Booman Tribune ~ Pelosi Brings a Hammer

Pelosi Brings a Hammer

by BooMan
Thu May 29th, 2008 at 10:23:14 AM EST

The toughest woman in American politics isn't Hillary Clinton, it's Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker didn't get her job by playing nice, and she's as tough as nails. Yet, she wields her power in a distinctively feminine manner, which means that oftentimes you never see the hand that slaps you down. Does Clinton think she's taking her campaign all the way to the convention? Think again.

"If you have no order and no discipline in terms of party rules, people will be having their primary in the year before the presidential election," she said. "So there has to be some penalty."
She said the party committee will come up with a formula that is "fair and accepted by both campaigns," perhaps allowing the states 50 percent of their delegates. But "if the resolution is not appropriate, then it remains for the (Democratic National Convention) credentials committee to resolve it," she said. Then, "it will have to happen by the end of June" or she will intervene, she said.
The Democrats hold their convention in late August in Denver.
Pelosi said she has not been in contact with the Clinton or Obama campaigns on the matter because "I think it is all going in the right direction" and will be resolved "in an orderly fashion" as early as next week.

That's the equivalent of Pelosi saying 'checkmate' to the aspirations of the Clinton campaign. But you have to read between the lines. Remember, Pelosi is actually neutral:

Pelosi, the nation's first female speaker of the House, said she is keenly aware of efforts, reported in The Chronicle this week, of the San Francisco political action committee, WomenCount, which is running full-page newspaper ads headlined "Not So Fast!" - warning against what it calls premature efforts to push Clinton from the race and crown Obama the party's nominee.
Susie Tompkins Buell, a longtime Clinton friend and one of the effort's organizers, said Wednesday the committee has raised $400,000 in the past 10 days from women across the country determined to make the case for Clinton all the way to the convention.
"God bless their enthusiasm," said Pelosi of the effort. "These women are fabulous, and I know many of them very well." But, she said, while "we all want to see a woman president ... they want me to be the chair of the convention, who is neutral. And yet they want me to be for Hillary Clinton."

How's that for a velvet glove? Look how gently she dispatches every one of Clinton's talking points! She never actually directly addresses any of Clinton's arguments, yet she piles each one on the ashheap. And all the while she maintains her neutrality. Just like she's neutral about the Bush administration:

"This president has caused great harm to America, and I say this with great sadness, because coming in as speaker, I'd hoped we could work together. ... He has refused to listen to the American people, (has shown) a tin ear to the American people, a blind eye to what was happening in Iraq. ... This president will go down in history as the worst, whether you're talking about jeopardizing our national security... (or) the worst record of job creation."

And the Republicans in the House:

"We just won three special (House) elections that the GOP never thought they would lose in a million years," Pelosi said, referring to recent congressional races in Illinois, Mississippi and Louisiana.
"(Republicans) tried to make it about me and San Francisco values. They don't have a message," she said. "It's going to be a very bad year for Republicans."

And John McCain:

"He was in the right place on immigration, and he reneged; he was in the right place on the president's tax cuts, and now he's changed his mind. I'm hoping that he doesn't change his mind on the global warming issue ... but I can't even think of a Republican president. It's simply not going to happen."

The Republicans had a small window when Pelosi became speaker when they could have made a mea culpa (like Scott McClellan) and removed Bush and Cheney from office. They decided to defend them instead and Pelosi acted accordingly. Now there will be payback. And the backlash is going to take out the centrist Democratic party establishment with it. Imagine how powerful Pelosi will be when she heads a caucus 280 members strong and has a president that has roots doing inner-city community organizing!

Change is coming and we're going to have to chuck a lot of the categories we've used to sift political information. The Democrats will become (like they were before the Reagan Revolution) a party-and-a-half. It will be run by the party we are all familiar with, but it will have a large conservative wing. But that conservative wing won't be racist and it won't deny global warming, and it won't be blindly in the pocket of corporations and unfettered free trade. It's a realignment. And the younger generation will assure that it is a lasting realignment and that it becomes less socially conservative over time.

Pelosi Brings a Hammer | 66 comments (66 topical, 0 editorial, 2 hidden)

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (4.00 / 2)

Are you proud of writing that?

It is OK for women to wield power as lang as we wield our power in a distinctively feminine manner, whatever the hell that is?

Is this post feminine enough for you? Am I coming across as too manish?

Did Chris Matthews steal your password?

by AliceDem on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 10:45:53 AM EST

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

your questions are off point.

How am I saying it wouldn't be okay for her to wield her power in a different way? I'm not. She could come out like Tom DeLay and say Clinton will never make it to Denver with her head intact. That ain't her style.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 10:54:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

It can be reasonably suggested, I think, that Pelosi comports herself in a relatively soft-spoken, at times even dumure manner -- and for a lot of people, in a comparatively feminine way -- which sort of stands to reason. And her approach, her style IS different but no less potent. I don't think you were reading BooMan right.

by Sprocket77 on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:06:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I don't mean this as a negative comparison and it isn't altogether apt, but in some ways Pelosi is like Cheney. Her power is exercised very quietly and with a lot of passive aggression. The result is that a lot of things get done without fingerprints.

The difference is that when Cheney actually speaks his aggression is about as male as it can get. Kind of like a male pumped full of testosterone and adrenaline, and provoked for a fight.

But Pelosi hits just as hard as Cheney and she is very effective. I don't want to overplay the feminine side of this argument. I'm not saying that women only exercise power one way or that men don't exercise power this way, but it does seem that Pelosi doesn't get credit for her toughness because it isn't the style of toughness we are accustomed to witnessing.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Gee, AliceDem, if you compliment someone being understated in wielding power, then it's a slap against a woman. So how about Susie Tompkins Buell? What do you think about someone going around fighting for feminism and raising money for Clinton who earned her personal fortune this way:

"Esprit de Corp. was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have illegally interrogated and intimidated $2-an-hour Chinese workers, and then to have shut down a factory to keep them from unionizing. The Department of Labor found that an Esprit contractor doctored payroll records and refused to pay overtime."

