Politics in this country has been frightening for years, and just when we’re ready to celebrate the end of the Bush regime, I’m afraid of losing my franchise. The vote just ain’t what it used to be, and its value is diminishing rapidly.

Superdelegates are a concern but only a tiny part of the problem. I invested a little time in the caucus process, and I really care about who gets the Democratic nomination. I wanted to be counted in the primary, but I despise the loyalty oath and want to be available to the Greens if the Democrats self-destruct. There’s something scary about exchanging a mind you can change for a voice that can speak only once.

And the nominating process promises us nothing, no matter how much we invest, risk or sacrifice. Even if we enjoy stunning success for our chosen nominee, our votes in the general election could go up in the smoke of the archaic electoral college.

How can it be that our members of Congress have done nothing to dismantle this relic of slow and painful communications in a vast, primitive and unmapped land? Even computer voting with no paper ballots, hanging chads, and Supreme Court overrides hold no terror like the possibilities presented by the Electoral College every four years.

I’m delighted to include Renee’s commentary in this issue. I believe she articulates a process and dilemma familiar to many of us, even if PJALS gets sanctioned for being partisan. Unfortunately for PJALS, this is something of a parting shot, as Renee is leaving the steering committee for personal reasons. We’ll continue to value her engaged membership.

With Renee’s article in mind, there is still a question of whether we’ll have a genuine choice in November, and if we have that choice, will our votes be meaningless because we voted in Washington instead of Florida or Ohio? Will we, the people, elect a president? Or will an alliance of inanimate states determine a lucky party, rather than a deserving and courageous individual?

The debate about the Electoral College should include more than competition among states to influence the outcome of an election with items including balance and appropriate states’ rights issues. But the reason we’ve outgrown the college is technology. For years, we’ve had the means for collecting, counting and verifying votes, not just from 535 influential individuals from across the country, but from millions of voters in every nook and cranny. It’s time each vote really counted.

Speaking of being partisan, I feel like a Green, but I can vote for a Democrat for the first presidential campaign in many years. In fact, since the last time I voted for a Democrat for President, I’ve voted for Ralph Nader, twice, David Cobb, and Eric Thompson (ask me about Eric if you don’t remember his campaign in Spokane). If you think I threw those votes away, I disagree, but I could tell you about votes for president that I did completely waste, even though one was for a winning candidate. This will be the eleventh presidential election to get a ballot from me.

Then there’s the more provincial political area. It’s been tough to find any Greens on ballots around here, and most of us hope some kind of progressive will emerge in the 5th District Congressional race, not that progressive candidates have fared well, but it’s nice to have someone to vote for instead of against.

PJALS people vote, and I expect you to be part of the dialogue in every race. Let’s keep on being involved. Some exciting things have happened in recent local campaigns. If we build on that, there’s no reason we have to endure the Electoral College and politics as usual, forever. - RN

Yes, it is five years, now. Five years since PJALS folks and hundreds of thousands of others across the globe watched in horror as our country ignored the pleading, demands, prayers, and warnings and bombed Iraq, again.

For five years, we have complained about the killing in our names, the undeclared war, the occupation, and the preoccupation with the overblown danger represented by a people who were not our enemies and a leader who wanted to be our enemy. Saddam Hussein is dead. Uncounted Iraqis are dead and maimed. And more Americans are dying or being maimed, every week, as we’re told the violence has been reduced.

United for Peace and Justice is using ”5 Years Too Many” to label its big rally and march in Washington, D.C. on March 19. (Vets for Peace will also march on the 19th in D.C.) We’ll use that title, too, for our rally and march on the 15th, a Saturday to make it more accessible for most. If you can’t come, send friends and family to make sure you are represented.

We’ll gather at the Foley Federal Court House at 2:00 pm, hear some brief remarks and music, march around the federal building and to Riverfront Park, where we’ll march around the carousel, emphasizing the Merry-go-round nature of U.S. war-for-profit policy.

Our speakers will be Rev. Richard Earhardt of the Unitarian Universalist Church, Myca Pearson of Youth Against War and Racism at EWU, and PJALS stalwart Marianne Torres. The P-Jammers will play for marching, and the Raging Grannies will sing.

Co-sponsoring this event with PJALS will be Progressive Democrats of America, Veterans for Peace, Youth Against War and Racism, Bethany Presbyterian Church and Shalom Church (Mennonite and U.C.C.).

