Condi for Secretary of State

I have a solution to this Secretary of State nomination problem: I think President Barack Obama should call Condoleezza Rice and have the following conversation:

POTUS: Condi, I would like to thank you for your service to your country.

CR: Thank you Mr. President. [I like to fantasize about people actually still having respect for the office of the President. Indulge me.]

POTUS: Condi, your country calls again. You know that Secretary of State Clinton plans on leaving this post at the start of my next administration, and we're looking for a good candidate. Many names are floated around, but I believe, like that great leader of your party, Abraham Lincoln, in a team of rivals. I think you would be perfectly suited for the position as you've done it before. However, ultimately the decisions made for Secretary of State end with me, so you must be willing to follow my lead.

CR: Mr. President, I really appreciate your considering me, but I'm not sure that would be workable at this point . . .

POTUS: Look, I don't think there is as much daylight between you and me as you think. For instance, I think the drone strikes in Afghanistan and over the Middle East are bloody brilliant and have not only continued them, but stepped them up. You would have LOVED to be part of an administration that killed Osama Bin Laden. Guantanamo Bay is still open and it's MY administration that has sold and delivered more arms to Israel than ever before. Further, we opposed the creation of observer status for the Palestinian people in the U.N. I think we can work things out. Besides, disagreement is good for creating policy and your perspective could truly enhance what I'm trying to accomplish.

CR: You have a point . . .

POTUS: And there would be no bruising confirmation fight. Although I think the optics of going after Susan Rice, an Oxford educated PhD, who, like yourself, is a Black woman would ultimately force the Senate to fold, they certainly can't go after you for misleading the American public for claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction . . .

CR: [Pointedly] Mr. President . . .

POTUS: I'm just being honest. Look, this would be good for you, good for your party who desperately needs brilliant people at its forefront, and good for our country as we bring all of the best ideas together for a foreign policy that most benefits our interests at home and abroad. What do you say?

My interjection: Besides, the old White men in the Senate could save face for opposing everyone with a Black face in the administration and their war on women which has now been directed at Dr. Rice (Susan). And it would leave Kerry's Massachusetts seat intact. Are they really going to throw Dr. Condoleezza Rice under the bus for Kerry's seat? How do those optics look?!

Just sayin'.

Birth Control, Abortion, and Economics

I can't help but to wonder whether there is a campaign to push women out of the workforce. Let me start by addressing what some have said labeling birth control and abortion as "unimportant" issues in this election because voters are more interested in the economy.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: women's participation in the economy wholly depends on birth control. Why? Raising kids is no joke. Kids who are 0 - 5 are the least independent years. Infants can't feed themselves or go anywhere on their own; they don't have enough language to communicate their needs; and they can't articulate, beyond tears, what's bothering them. This means a parent has to communicate/handle these needs. Stunningly few of us can afford high quality child care, espeically for the youngest of kids (including nannies) and don't get paid maternity leave. Real economic considerations factor into whether to have a child and delinking the job challenges we face as a nation from trivial considerations like birth control really demonstrates a lack of undersatnding of how women's lives work. There is a profound lack of undersatnding of what child care requires. Alternatively, birth control IS an economic issue.

To add insult to injury, factor in the fact that women apparently have no judgment about their sexual encounters - indeed, we can't decide if we actually wanted sex or not and our bodies know better. Therefore, the only rape is forcible because, ladies, rape generally isn't forcible. Which implies that there's no such thing as rape. If all sex is wanted, all children are wanted and there are no emotional (or financial) reasons to terminate a pregnancy. All children are wanted! And we all want to take 5 years out of the workplace to care for those wanted children.

Which brings me back to I wonder if the real issue is pushing us out of the workplace and stop taking jobs away from men. Just sayin'.