In essence, Clinton's last gasp push is being funded on the backs of abused women in sweatshops. Nice blow for feminism, eh? Was Buell being masculine or feminine when her people screwed over those women? Is union organizing masculine or feminine? How long does money have to sit in someone's bank account before it becomes clean and feminine? You see the problem you create for yourself when you attempt to divide the world by gender? Try taking a week and using class interests and money as ways of bifurcating the population. You'll find the Clintons and the Buells on the opposite side of the fence from you.

Or maybe what you are saying is that if the Clinton side of a debate continually invokes gender as defining this campaign that it is against the rules for a supporter of Obama to invoke it. Doubly so if an Obama supporter is a man.

Or maybe you are indignant for some other reason, like your indignity allows you to keep the fire for H. Clinton's candidacy alive in your heart. Or something. The Clinton rulebook seems to change from minute-to-minute, so perhaps you can give us a definitive rule for who can mention gender and how.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation in enlightening us.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

AliceDem, I read it exactly the same way you did.

I don't generally consider BooMan a sexist but everybody has the ability to make a statement that is sexist on its face. This is one.

Not all woman are the same in the same way that not all men are the same.

And woman wield their power in a variety of ways in the same way that men wield their power in a variety of ways.

I suggest BooMan should use real adjectives to describe what Nancy Pelosi does.

by maryb2004 on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

wouldn't there have to be something derogatory somewhere (even if only implied) for a statement to be sexist?

Where's the implied criticism?

How am I belittling Pelosi? I am praising her.

Look. Here's what I am trying to say. I'll say it in new words and you tell me if you think it is sexist.

People are criticizing Pelosi for being weak against Republicans and people are criticizing her for not stepping in and putting an end to this primary. She's not weak. She's very strong and effective. The reason you might think she is weak is because you are not accustomed to seeing power wielded this way. Part of this is because Pelosi wields her power in a style rarely used by men (at least, as their primary tool in the box).

Now, if you want to get into a whole side argument about how males and females use aggression or wield power, that's fine. But I wasn't trying to make some argument for that. I'd be happy if we could just stipulate that, regardless of species, males and females emphasize different strategies to get things done.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 12:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

In a word - no. There wouldn't.

Sexism is a belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other and can also refer to a hatred or distrust towards either sex as a whole (see also misogyny and misandry), or imposing stereotypes of masculinity on men or femininity on women. It is also called male and female chauvinism.
Sexism refer to any and all systemic differentiations based on the sex of the individuals not based on their individual merits, and is commonly considered to be sex discrimination, which in some forms is illegal in some countries.

Here's a prototypical example of imposing stereotypes of femininity on women:

Yet, she wields her power in a distinctively feminine manner ...

It doesn't matter that you meant it as a compliment.

I have no further time to educate you on systemic sexism that even non-sexist men fall into. I am engaged today in a matter in which I am, by your terms, acting in a distinctly unfeminine manner.

Your terms would be wrong, however. I am acting in a way that I deem best to accomplish my goals and my client's goals. As Nancy Pelosi is acting in a way that she deems best to accomplish her goals.

I hope I speak for Nancy as well as myself when I tell you that you have built a beautiful pedestal called femininity on which you would like us to stand - but I have no intention of getting up on that pedestal and limiting my movements. I don't believe Nancy would either.

You need that vacation. Truly.

I'm logging out. Think about it.

by maryb2004 on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 12:26:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

Okay. I can see how I am imposing stereotypes and how that can fit into the larger field of sexism. However, I'm not limiting anyone's movements.

It's true that men and woman emphasize different strategies in a general sense, and it doesn't impose any limits on anyone to point it out. You put a straitjacket on discourse when you set these things off to the side as unacceptable.

If we look at Hillary Clinton, many women have talked about how she suffers because she's so aggressive and that people do not expect that from a woman. I'd agree with the women that are saying that. I'd also agree that women in general have a difficult time balancing the need to be tough enough to fulfill people's idea of a commander-in-chief with people's resistance to embracing that kind of toughness in a woman. It's not a no-win situation at all, but it is a barrier and a challenge (and one women face to a lesser extent throughout the corporate world). Now, I think it is sexist to criticize Clinton for being tough or aggressive but I don't think it is sexist to point out that it adds to her unlikeability in way it would not in a man.

Pointing something out is not the same as perpetuating something, which is basically what you are accusing me of doing. There is a distinctively feminine style of doing things, even if it does not apply to all women. Clinton has a distinctively unfeminine style of politics, which is why she grates on a lot of people. What's probably causing the problem here is that you think I am saying that women should restrict themselves to exercising power in a feminine style. Or, in other words, women should avoid violating people's expectations about how women should act. I am emphatically not saying that.

I have no pedestal to my inner vision of femininity. But I know femininity when I see it.

But this is probably pointless because if you want to see gender distinctions as sexist or as the perpetuation of gender stereotypes then you are going to find all explanations wanting.

For the record, I don't dislike Clinton's style because it violates my ideal of femininity (it doesn't) but because she's grossly dishonest. And I don't like Pelosi's style because it fulfills my ideal of femininity (it doesn't), but because she is effective.

Why do Hillary's negatives go up when she attacks more than Obama's go up when he attacks? Partly it is a matter of personality, but it's also because people expect men to be aggressive and do not expect women to be aggressive. Hardly anyone disputes this.

Why doesn't Pelosi get due credit for her toughness? Because people are used to the kind of toughness used by Tom DeLay and Karl Rove, not the kind of toughness that sneaks up on you or disarms you. These two explanations are basically the same. Yet, only the latter elicits charges of sexism, while the other is used extensively in the service of combating sexism. Why is that?

Regardless, point taken about how what I wrote can be read to be "imposing stereotypes of masculinity on men or femininity on women".

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

How did this become about Hillary Clinton? My comment said nothing about Hillary Clinton and personally I am not interested in discussing Hillary Clinton. I'm here to talk about Nancy Pelosi and your statement about her.

What's probably causing the problem here is that you think I am saying that women should restrict themselves to exercising power in a feminine style. Or, in other words, women should avoid violating people's expectations about how women should act. I am emphatically not saying that.