Good / Bad Paradigm:  Black Knight / White Bitch

by Renée Roehl

Three years ago, Chadwick and I were discussing what would most likely happen first: a woman president or a black president (obviously male—see below). I emphatically said that America would go for any shade of man at least five years before electing a woman. Sexism—the non-issue—is a stealthy virus active in most bodies be they male or female, not necessarily developed into a state we’d all recognize as a disease--especially for those born after Reagan took office--but covertly active nonetheless.

And here I am in 2008, a second wave feminist, and I’m not voting for the woman; I’m voting for Obama. Both Hillary and Barack are deep-thinking compassionate people, their goals are similar and, honestly, I’ll be happy with either. I could spend this whole piece discussing the “good” and “bad” points of each of them but, for me, choosing to go for Barack comes down to two main things:

This glorious energy Barack has is a gift that ignites us and unites us. He really will be bipartisan, not just speak it. In my opinion, his positive-ness should be enough. Why must we make Hillary negative? In Rebecca Traister’s piece in Salon.com she comments: “I consider that the dashing Obama, and his youthful adherents, have the chance to take John McCain while Clinton would bring every angry, resentful white guy out of his parents’ basement to vote against her.” This is where sexism rears it’s hideous head. Could it partially be because of her gender? There has often been a certain viciousness or belittling or minimizing (which- ever works better) when women get too uppity (read: powerful) or fall down on the job of being a woman (read: make mistakes) or think differently from the status quo (read: not like men do). Think Yoko Ono, Courtney Love, Eve Ensler, Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro, Billie Jean King, Roseanne Barr, Madonna, Rosie O’Donnell or Monica Lewinsky.

In Gloria Steinem’s recent op-ed piece for the New York Times she put a mythical black female candidate up with all the same stats that Barack holds: community organizer turned lawyer, married to a corporate lawyer, has two young kids, only been a senator for less than one term. Steinem then asks, Do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth? Most of us would absolutely say… Nope. Now this portrait isn’t exactly fair as this leaves out Barack’s hypnotic energizing power. But, I wonder—would people acknowledge that same glittering influence if the “he” were a she?

There’s too much talk in mainstream media, the blogs, et al about Hillary’s clothes, peeking cleavage, her being too frosty or too calculating which quickly turns to too emotional if she tears up or acts feminine in any way, (want the list of male candidates through the years who’ve “teared up” but haven’t been criticized for it?) Then there’s David Shuster’s inane comment about Chelsea Clinton being “pimped out” by her mom for drumming up votes. Bush’s twin daughters were what, exactly, when they campaigned for their dad? Twins Gone Wild? Chelsea is supporting her mother, not turning political tricks. And how about P.J. O'Rourke’s commentary on the size of Hillary’s butt. The woman is making history and her butt size is an issue?

Clinton has been virtually silenced because of her gender. She is criticized for making any allusion to being a woman; vilified for suggesting (truthfully) that she was being ganged up on by the boys. Conversely, Obama has been mostly able to benefit from his ethnicity. If he declares how running for president was improbable just a few years ago, doses us with MLK quotes or declares, They thought this day would never come, he’s invoking “the race card” but that’s never mentioned (nor should it be!). Instead, he’s celebrated. But let Clinton try for anything similar and she’s accused of playing that pathetic sexism card. For example: “15 Oct 2007, WASHINGTON (AFP) — Hillary Clinton said Monday women voters could shatter America’s ‘highest glass ceiling’ and make her its first female president, in her campaign’s most overt bid so far to highlight her gender.” This is mild compared to things written since.

The viciousness in the blogosphere is absolutely alarming. Misogynic fury is discharged at anyone who suggests that gender bias could in any way be part of the journalistic reporting in this election. And female journalists (Maureen Dowd “too bad there’s not a white bitch month” and Katie Couric “Someone told me your nickname in school was 'Miss Frigidaire' -- is that true?” are the latest) and bloggers can be as acerbic as the men, though some like Chris Matthews win the bashing contest hands down. Where is all this spite coming from? What has this 60-year-old lawyer who’s been a child advocate for over 35 years actually done to garner all this hatred?

We don’t have to personally like Hillary or agree with all her policies (I’m still pissed that she voted for the war) for her to deserve our respect. A woman running competitively for the highest office in America is also something We Thought Would Never Come. This woman is courageous, whip-smart, witty, composed and compassionate, not to mention tough as the shoe leather she campaigns on. She deserves admiration, not derision. I sincerely thank Ms. Clinton for taking on the patriarchal machine and shoving that stiff old door open—finally—for the next woman who won’t be nearly as maligned as she is. Of that I’m certain. Be grateful she had the guts, the power and the money to do it. Be gracious and just say, Thank you Hillary.