised in the voting process? That’s one example.

But then on immigration, the emphasis on family safety is good but most of the rest is just as broken as the system he says is broken and is and will be harmful to women because not all undocumented immigrants are men. Many of them are women. But then I think this is an issue that the Democrats don’t get high marks on.

But then there’s issues that he doesn’t directly address. I also agree that Democratic candidates tend to be go back to “business as usual” when the election is over.

I believe I have argued against Obama several times on this thread. You see, I am not for either of them. So I don’t see arguing against Clinton as arguing for Obama or vice versa and I don’t keep count, because I have discussions off-line and I don’t think the people I discuss it with are confused about where I stand. My conversations about the election aren’t only online.

No, it’s not only White feminists who support Clinton who get me “worked up”. In fact, there are other habits by White feminists who support Clinton included reknowned ones who get me “worked up” in ways separate from Clinton herself. One of those being in different venues, the definition of issues pertaining to mostly White middle-class feminists for example which are enlargened to define what they mean to all women (as a gender).

And I get “worked up” about quite a few things. White feminists who support Clinton probably wouldn’t make the top 10 or at least the top five.

And so you know, I disagreed strongly with Obama’s opposition to withdrawing Blackwater’s mercenaries. However, they are not the only ones who rape and kill or have raped and killed women and girls in Iraq. Members of the U.S. military have done this as well, in and outside of the detention prisons and Iraqi homes. So sending the military over there in the first place which Clinton voted to do, was definitely harmful and may continue to be so to women and girls in Iraq including but not exclusively the women who are raped and often killed by U.S. soldiers.

And you know what? When it comes to female soldiers from the United States being raped, I daresay it’s their fellow soldiers who are doing the lionshare of that as well.

It’s not necessary “what” is in Iraq that’s harmful to women and girls there though that might play a role. I think it’s the fact that the United States was sending miltary and mercenaries there in the first place, by Bush as president but backed by Congress including members of both “oppositional” political parties. It’s the occupational mentality that we sent with that vote that is the real problem, whether it’s Blackwater or other mercenaries doing the raping and killing of the women and girls or U.S. soldiers doing the raping and killing of women and girls. It’s the disregard for the lives and bodies of Iraqi men, women and children for “security” purposes, when all that disregard does is create more resentment. With that resentment comes even greater disregard.

It’s not always as much a leap as people may think from being able to break down people’s doors with impunity and search them to being able to rape a teenaged girl in front of her family, kill the family and then set them on fire before hiding behind the “code of silence” which at least in this particular case was a more fragile one than is usual. Or receiving an order over the telephone to execute detainees rather than take them prisoner, though sometimes there’s some accountability as one of my city’s police officers discovered when he went to work and was arrested by federal agents in connection with his killing of two male detaineers in Fallujah several years ago though I doubt the individual who issued the order was arrested and charged.

I don’t hold my breath that Obama, Clinton and certainly not McCain will necessarily do anything to change the course to leave Iraq or create an “exit plan” which is necessary. After all, the Iraqi invasion and bombing began without an exit plan. I guess it didn’t seem like an important thing at the time. I’m not convinced that it’s now.

And, to take it one step further, I don’t think the Iraqi and American women were helped in ANY way when Obama voted against getting rid of the very contract workers that are assaulting these women in astounding numbers. (FTR, no, I don’t think Clinton’s or anyone else’s primary goal in voting for that bill was to help these women in particular — nonetheless, the effects would help these women. Voting against it didn’t help these women, and could help continue to aid their oppression.)

And I don’t think Obama is helping any of those women by not voting for the recent bill that would start pulling troops out this month. Yeah, yeah, he claims he didn’t vote for it because it didn’t have a definite end date. But then, his own foreign policy advisers have said he doesn’t actually have a definite end date either (only a “best case scenario” — and we know how well those go).

And, as for Afghanistan, Obama isn’t for pulling out of Afghanistan, either. He wants to send more troops in (including private contractors).

Radfem — I get that you don’t support either candidate, and I deeply admire that. I agree that neither candidate is perfect on any (let alone all) of the issues. But, I do have to wonder — do you also argue against Obama? Or is it only Clinton? And is it only white feminists who support Clinton that seem to get you so worked up?