No. I absolutely don't think you are saying that women should avoid violating people's expectations about how women should act. But I think that society in general does have expectations about how women should act that are unrealistic and are limiting to women. And I think that your labeling of Pelosi's style is perpetuating a stereotype that feeds those expectations and, therefore, you should be careful about using them.

My comment is all about the force of language. Not all the biological stuff you all are discussing below.

Pointing something out is not the same as perpetuating something ...

Yes, it can be. Language has force even when the intent is not the effect.

There is a distinctively feminine style of doing things, even if it does not apply to all women.

No. There is a general attitude in a society that has been largely shaped by male thought that there is a way of doing something that is deemed feminine. And that general attitude carries a judgment with it (depending on the circumstances it can be good or bad). It is the judgment that goes along with the label that is often the problem. For men and for women who are labeled feminine instead of being described by their characteristics.

Clinton has a distinctively unfeminine style of politics, which is why she grates on a lot of people.

Leaving aside Clinton (who I don't want to talk about) does a man who has the same style of politics grate on a lot of people? Maybe. In which case the style is grating - it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman doing it. Or in some cases is there a double standard when it comes to male and female politicians and is that double standard perpetuated when women politicians like Nancy Pelosi are complimented for having a "feminine" style?

I don't like Pelosi's style because it fulfills my ideal of femininity (it doesn't), but because she is effective.

Then you should simply have written about how she found an effective style and strategy and not labeled it as feminine.

Why doesn't Pelosi get due credit for her toughness? Because people are used to the kind of toughness used by Tom DeLay and Karl Rove, not the kind of toughness that sneaks up on you or disarms you. These two explanations are basically the same. Yet, only the latter elicits charges of sexism, while the other is used extensively in the service of combating sexism. Why is that?

I'm not sure I even understand what you are saying ( what do you mean by the latter and the former?) but I really don't understand why you complaining about whatever it is to me. I didn't say that a statement that the kind of toughness that sneaks up on you or disarms you is sexist. Some men use that kind of power too. I know quite a few male lawyers who negotiate in a disarming, schmoozing way that is quite effective. Nobody calls them feminine. They call them smooth. Maybe Nancy Pelosi is smooth.

by maryb2004 on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

The former:

Why do Hillary's negatives go up when she attacks more than Obama's go up when he attacks? Partly it is a matter of personality, but it's also because people expect men to be aggressive and do not expect women to be aggressive. Hardly anyone disputes this.

The latter:

Why doesn't Pelosi get due credit for her toughness? Because people are used to the kind of toughness used by Tom DeLay and Karl Rove, not the kind of toughness that sneaks up on you or disarms you.

The former is invoked as the double-standard that is form of sexism in both the workplace and in politics.

But the latter is really an identical argument, and yet used, in this case, to accuse of sexism.

In both cases, the point is that people have gender expectations, not that this is good or bad.

So why does only one argument get attacked while the other is used?

That was my question.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Who is attacking the second one? My previous comment said it was gender neutral.

The problem is when people use shorthand to describe this strategic style and call it "feminine". Female people use both styles. The first style isn't inherently ineffective for a woman any more than the second style is inherently effective for a woman.

by maryb2004 on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 05:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

maryb writes: "I have no further time to educate you on systemic sexism that even non-sexist men fall into. I am engaged today in a matter in which I am, by your terms, acting in a distinctly unfeminine manner."

People who post here come and go. They do things off-line. Why are you presuming Booman's opinion of your unnamed off-line activity in terms of gender-specific roles? Just had to get a little prejudicial dig before you did something that you just bet Booman would perceive as "masculine." So while you have no idea how Booman perceives whatever the hell you are doing you admit that there are cultural expectations within cultures based on sex. Are you blaming Booman for acknowledging what you acknowledge? Would you be satisfied if he somehow wrote his piece without mentioning feminine?

I've got a feeling that you don't do a very good job of educating those who oppose your opinion.

The problem with any discussion of sexism is that there are cultural divisions between sexes (gender-assigned roles) and there are biological differences between sexes. To be a feminist and deny that there are differences and tendencies within each group for a certain behavior is to reduce your argument to dogma over biology, which is akin to arguing religion.

Having admitted that there are differences GENERALLY between men and women in how they act, how they perceive things, and how they perform within a social context and within cultures (really, go spend some time reading science articles on the brain), it is then necessary to examine and respect or criticize how each individual behaves within those contexts.

Booman appears to have reached the point in analysis where he is examining people as individuals whereas you are lecturing him based on your dogma. Any line of thinking which dooms various groups to sameness instead of exploring individuality within the context of groups is pretty worthless. It doesn't lift consciousness at all but gives true believers easy ways to dismiss their opponents.

Just saying.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Would you be satisfied if he somehow wrote his piece without mentioning feminine?

Yes.

Booman appears to have reached the point in analysis where he is examining people as individuals...

But he puts a label on Pelosi, i.e., "feminine," that is gender generic. Feminine as an adjective communicates - what?

If Reid is substituted for Pelosi in BooMan's piece would feminine still be an apt descriptor? Or would other adjectives be used to describe his management-communication style? My guess is other adjectives would be used - gender would not enter into it.

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. (George Carlin)

by tampopo on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 03:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Well, perhaps feminine and masculine should be retired then. What would replace those words?

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 08:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Direct, subtle, eloquent, no-nonsense, authoritarian, consensual, assertive, aggressive...

there are lots and lots of words to choose - the is dictionary filled with adjectives ;)

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. (George Carlin)

by tampopo on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I'd be happy if we could just stipulate that, regardless of species, males and females emphasize different strategies to get things done.

Not, in fact, true. Lionnesses, for example, employ hunting methods that, if cast in human terms, would be categorized as "masculine". Men and women aren't "wired differently". That is a sexist notion, even though your original language wasn't. We are, however, trained by society to prefer different methods of problem-solving. The method of problem-solving socially assigned to women is designated "feminine" and the method assigned to men is designated "masculine". Women are perfectly capable of using - and even emphasizing! - "masculine" techniques, but tend to face social pressure that makes them uncomfortable when doing so. Likewise with men and "feminine" techniques.

