At that time, absent extraordinary circumstances women were legally barred from owning property. Everything belonged to their husbands or fathers, and if they had neither, they were poor. They were barred from higher education and professions. Husbands could legally beat and rape their wives, and they owned their labor. Husbands even owned their children — upon divorce, if the husband didn’t want the wife to ever see her children again, there was no such thing as visitation. White women as a group had a higher standard of living because whites as a group had a higher standard of living, but none of it belonged to them and all of it could be taken away by divorce or untimely death. This is why writers of the time considered the position of white women to be little better than that of slaves.

Our overriding interest is not to fracture the Democratic Base before we even begin to get close to next November.

Maybe for you, but for me the overriding interest is in getting the best nominee to become president.

Besides, Edwards has the best haircut, and on t.v. that’s what’s really really important! /snark

I’m thinking that both candidates have come to the hard realization that they’re both getting hurt by this, and are truly desirous of leaving all of this in the dust and move on.

After this, can’t you just imagine either of them leading the world discussion on climate warming or nuclear non-proliferation or international economic system changes?

Leadership isn’t image or oratory.

Lowery was very kind and generous …

Anyone else have a take on that?

If you poke an animal with a stick and it begins growling and looking fierce you might make points by pointing it out to other people, saying “See the animal isn’t docile at all, it’s wild and dangerous.” But, if anyone saw you poking the animal in the first place it shouldn’t surprise you if everybody thinks you’re the idiot.

what digby said:

Update: This is the smartest blog post I’ve read about the historical dynamics we are seeing played out in this race.

Margaret Fuller was the first American Feminist, but her untimely death in 1850 and sanitized biography by Emerson diminished her influence.

Margaret Fuller bio

America’s first true feminist, Margaret Fuller holds a distinctive place in the cultural life of the American Renaissance. Transcendentalist, literary critic, editor, journalist, teacher, and political activist, ultimately turned revolutionary, she numbered among her close friends the intellectual prime movers of the day: Emerson, Thoreau, the Peabody sisters, the Alcotts, Horace Greeley, Carlyle, and Mazzini–all of whom regarded her with admiration and sometimes even awe.

Margaret Fuller wiki

In 1839 she began organizing “conversations”, discussions amongst local women, in the parlor in the home of the Peabodys in Boston. Fuller intended these meetings to compensate for the lack of education for women and discussions and debates focused on a variety of subjects, such as mythology, art, education and women’s rights. A number of significant figures in the women’s rights movement attended these “conversations”. Ideas brought up in these discussions were developed in Fuller’s major works, “The Great Lawsuit” and Woman in the Nineteenth Century (1845), which argue for the independence of women and the necessity of changing the unequal gender relationships of nineteenth-century society.

Someone recently was assessing Obama vs. other Black leaders (wish I could remember who), and he said there were essentially two types: Conciliators, and confronters (don’t know if I got the labels right.) He noted that previous Black leaders tend to be confronters (MLK, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton), while Obama comes as a conciliator.

Anyone remember who I’m trying to summarize? Please improve on my memory.

Bob in HI

They should be examined and the things which connect across identity should be welded to policy and become platforms of progressive advance.

The best example to think of was from the CSpan 2 replay of the Carter foundation’s discussion with a former soviet dissident, Amnesty International, President Jimmy Carter and Amb.Andrew Young.

“Human rights are civil rights.”

That is but one example. Within the movement to bring down the Iron Curtain came workers rights and labor as a major mover, plus traditional religion and even its plurality, nationalism along with ethnic and gender identity also found louder voices, plus demands from leadership that other sides of the table meet the standards their counterparts emerged. Each we must try and advance before real change can occur.

The obligation to protect civil rights is a fundamental tenet of government charter, and the premise of all civil rights are based upon the foundation of human rights. That is the first pillar of any just government.

Advance the most broad proposals first, as precedence.

In today’s identity politics there are many items that must be addressed, find the most agreed on items as a starting point, expand these liberties and help establish precedence so other key points can be protected by law in their statement of record.

At this time the rollback of human rights is the first stepping point abroad. At home, the “pursuit of happiness” should again contain opportunity and incentive for individuals. Unless we recognize human rights(an end to gitmo) we cannot begin to be considered leaders on civil rights. Without this expressed liberty, no true realization of rights can occur in other fields of identity.

Individuals can have their identity politics actualized only when we respect fully the measure of human rights. It is a tenet, the starting point.