Ergo, you're right about Pelosi using a kind of strength that most people don't recognize as strength. The problem is categorizing that form of strength as inherently feminine, and claiming that women are hard-wired to prefer it. They're not.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

But I didn't say males and females from different species use the same strategies as each other, but that within species they use different ones. Lions are a case in point to what I'm saying. The males and females are quite distinct from each other in the strategies they use to get things done.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:06:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Still, those differences are defined by social pressure rather than genetics. (Or at least, we've no evidence that they're defined by genetics, and plenty that they're defined by social pressure) If you'd read a bit farther in that Wikipedia page, you'd have seen that male and female lions demonstrate basically the same behavior when it comes to hunting... Except in the context of a pack society, at which point they begin adopting gendered roles. Likewise, you're going to get species like... Oh, say, rattlesnakes. As far as I'm aware, there's no difference at all in behavior between rattlesnake sexes.

I'm not willing to subdivide human behavior, or even problem-solving strategies, into "masculine" and "feminine" so easily. I think it's a drastic oversimplification, and probably an instance of confirmation bias to boot.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:16:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I make no argument for hard-wiring.

I think we're all familiar (at least anecdotally) with the Napoleon Complex in small men and the Gentle Giant in large men. I don't know if science can back up those stereotypes or not, but those traits would not be dictated by hard-wiring.

Well, actually they could be, but I doubt it. Much more likely, large men find it unnecessary to project fierceness and small men do find it necessary. Maybe this isn't so much the case in a modern civil society, but it's still true on schoolyards and city corners.

People will adjust to their circumstances as well as mimic their gender role models. In most species this means that males act like their fathers and girls act like their mothers and that each group has a slightly different coping strategy.

There shouldn't be a debate about nature vs. nurture in this case because the end result is the same either way.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

The end result isn't the same. There's a very important difference. Biological hard-wiring would be fundamental to human nature. Social conditioning is a product of a sexist, patriarchal society, and would change (hopefully becoming more egalitarian) as a result of efforts to eliminate sexism.

The problem here is the application of a gendered stereotype. Why is Pelosi's gender at all relevant? Particularly since "feminine" isn't exactly a useful, unambiguous descriptor? There's plenty of other ways to describe her tactics and strategies that are both more accurate and don't carry sexist or gendered baggage.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

well, yes, and as I have said, female roles/strategies/ideals change as circumstances change. In this regard, I think culture lags behind necessity but eventually catches up to it. That's where we are now, in the catching up phase.

You can't really separate steps towards egalitarianism (as you put it) from the economic need for women in the workplace and advances (both medical and legal) in reproductive choice. They all go together. But I would argue that a sudden return to an agricultural society (without reliable birth control methods) would reverse many of the advances in women's egalitarianism.

We tend to think and work in the context of political struggles. But there are more sweeping mechanism in play that ebb and flow and beat to their own drummer.

We fight for women's equality because it is an intrinsic good and right. But when you place things in a larger context, people will arrange their roles religiously, culturally, and legally in ways that make sense for them at any given particular time. And when the culture lags too far behind new necessities you get this tension between reactionaries (who are more attached to the rules than the functionality of the rules) and progressives (that are not interested in old rules that no longer need apply and hinder advancement).

Seen in this light, there is no inherent femininity and masculinity but ever evolving modes of distributing work among the genders. And at this point in time, there simply is not that much need to divide the work up along gender lines. That says more about our present circumstances, however, than about any particular principle involved.

One thing I wish we knew more about are the more ancient matriarchal societies. Joseph Campbell did excellent work on that but not from the standpoint of understanding exactly why they faded away.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Seen in this light, there is no inherent femininity and masculinity but ever evolving modes of distributing work among the genders.

There's not even that. There's no femininity or masculinity, period. There is patriarchal society trying to fit men into the "man box" (IE, masculinity) and women into the "woman box" (IE, femininity). Without that, the variation between individuals will likely be greater than the difference in averages between the sexes.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

you're tripping up over keeping categories separate.

Femininity and masculinity are partly genetic (that's why we look the way we do) but what we're talking about is exactly what people's perceived gender roles are at any given moment in time.

You are arguing that people's perception of gender roles is wholly manufactured and artificial and that if people would cease having gender expectations that differential gender roles would disappear.

I don't think that's true but I am not even engaged in that argument. I'm not asserting that that isn't the case to make my point.

My point, in this context, is that we are each born into an environment where there are certain tasks to be done. In some environments it makes sense to have a division of labor along gender lines and in other environments it makes sense to have both genders trained up to carry out very similar or the same tasks. We live in the latter environment, but our religious and cultural heritage are from an older, different environment.

This leads to two camps. One camp believes the most important thing is to cling to the religion and rules that applied to the old environment and the other camp wants a new culture with new rules to account for the new environment. This is roughly the debate between conservatives and reformers in all societies except the most well calibrated.

In our present environment, the need for differential roles based on gender is about as low as it can go while women still bear children. Therefore, our tolerance for gender distinctions and gender roles is also at a low ebb. Where I think we truly differ is in seeing this as a straight-shot of progressive progress. I do see it as progressive progress, but I also see it is a reflection of a new environment for work and our efforts to reform our laws, religion, and culture to reflect what works in this environment.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 03:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

C'mon, there's no scientific basis for the fact that men are more likely than women to be aggressive? Don't some of us have testosterone and some of us have estrogen which causes certain chemical reactions in the body? I thought testosterone caused people to be more violent and aggressive. And doesn't the fact that mens' muscles are stronger count for something? I don't know, I understand the reluctance to not give everything a gender role but it seems pretty silly to say that there are no physical differences between men and women and their levels of aggression.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

No. AFAIK, there's no sound scientific basis for any of that. Differences due to gender were, last I checked, smaller than the differences created by training, exercise regimes, etc. Differences in strength depend on how you measure. IIRC, the male muscle structure does give us an advantage in "explosive" upper-body strength, but how this translates to "strength" is complicated at best. Even the stereotypical testosterone/estrogen aggression thing is, at best, an enormous oversimplification. According to what I'd consider reliable sources, there are probably emotional differences based on said hormones, but they're complicated and hard to separate from social factors.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Have you ever tried to keep a tomcat as a pet?

Castration leads to passivity in many species, including humans.

It would be too simplistic to explain it exclusively through hormone levels because hormones alone cannot create complex behaviors. However, high levels of testosterone are a good indicator of aggressive behavior.

More interestingly, the higher's one class in society the higher one's testosterone level is likely to be (if you are a man), but no one is sure which is the cause of the other.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I've been doing a lot of running recently and one can easily see the differences between male and female bodies in that sport. And running is what I believe to be one of the best tests of athletic ability that would be transferable to the wild (along with wrestling or boxing). Female runners simply cannot develop the same leg strength as male runners. In the last 12K I ran in the women elite runners got a 4 minute head start because the best female runner in the World happens to be 4 minutes slower than the fastest male in the world. Men are faster than women at every distance. That's a fact. Look up the world record holders.

That does not mean that we should pigeon-hole people into a category based on their sex. In my running club I would not assume a female runner is slower than I am (unless her leg muscles look really wimpy). And I actually enjoy running with the women runners that are my speed because if I were a woman I would be in the top percent of runners. So I'm excited for my female running partners because they are actually so much better than me, percentage wise.

One would see a similar dynamic in wrestling and weightlifting or boxing. It really is beyond silly to argue that there is no inherent advantage for men in these sports of strength.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 03:15:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

There are physical differences between men and women. Let's skip the basics. If you can type you have encountered them.

And there are all sorts of studies about testosterone and estrogen and how it affects behavior. There was a recent study about how female rats in utero with brothers tend to be more aggressive and have a larger search area (for food) than female rats who weren't exposed to the testosterone of brother males in utero. And while there is plenty of evidence of some females being violent, one only needs to look at studies from every culture in the world to see that men are, generally, more belligerent and aggressive than women. Which makes women, generally, less belligerent and less aggressive than men.

Which proves nothing when it comes to individuals. Each individual man or woman can be more or less aggressive (or whatever metric you'd like to use) than the average. Some of that has to do with the biology of the individual, some has to do with the culture one is raised in, and some has to do with family dynamics.

We're all individuals. I'm still a man if I cry when I watch a movie. Brandy Chastain is more aggressive than I could ever be, but she's still a woman. We're all who we are.

Perhaps, Booman, your sin was to even mention the term "feminine," because, while gender role is still a metric that even maryb will use, what passes for feminism in some circles doesn't allow men to use such terms. I'd suggest in the future to use a more non-gender-specific term when discussing H. Clinton, like *ssh*le, which is part of every human's anatomy.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 03:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Perhaps, Booman, your sin was to even mention the term "feminine," because, while gender role is still a metric that even maryb will use, what passes for feminism in some circles doesn't allow men to use such terms.

Bingo. Also, you (BooMan) wrote in a language that exists within a rather gender-role-defining society; how could you? Maybe typing it in Klingon would've been less problematic, but I wouldn't know...

And Bob, I like your suggestion -- laughing out loud brought my corticosteroid levels back down really nicely! BTW men and women both have alla same hormones, but in different proportions (e.g. women make testosterone, men make estrogen).

Highly recommended: Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn about Sex from Animals by Marlene Zuk and The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture by Roger N. Lancaster. (Latter is good against homophobic uses of "science".)

What offends me the most here is people forgetting the limb Pelosi went out on to give props (and attention) to Jack Murtha at a time when so few people were willing to point out our Emperor's lack of clothes.

by Lyrebird on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 03:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

What we can and can't learn about sex from animals, eh? Well, the study I mentioned upstream, about the rats in utero, have some detractors precisely because rats have different uteruses than humans.

I'm not quite ready to retire "masculine" and "feminine" because there may not be a better term in certain discussions, but here Booman could have probably used "subtle" or "private" to describe Pelosi's behavior. For all I know Nancy punches walls and throws empty whiskey bottles at her staff when no one's looking.

Anyway, the bigger thing is to look at people as individuals.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 08:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (4.00 / 3)

I think Pelosi, Dean and Reid have been working the end game on this for a while. They knew they were going to be dealing with people you have to proverbially beat to death with a shovel to get out of the way.

Remember Reid doing his cryptic best as a wizened, Buddhist master? "Things are being done" he said. They anticipated the potential of a vicious fight for the control and future of the Party as well as the nomination. The DLC has got to go. Give me some Pelosi/San Francisco values any day over that bunch.

by Sprocket77 on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 10:54:28 AM EST

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

most powerful?
when? can we see? soon?
impeachment? no
democratic agenda? no (well, ok, they did raise the minimum wage a tad)
i am waiting for that power.
power is meant to be used.

The sleep of reason begets tyrants. -Goya

by joe in oklahoma on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:01:50 AM EST

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (4.00 / 2)

The Republicans would have been so much better off if they had given the nod to impeachment and insisted on the rights of the legislative branch to compel testimony and documents.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

And in the long run we would have been too.

by Quentin on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

From my perspective, the problem is... How does the legislative branch compel testimony and documents? They seem to have no legal power to compel anything, since they seem to be reliant on bits of government controlled by the Presidency to enforce their will. If the President refuses to play ball, they don't seem to have any recourse.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

with a politicized Judiciary and small congressional majorities they really do have little recourse. In this case, the recourse is the coming elections.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Well, I've heard a lot tough words but I'm not sure how much substantive toughness has been delivered. Though the high expectations which she set in the giddy days early on in late 2006 and early 2007 might have been a little unrealistic.

Progress has been made, though. And certainly much, much more so than would have happened were the Dems still in the minority.

Without a doubt, patience is a tough thing to practice. Especially when we had to stand on the sideline for so long and watch the Republicans bulldoze into law so much of the current lawlessness. I am hopeful, though, that in the end we will pleased with the results which are coming.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio (miken45054@yahoo.com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

i guess what i am saying is i wish she would at least put up a fight.
i am no Hillary supporter, but i will give her credit for taking her fight public....if Pelosi has fought for anything it has yet to be seen. of copurse the WH and GOP will fight back, but she needs to be seen standing up for the things we were promised in 2006 that are now off the radar.

The sleep of reason begets tyrants. -Goya

by joe in oklahoma on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:12:57 AM EST

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

You'd think she's a waitress, always arranging the table, taking things off and putting them back on.

by Quentin on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0)

She did take impeachment "off the table." Those were her exact words.

by sjct on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:34:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

yes, she did. Not that it meant anything. If you're honest you know that impeachment would have flowed naturally if the administration didn't refuse to allow testimony and provide documents and the Judiciary didn't back up their obstruction. Pelosi allowed Waxman and Conyers to ask for the evidence that would have made the case for impeachment.

When that evidence was not forthcoming she had a choice between impeaching over process (which would have been justified, but politically difficult) and just taking the case to the American people and letting us decide. I think we'll like the result of her choice.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:40:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

I just find the expression 'off the table' so dumb. The Bush crowd adores it, it's their idea of pithiness.

by Quentin on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:57:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (none / 0)

Yes, I think she played the impeachment hand much more shrewdly and expertly than most people -- myself included -- thought at the time. I do tend to trust her judgement a bit more than I did.

by Sprocket77 on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

If you want to know what Pelosi is doing, take some time and peruse the House fundraising discrepancy. Take a look at New Jersey or Ohio or Illinois or Indiana or Minnesota. Look at how many Democratic seats have no challenger that has raised a dime. Look at how many Republicans have extremely well-financed opponents. Impeachment was one way of dealing with this problem but it required the Republicans to assent to the process of compelling testimony and documents. It required the Justice Dept. to enforce subpoenas. When they would not do that, the only alternative was to wipe them out. There are now 70 Republican House seats in jeopardy and 50 seriously so.

In the Senate, there are already 11 Republican held seats where the challenger is either polling ahead or within the margin of error.

In politics, one way of getting things done is to crush your opponents at the polls. The legwork for this has been done. And Pelosi can't even take credit for the Republicans voting against Mother's Day. But you noticed that she just forced them to vote against vets on Memorial Day, right? As did Reid.

This is what I'm talking about in terms of a hammer. The Republicans are the weakest national party in memory, about to be decimated. They can't even do anything about it now because their recruitment and fundraising is non-existent. McCain and Bush can't even fill a hotel ballroom in Salt Lake City to raise money and the Republicans are doing things like this:

When the deadline for certification passed yesterday, Jim Ogonowski, the Republican leadership's choice to challenge US Senator John F. Kerry, was 82 signatures short of qualifying for the GOP primary ballot, according to the state's central voter registry.

No challenger even on the ballot in Arkansas to take on Mark Pryor.

There wasn't much Reid and Pelosi could do except this. Shutting down DC to hold a fruitless impeachment during a time of war and a tanking economy would have been gratifying to partisans like us, but this is much, much better long-term.

After all, historic defeats set precedents, too.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

There wasn't much Reid and Pelosi could do except this. Shutting down DC to hold a fruitless impeachment during a time of war and a tanking economy would have been gratifying to partisans like us, but this is much, much better long-term.

OK, I'll buy that. I don't like it, but I'll buy it. As long as justice is done after the election. After all that Bush and Cheney and their gang of thugs have done to damage our Constitution, our nation and the world, they cannot be allowed to just walk away scot free in January. Crimes of the gravest magnitude have been committed. Treason, war crimes, profiteering, criminal negligence against the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, and on and on and on. These people must face justice for their crimes. Some of them belong in jail. Some of them should face international retribution for crimes against humanity.

If, after this wondrous realignment that everyone seems to be promising, the Democrats suddenly find other priorities and let these cretins walk, I will have to think very carefully about what it means to be a Democrat and what it means to be an American. And I'll probably have to go away by myself for a while so that I don't do something stupid and violent.

What part of "international war crimes" do you not understand?

by budr (budr at hughes net) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:24:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Awesome, awesome comment. Couldn't agree more and you showed that Booman's premise is simply the excuse Democrats are using for doing nothing. They have no intention of remedying the wrongs or seeking justice and standing up for American values. No. They want you to go away and stop bothering them so they can continue to hold a cushy office and get their corporate donations. They had a duty as 1/3 of our government to stand up and ensure that the constitution was being followed. Bush admitted to illegally spying on millions of Americans without warrants. They have admitted to committing other war crimes. Most Democrats, when confronted with the facts, would agree that crimes occurred and the guilty should be punished. But the Democratic politicians are too scared. They are always one electoral victory away from finally pursuing the Democratic platform. As if they need a supermajority to finally have the courage of their convictions. No wonder Republicans have been winning the battle of ideas for years--they actually believe in their ideas and fight for them no matter how unpopular they are at the time.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

As long as justice is done after the election.

IF we act after this point, I'll be very satisfied. I've been very concerned that we could bring the whole criminal enterprise known as the Bush administration to justice now, only to have shrub pardon every last one of these cretins on his way out the door, like Poppy 20 years ago.

But they absolutely need to be held to account. Part of the reason we're stuck with these idiots now is that we never really dealt with Iran Contra 20 years ago. (IMO, we didn't go far enough with Watergate, but something had to be done--there was too much wrongdoing out there in the open, so you had to at least give the appearance that something would be done about it.) And you have some of the same actors from then making things even worse for us as a country now.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

by AP on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Is Pelosi's job 100% preparing for the next election? Isn't part of her job to also run the people's house? You know, to legislate and oversee the government?

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

can you point me to one thing she's done wrong where a different approach would have avoided a veto?

she has trouble holding the caucus together on a few things, like FISA, but has the president received retroactive immunity? Hasn't the FISA amendment lapsed?

The caucus would not hold on forcing an end to war and that is not Pelosi's fault. And the only other area where I think she can be faulted is taking too passive a stand on administrative obstruction of the prerogatives of the legislative branch. But her only real option here has been to invoke inherent contempt and put people in the Capitol prison. And it could still come to that, but it's a sound strategy to take such things slowly. In particular, there are benefits to upholding the law but remember something that Fitzgerald said about Scooter Libby not getting charged with the underlying crime.

But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn't really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.
If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we've alleged -- convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements -- very serious felonies -- will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he's held accountable.
It's not as if you say, "Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute."

In this case, the statute is the November elections.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Your example actually proves my point. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, upheld the law and prosecuted Libby despite the fact that the President didn't want it to happen and threatened a "veto". The President issued his "veto", in this case a pardon, which totally reversed everything Fitzgerald did. If Nancy Pelosi was the prosecutor she would never have prosecuted because Bush would have pardoned him anyway. So, your example actually proves my point, that sometimes you have to fulfill your duty even if the President will use his power to stop you. Fitzgerald tried to charge as many crimes as he could but remember--he was thwarted from charging the underlying conduct because of the crimes of Bush officials in concealing the underlying crime. He tried everything in his power to get to the bottom of it--including taking the extreme step of charging perjury to get to the underlying crime. Nancy never tried that hard. Nancy never started the equivalent of the Grand Jury process. Nancy could have said that there were members of the caucus that wanted to impeach and she would let them start the process and see where the evidence led them. It would be like Fitzgerald calling off the grand jury process because he thought Bush would pardon.

So, impeachment is just one issue she failed to lead on. She didn't have to go to the final step but she also didn't need to undercut those of us on the left and totally hamper any sort of inquiry (even though that may be happening now with Waxman as the Democratic leadership is finally learning confrontation is good).

My main point is we are seeing the successes Democrats are having in openly confronting Bush and the Republicans. Nancy did not advocate this type of confrontation but she is quickly learning that it can help. So good for her on that score . .. . but a hammer she does not wield.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

you have a point but it is a little strained and it totally ignores my point as if I hadn't made it.

Impeachment hearings are not opened without setting predicates. The Judicial and Oversight committees were not restricted in probing for information that would lead to impeachment. Ironically, it was the work of Talking Points Memo on the attorney firings that really opened up the strongest rationale for going after the administration. It quickly wiped out the entire upper echelon of the Justice Department (including the AG) and Karl Rove and his shop. But just as in other cases, the president was insulated by a refusal of Miers and Bolten to testify. And now Rove. So, impeachment, if it comes up at all, comes up in the context of prerogatives and balance of powers. And that's compelling to us, but nothing compared to a good blow job as far the media or the magazines are concerned. Furthermore, losing an impeachment battle over separation of powers sets the precedent that Congress doesn't have those powers. No sane Congress would intentionally lose such a battle.

In your comparison, it would Fitzgerald deciding not to prosecute because a pardon would set the precedent that it is legal to lie under oath. Apples and oranges.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I admit the political ramifications were unknown and very possibly bad for Democrats. I disagree with your prediction, but I concede it was possible that the public would punish Democrats for being too tough on Mr. 25%.

But, Bush committed high crimes and misdemeanors. He illegally spied on Americans. He illegally tortured prisoners. He may have used the Justice Department for to prosecute his opponents. He committed other war crimes. He illegally politicized the military and may have illegally engaged in propaganda and lied to get the U.S. to enter a war. Each and every one of these crimes should be punished.

We will all pay the price for the failure of the Democrats to stand up for the rule of law. We will never know if you and Nancy Pelosi were right--if Democrats would have been crushed in the elections for taking on Bush and trying to impeach him. I don't believe it. But fine. Democrats have been operating under that assumption for over 15 years now. They are so scared of their own beliefs that they run away as fast as they can when the going gets tough. All the recent evidence supports my political instincts--that the American public is hungry for a Democrat that has the courage of his or her convictions and will FIGHT Bush and the right-wingers. I don't know why this is so hard for liberals to understand.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 04:59:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

what prediction are you disagreeing with? I didn't say the Democrats would have suffered crushing defeats at the polls if they had opened impeachment hearings, I said that would not have gained a conviction over mere separation of powers issues.

It would be much more accurate to say that opening impeachment hearings would have imperiled crushing electoral defeats for the Republicans.

But that's speculative. What's not speculative is that the Republicans in the Senate would never have removed both Bush and Cheney for failing to comply with Congressional subpoenas. And a failure to convict over that issue would set the precedent that the administration doesn't have to comply with subpoenas, and also that it is a political and not a judicial matter.

I'm really saying two things.

Pelosi did not really take impeachment off the table. She allowed Conyers and Waxman to go after to goods. Any previous administration would have felt compelled, as Nixon did, to comply with Congress. This administration did not.
That Pelosi can vindicate the public's interest (just as well as by impeaching without conviction) by orchestrating a 50-seat pickup in November, which is well on the way to accomplishing.

That's the kind of toughness she has and most people have trouble recognizing.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Point # 1 is good. Yes, that is good that she is allowing the investigative process to continue. But she kind of weakened the impact of these proceedings by concluding that they would lead nowhere. She should not have made such an unequivocable statement.

Point #2 is not so good. I agree that a 50 seat pickup is a small form of justice. But that's not real justice. Real justice is impeachment or the convictions in the criminal courts. Real justice is a change of these still illegal and immoral policies.

All will be quickly forgiven by me if Pelosi gets a special prosecutor appointed next spring that allows for these criminals to be brought to justice. If waiting until then prevents a Bush pardon or commution, then great, it was a brilliant political move.

But I don't think that's Nancy's game plan. Her game plan was to play it safe and not seek full justice. She just wanted the form of justice that helps her political party the most. That is nothing to be proud of.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 05:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

If you read this blog in 2007 you know that I was calling for impeachment almost every single day. But I was calling for it to be a carefully laid process, with the predicates being made through congressional inquiries. What it took my a while to realize is that the Justice Dept was going to stonewall Congress's prerogatives and cause a separation of powers crisis. In retrospect, I give Pelosi credit for understanding that impeachment wasn't going anywhere and that the Republicans were not going to budge on the war or anything else.

I consistently underestimated the Republicans' unwillingness to take steps to save themselves. I want to impress upon you how set in stone the huge losses for Republicans are for this fall. The recruitment and fundraising failures are just staggering in nature. And the Democrats are running a much stronger and bigger and better financed slate of politicians this year than at any time in my lifetime. A little message tweaking can do relatively little to change the sweeping nature of the coming realignment. And this is a direct result of the Republicans sticking with an administration that has been stuck at 30% in the polls for three years now.

Pelosi can't really do anything about the Republican's suicidal tendencies other than taking political advantage of it.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 05:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I'm more than willing to listen to your predictions about a huge victory in November. I trust your judgment and I give it a lot of weight. That's great that the Democrats are taking advantage of Republicans missteps and stand to gain some seats (but really, a party of clowns should be able to beat the Republicans).

But, if a landslide is so certain, what do the Democrats have to be scared of? Can't they afford to take more risks? If they can't do the right thing when they are on the verge of electoral landslides then they will never do the right thing when the going gets tough. Sometimes you change public opinion by taking the lead or fighting for something that is greater than you. The public is actually open to impeachment!!!!!!!! If the Democrats would have fought against the war and torture in 2004 instead of running scared think of how this would have changed the landscape now. We Democrats need to start taking lessons from Barry Goldwater and fighting for our ideas over the long haul. The hard work of fighting when things aren't looking good for your side needs to be done. Nancy only fights in really, really, good times.

I guess we just disagree about what the constitutional responsibilities of our representatives are. I think Congress has a duty, despite what public opinion is, to do the right thing and vote their conscience. On issues like war and civil liberties at least. To me, I draw the line when my country tortures other human beings and illegally spies on its citizens. It really is that simple. I usually avoid absolute arguments but you either believe in that line or you don't. The vast majority of the Democrattic party, to its great shame, allowed the President to cross those lines. You will never be able to convince me that it was appropriate to not only ignore this illegal behavior, but to actively squash any investigations and to retroactively make this behavior legal. There is no excuse for Democrats. The public was ready but the Democrats did not have the courage. They were not patriots when their country desperately needed patriots.

And I was reading the blog in 2007--but I read a lot and I don't remember all of the nuances of your positions.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 06:10:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I basically agree with you. The one area where I disagree is that investigations were quashed by Pelosi. That would be a much more appropriate charge if levied against the Senate where Joe Lieberman chairs the Oversight Committee and Leahy has been much less aggressive than Conyers.

I am very concerned about how the country's elites will ultimately deal (or fail to deal) with the legacy of Bush. Look at how the media is squirming as they try to cover McClellan's accusations that they were key enablers of the war. Bloggers' job will not end just because we have a better government.

by BooMan on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 08:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Squirm indeed. Anyone that supported Bush or enabled Bush is in trouble. And it will only get worse as time goes on.

I have a feeling the media and the Republicans expect Obama to issue a Ford like pardon of everything Bush did.

I personally expect the opposite to happen. With Bush out of office and not being an impediment to an investigation I expect to see a thorough reckoning of what exactly happened.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 09:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I think that much of the blame put on Dems generally over the last half century, and the blame put on Reid and Pelosi, is misplaced. They are surviving in a political world that is not apparent to most of us. As much as we study the polls and even the financing of politicians as the totality of worthy analysis, there are other factors.

In Chile before there were free elections there were "free" elections, under the watchful eye of Pinochet. In a country like ours with so much money and power in the hands of so few, and with the military in lockstep with the Corporatists, how can we expect all our politicians to be martyrs? One reason why I think many people are attracted to Obama is that he is dangerous enough to the status quo to attract death threats.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

I think that's a very relevant point. It's easy to play the uncompromising, progressive idealist on the sidelines, but at the end of the day, you've got to play the game to a certain degree to stay in the game. The plutocrats and military industrial complex crowd dislike Obama enough that he must be doing something right. He may not be as pure as some would like, but he's the better choice, for sure.

by Sprocket77 on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

Wow. One must really read between the lines to see the hammer fall. I have to agree with others upthread that this isn't really that much of a substantive blow to Hillary. And as far as measuring the toughness of Democrats I would rather measure their toughness vis a vis the Republicans or the media. In other words, I want a Speaker that cares about the core Democratic principles and fights for those principles--not a Speaker that picks one side or the other in a horse race. You may be excited because Pelosi is helping your man secure the nomination but this hardly makes her a "tough" Speaker.

Speaker Pelosi has not been a very tough Speaker to date. She's not terrible and her public speaking style is pretty good. It's the substance I would change about her. She has been late to recognize that the Speaker's role at this point in history requires someone that is not afraid to use a hammer. And use a hammer on Bush and his failed administration. She has not done that. How about she use a hammer on those Blue Dogs that want to cave in to Bush on FISA? How about she encourage her branch of government to stand up for itself and enforce subpoenas and oversee the war? And I don't buy the argument that nothing can be done until the election. I think she and the leadership are finally learning that there is an upside to standing up to Bush and the Republicans and they are finally starting to have the courage to fight a little bit (they only needed landslide electoral victories before they got the message). And they are seeing the successes that come from confrontation. They are late in learning this lesson.

So that's great that the big thorn in all of our sides may soon be removed. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture of where the Democratic party is currently positioned and what they should be doing.

by SFHawkguy on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 01:28:52 PM EST

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 0)

I'm sorry, Boo, but I just don't see this as Pelosi bringing a hammer. She essentially opened the door to Clinton staying until July without any real reaction. I think I've heard harsher warnings from Snuggle Bear. How long before we break out the Friedman-Unit Converter for statements by the leadership?

This should go on no longer than June 4th.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 02:41:06 PM EST

Re: Pelosi Brings a Hammer (none / 1)

On the substance of the post, that Pelosi is the quiet force, I'd have to agree with you, Drew. I'll have to see what happens before I'm absolutely convinced that Pelosi is willing to swing that hammer, or even if she possesses one.

June 4th is a key date. We will know how far Clinton wants to push the MI FL stuff after this weekend. All votes will be in. My suspicion is that H. Clinton's intention is to wreck the Democratic Party and so will continue her death march into the convention or until any further warfare from her camp can only be interpreted as intending to destroy the party. Under my theory Pelosi's strategy is to let every excuse for Clinton to continue evaporate. Therefore, by June 4th or soon thereafter, there should presumably be enough delegates for Obama to have a first round victory. Some of those delegates will be the ones Pelosi is holding, and others ready for a nod from the Democratic leadership.

At that point how Pelosi responds to Clinton's continuing civil war will be a better measure of her leadership this election cycle.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 29th, 2008 at 03:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pelosi Brings a Hammer | 66 comments (66 topical, 0 editorial, 2 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the CIA's War on Terror:

The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes

(Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes

(Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes

Download South Park on iTunes

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile