I don’t know much about McCarthyism, but just from listening to a short NPR blurb about the FBI’s proposed guidelines that could target people based on race and ethnicity alone, I’m beginning to think more about what it was.

First, the FBI’s proposal from WIRED:

The Justice Department is considering establishing a new policy that would allow the FBI to target Americans for investigation even in the absence of evidence or other compelling indications that the person was breaking a law, according to the Associated Press.

The policy, being considered as part of the attorney general’s guidelines to the FBI, would allow the agency to conduct racial profiling — potentially singling out Muslim- and Arab-Americans — and to open preliminary terrorism investigations against targets simply on the basis of patterns established through data mining public records and other information.

The agency would be allowed to profile targets based on their race and activities, such as travel to the Middle East or any other part of the world associated with terrorism. But race would be only one factor in the decision to open an investigation.

How about leaving dissenting opinionated comments on a conservative blog run by someone like, oh, say, Rush Limbaugh?

When would they take effect:

The new guidelines would be put in place before the presidential administration changes next January.

How convenient.

The DOJ claims that nothing new would really be going on:

Targeting a person based on race, of course, would seem to be a clear violation of civil rights. A DoJ official told the AP that the guidelines wouldn’t really give the FBI any more authority than it already has to create “threat assessments” of individuals. A DoJ spokesman added that the guidelines cannot authorize any activity that is unconstitutional or prohibited by statute.

USAToday has a thorough piece here:

Critics say the presumption of innocence is lost in the proposal. The FBI will be allowed to begin investigations simply “by assuming that everyone’s a suspect, and then you weed out the innocent,” said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Civil Liberties Union.

…

The changes would allow FBI agents to ask open-ended questions about activities of Muslim- or Arab-Americans, or investigate them if their jobs and backgrounds should match trends that analysts deem suspect.

FBI agents would not be allowed to eavesdrop on phone calls or dig deeply into personal data, such as the content of phone or e-mail records or bank statements, until a full investigation had been opened.

The guidelines focus on the FBI’s domestic operations and run about 40 pages long, several officials said. They do not specifically spell out what traits the FBI should use in building profiles.

Perhaps the best re-branding of a concept (think, “I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony”):

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the guidelines are part of a “harmonizing” process that will not give the FBI more authority than it already has.

Spoken like a true spokesman. Having worked in that OPA, I can just imagine.

What can be and is being done to halt or inhibit the proposed guidelines?

Although the guidelines do not require congressional approval, House members recently sought to limit such profiling by rejecting an $11 million (euro7 million) request for the FBI’s security assessment center. Lawmakers wrote that it was unclear how the FBI could compile suspect profiles “in such a way as to avoid needless intrusions into the privacy of innocent citizens” and without wasting time and money chasing down false leads.

The denial of money could limit the FBI’s use of profiles, or “predictive models and patterns of behavior” as the government prefers to describe the data-mining results, but would not change the guidelines authorizing them. The guidelines would remain in effect until a new attorney general decided to change them.

Courts across the country have overturned criminal convictions when defendants showed they were targeted based on race. Racial profiling generally is considered a civil rights violation, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft condemned it in March 2001 as an “unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection under our Constitution.”

President George W. Bush also has condemned racial profiling as “wrong in America,” and in a December 2001 interview he had harsh words for an airline that refused to let one of his Secret Service agents board a commercial flight. The agent was Arab-American. “If he was treated that way because of his ethnicity, that will make me madder than heck,” Bush said.

Madder than heck, eh?  Waterboarding - does that make you madder than heck too?

Ugh.

What’s also amazing to me is that, with all the complaints you hear about from John McCain and others re: we need tort reform to keep down lawsuits and losses to business and to keep down insurance medmal rates and out of control jury awards, can you think of any sector that will do better if such guidelines are approved than the legal profession?

To wit:

Martin Redish, a constitutional and civil rights scholar at Northwestern University School of Law, said courts probably will give the FBI a lot of leeway in deciding how to open national security investigations.

“But it’s a very fine line to be drawn when the basis of the investigation is dominated by the ethnic background of the subject,” Redish said. “And when the investigation results in harassment, you have a serious constitutional concern.”

Think I’ll go read up on McCarthyism.

The Media Line provides information about today’s attack, quotes from family members of the attacker, East Jerusalem residents, bystanders and Israelis. The group that is claiming responsibility, The Free Men of the Galilee organization, was behind the shooting of seminary students in Jerusalem earlier this  year.

Hamas says that it’s “the natural result of continuing Israeli aggression and crimes against our people in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem…”

What do you think would happen in the US if Native Americans started to commit acts of terror for the same reason?

In Iraq, aren’t the US military and Iraqi government forces regularly attacked as “the natural result” of continued occupation? And yet many Americans - John McCain among them - seem to be a-okay with our military efforts to attack back, yes?

How do we justify telling another country not to attack back when that’s what we’re promoting - and we caused the situation (in Iraq) in the first place?

Here is a series of photos from the attack.

In my first draft of this post, I ended it with, “So, what would you do?” But as I looked for the most current information on the numbers dead and injured, I found this Ha’aretz column that places a very fair and accurate context on today’s event and yet still ends with the following:

This is what I don’t yet want to admit: that for all these years, in 2008 no less than in 1902, what a critical mass of Palestinians want most, perhaps even more than statehood, may be as simple as the vile thrill of vengeance, as straightforward as nothing more than seeing Jews dead and gone. 

Those deadly sins just can’t get a rest.

You can read Barack Obama’s speech given today in Missouri on the topic patriotism here.

From the New York Times:

Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.

…

“I am sick of Republicans pronouncing Barack Obama’s name like it was some sort of cuss word,” Mr. Strabone wrote in a manifesto titled “We Are All Hussein” that he posted on his own blog and on dailykos.com.

…

New Husseins began to crop up online as far back as last fall. But more joined up in February after a conservative radio host, Bill Cunningham, used Mr. Obama’s middle name three times and disparaged him while introducing Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, at a campaign rally. (Mr. McCain repudiated Mr. Cunningham’s comments).

The practice has been proliferating ever since. In interviews, several Obama supporters said they dreamed up the idea on their own, with no input from the campaign and little knowledge that others shared their thought.

Some said they were inspired by movies, including “Spartacus,” the 1960 epic about a Roman slave whose peers protect him by calling out “I am Spartacus!” to Roman soldiers, and “In and Out,” a 1997 comedy about a gay high school teacher whose students protest his firing by proclaiming that they are all gay as well.

The friend I’ve known the longest, since we were four years old, and I always used the other’s last name as our second (or third) middle name.  She’s Italian Catholic and so had a confirmation name, so she had five names, but I had four.  We did it as a sign of how close we were to each other and each other’s family.  It is a wonderful, warm memory.

I don’t think I’ll be adding Hussein to my name, but I can understand the appeal for those who are doing it.  Cute, very cute. I like those kinds of symbolic efforts.

Grand Central Political published this column by Jennifer Nedeau of New Media Strategies and Human Folly, “Could A Little “Sex” Help Female Political Candidates?” Here’s a tease:

Since Barack Obama took the Democratic Presidential Nomination, I have come to wonder: if Hillary had harnessed some of the powerful imagery of SATC, could she have done better among women like me who think she just wasn’t female enough to earn the title of “First Female President?”

…

In the SATC movie, Miranda remarks to Carrie as she looks for a Halloween costume - “These are the only two choices for women - witch or sexy kitten?” Currently, the ability for a female leader to rise above these stereotypes is difficult, if not impossible. If we are ever going to get past these stereotypes, we need a female leader who is brave enough to prove that being powerful and female isn’t a detrimental condition corrected by a short hair cut, a figure less suit and emotionless campaigning. I think Hillary in particular would have had more success if she had tried to embrace her gender instead of treating it like a handicap. Perhaps then, the females turned off by her decision to fit in all too nicely with the male political paradigm, might have decided she was someone worthy of their vote.

Before you start rolling your eyes, or wondering WTF is Jill saying she thinks, remember the following:

The next female who wants to be commander-in-chief could try to embrace her gender as a plus, rather than a minus. Simple things such as an upside down stiletto could easily take the place of the “V” in “Vote for Me” as a start. Instead of stuffy suits, add some fashion to the political stage and allow a popular female designer to dress the candidate for a day. Work with Mommy Bloggers, admirable female celebrities, female sports stars, and sorority girls to create the solid base of female support to carry the campaign. Most importantly, meet women in their element. Organize the female electorate such as Mobilize.org did with a voter registration drive at the Sex and the City Movie Premieres. Or host a Cocktail Caucus at CHANEL similar to what Polichicks Online has done.

I chose to be a Barack Obama supporter in part because I did not agree with Hillary’s misogynistic branding of her campaign. When Obama took the nomination it became clear that in targeting the 20 to 40 year-old demographic he found success - they wanted to have a beer with him and listen to his policy - something Hillary could not seem to achieve. However, when another female wagers for the White House - instead of seeking a candidate to drink a beer with, why not a one who might sip a Cosmopolitan? Bridging the gender gap in politics is not impossible; it just takes a little creativity.

See the sense? I do. And this isn’t an easy topic or a stupid or silly one either. I know there are women who will always bristle at the suggestion Nedeau makes because they’ll see it as selling out or not pursuing gender neutrality.

However, if our gender - whether man or women - offers us the potential to have advantages, as political candidates, and re-brand otherwise negative images connected to our gender which we reject, why not manipulate these images and definitions ourselves? That’s taking control, and I can’t argue against it (and have in fact argued for it before).

It’s never too late to try out strategies like the ones Nedeau suggested. Maybe the next step is to start a website that encourages women who are running for office or will be running for office to figure out their level of comfort with these suggestions and see how she fits them in, and whether they work, or fail.

If I run for something, I promise to be a guinea pig for this tactic. You?

As an example of turning images on their heads, here’s the White House Project’s baby doll fit t-shirt (which I wear constantly):

Works for me.

Richard Harwood of the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation wrote today about an incident in Southern Florida related to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Jews and perpetual myths about Barack Obama.

Over the years Bloomberg has not made it a habit to talk publicly about his Jewish faith or ties to the Jewish community. Nor is he an Obama supporter. He even tested the waters for his own presidential run this year, and he is known to be close to Senator John McCain. But according to The New York Times, Bloomberg told the Palm Beach crowd that the rumors about Obama represent “wedge politics at its worse, and we have to reject it - loudly, clearly and unequivocally.”

Harwood isn’t writing about this because he likes Bloomberg or Obama or dislikes John McCain. Rather, Harwood writes about leadership - what it is, how to get it, where to find it, how to nurture it and so on.

Specifically, Harwood has written:

“The new leaders are people who have highly pragmatic approaches to policy, who seek to find ways to make public life and politics work rather than to disparage it, who vigilantly look for opportunities to engage people in the ongoing process of governing and improving their lives, who try to avoid hyperbolic and heated rhetoric.”

And, he wrote yesterday,

Over and over again, people in communities have asked me, “How communities can get the leaders they need to make public life and communities work?” My response: We must stand by our good leaders when they come under fire, even when we do not agree with their positions or political party when, to vouch for their principles and values.

That’s what Bloomberg did last Friday for Obama. Instead of standing on the sidelines watching people take pot shots at Obama, he stepped forward. He did so because he knew that he held special credibility on this issue with fellow Jews; and he knew that many of the people now living in South Florida once lived in his beloved New York City.

How might we apply this to Cleveland and NE Ohio? Where are our leaders who stand up this way? Who point out and correct myths this way, in defense of people across the aisle and in defense and in the name of integrity - theirs and the person they’re defending?

Tami of What Tami Said wrote about a fantasy she has, which I share, and I think that this notion of leadership is a part of that. In a comment I left there, I noted how angry and depressed I am about Zimbabwe (talk about the Solomon’s Choice Morgan Tsvangirai has chosen to protect his supporters) and yet Zimbabwe’s opposition leader exists as someone whom leaders must do for what Bloomberg did for Obama. Up until only the last few days, not even the African Union, the UN and the South African Development Community was doing that. But it will require so much more.

Harwood concludes this way, universalizing the lesson:

…the question for each of is: When a good leader comes under fire, will we stand next to them and vouch for their integrity and good will, even if we do not agree with a particular position or their party?

If we want to change public life and politics, then more of us will need to follow Mayor Bloomberg’s lead.

By the way, Barack Obama has done this in defense of Hillary Clinton, and Clinton has been doing it on behalf of Obama as well. Can you think of any cases where non-Republicans, or Republicans for that matter - are doing this for John McCain?

Today, Salon.com published this column, “Who’s Afraid of Michelle Obama,” by Erin Aubry Kaplan, “…a contributing editor to the Op-Ed section of the Los Angeles Times and a contributing writer to Essence magazine. She lives in Los Angeles and blogs at 3baas.com.”

While several lines in the essay resonate for me, what resonates most is Kaplan’s assertion that the within the population that calls itself “American” there are individuals - many of us - who are not 100% happy with 100% of America or 100% of Americans 100% of the time.

Kaplan presents herself as Exhibit A:

As I said earlier, Michelle’s story is mine as well. I was born and raised in South Central Los Angeles by parents who were themselves raised in the segregated old South; when I was born in 1962, there were black people who still couldn’t vote. I grew up in an entirely black neighborhood that was working class but by no means deprived. I earned a couple of college degrees and eventually became a journalist (alas, not for six figures) focused on issues of racial equality. Along the way I’ve run smack into racism both subtle and not. I don’t wave flags and never have, but patriotism has never been a simple issue for me or any other blacks I know, even for those who do wave flags. And I know that if I were under the klieg lights as Michelle Obama is now, I’d never pass political muster — I have way too many documented criticisms of my country, to say nothing of undocumented ones. YouTube would have a field day.

But now, for the first time in my adult life, there’s a strong possibility that those criticisms and the context that goes along with them will make it to the White House and officially enlarge the great American story in a way it should have been enlarged long ago. Got to say, makes me proud.

And this is okay. And it is America. To admonish anyone for expressing less than 100% for any of those things is to fail to recognize the truth of who we are and how we feel about that identity.

After all, look where such 100% effusiveness has landed our country in the last seven years.

From The Caucus:

Senator Barack Obama will be joined by his one-time rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, on the campaign trail on Friday June 27, his campaign announced today.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama said more details would be announced soon.

The two Democrats had already agreed to appear together at a fund-raiser on June 26 at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel.

As for the donors, here’s the Los Angeles Times:

Obama has already been making a hard push for Clinton’s supporters, including a targeted appeal on his campaign website. And he’s got his people working on some of her big donors, hoping to merge what became two massive fundraising juggernauts during the primary-and-caucus season into a general election behemoth (we envision a massive ATM in the shape of the lower 48).

And it’s only June.

From St. Petersburg Times:

Who should get the gig: [Gwen] Ifill or, depending on how he does as substitute, [Chuck] Todd. Ifill could hit the ground running, and Todd is a new-school Russert, a sharp political mind with little or no anchor experience.

Gregory should be seasoned on cable as a backup for Matt Lauer; his destiny is wider. Brokaw is too old-school; Meet the Press needs a bridge to the future.

And, in case you haven’t yet read it, here’s Ifill’s “Goodbye to a Standup Brother” in part:

Many powerful white men limit their curiosity to confirming what they already believe they know to be true. When Tim did not know something, he found someone who did. Over the years, he found me, and NPR’s Michele Norris, and the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson and CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux and Joe Johns and other voices who could clue him in to how black folk thought, talked, acted—and to help him understand why there was no monolithic answer. When the National Urban League scolded him and other Sunday morning shows about lack of diversity on their roundtables, he showed up at the meeting himself to talk to them about how to address the problem.

I made my last appearance with him on Meet the Press a few weeks ago. We were talking about race in the context of this year’s presidential contest and another panelist, Jon Meacham of Newsweek, remarked that race was a subject that made white folks queasy. I countered that black folks only get queasy talking about race when they are in conversation with white folks who get queasy talking about it. Tim’s eyes twinkled when he looked at me. He absolutely loved that I was telling him something he had not thought of before.

I never minded talking about race with Tim because he was never queasy talking about it with me.

Hmm, second thought - Obama/Ifill 2008?

From the inbox and not yet on the Momrising.org website:

Magnificently Overqualified Mothers Respond to Senator McCain’s Comment on Ledbetter Fair Pay Act With Resume Delivery

DC-Area Moms and Families Deliver Thousands of Women’s Resumes to Senator’s Office

Ten DC-area moms sporting “Magnificently Overqualified Mother” banners, some of them accompanied by their kids, were up on Capitol Hill today to send a message to Senator John McCain about his opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. That message came in the form of some 9,000 resumes from mothers across the country underscoring women’s skills, training and education, and it was crystal clear: “women are well-trained, educated and qualified and should be paid the same as men for doing the same work.”

In late April, the U.S. Senate voted on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, legislation that would loosen the restrictions on the length of time in which workers could file pay discrimination claims against their employers. On the campaign trail at the time, Senator John McCain refused to return to Washington, DC to vote on the measure (unlike two other U.S. Senators who were also campaigning for President), commenting instead that he opposed the Fair Pay Act and that what women really needed was “more training and education.” Ultimately, a filibuster in the Senate prevented the bill from coming to a vote.

To educate Senator McCain about the large number of extremely qualified and capable women who deserve not only pay equity, but the ability to file claims if their employers discriminate against them in pay or promotions, MomsRising.org encouraged its members to sign onto a petition and send in their resumes. More than 20,000 women signed the petition and 9,000 sent in resumes. MomsRising.org is a grassroots online and on-the-ground organization that supports family-friendly policies.

“It’s a shame that Senator McCain doesn’t understand that pay discrimination is not about qualifications or education,” said MomsRising.org Executive Director Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner. “But our members are happy to let him know that. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would have repaired the damage done by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, which severely limited the ability of victims of pay discrimination to sue and recover damages.”

In April, MomsRising.org members in Arizona unsuccessfully attempted to schedule a meeting with Senator McCain or his staff to discuss the Fair Pay Act.

MomsRising.org members’ resumes include training and degrees in law, business, fine arts, engineering and every other imaginable field. Members are employed as concert violinists, neuropsychologists, attorneys and everything in between.

MomsRising is an online grassroots organization that is working for paid family leave, flexible work options, excellent childcare and healthcare for all children, and to stop the wage and hiring biases that penalize so many mothers today. MomsRising, has more than 160,000 members across the United States and more than 5,000 in Washington, DC.

I probably should send mine too.  Anyone else who reads this blog, feel free to do the same.  Great idea, Momsrising.org.

No, not me and not Pepper Pike. I’m holding out great hope and expectations that my city will do the right thing, which includes being logical, reasonable and respectful.

And please note, this is a non-partisan issue. The person involved here appears to be a McCain supporter and the case involves Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, or COAST, not a group endeared to liberal causes.

The Columbus Dispatch writes today about Harrison, Ohio:

Burns sued Harrison in U.S. District Court in Columbus on Monday, arguing that the city’s rules on political signs limit free speech. Those include the 30-day-rule and a 16-square-foot size limit. Temporary, nonpolitical signs can be up for any duration and be large as 50 square feet.

…

He and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, or COAST, have convinced nearly a dozen southern Ohio communities, including the city of Cincinnati, to repeal similar ordinances. Finney filed a similar lawsuit Wednesday against the city of Piqua, north of Dayton, charging that the city’s sign restrictions restrict free speech.

Here’s the real silliness re: why waste Harrison’s residents’ taxes, or Columbus residents or Pepper Pike’s:

In 2004, Dublin and Granville dropped time limits on political signs because they feared lawsuits. A year before that, Columbus agreed not to enforce rules on political yard signs after the Constitution Party of Ohio sued.

Columbus’ rules, which remain on the books, include fees and 60-day limits. City Attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr. hopes the City Council will rescind the rules.

This year, the American Civil Liberties Union has sued or threatened to sue over sign ordinances in Pennsylvania and Virginia and is urging the communities of Silver Lake and Bath Township in northeastern Ohio to junk requiring a deposit of $5 per yard sign.

U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld the right of residents to display yard signs, most recently in U.S. District Court in Maryland.

“There’s no way the (Harrison) ordinance can survive,” said David A. Goldberger, professor of constitutional law at Ohio State University. He pointed to a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Missouri city of Ladue may not restrict noncommercial speech on yard signs more than commercial speech.

“This is really what the First Amendment is all about,” Goldberger said.

I really pray that the residents and elected officials in my town can come to an agreement to drop the one political yard sign per household restriction and not waste any more time or money or energy on this, given the track record in fighting for upholding this aspect of free speech.

What About Our Daughters has started Michelle Obama Watch. I think it’s a great idea. I think it’s horrific that it has to exist and I pray that it doesn’t get maligned the way people who tried to sound the bell on sexism against Hillary Clinton did. But these are all efforts to stop the madness. And I cannot argue with that one second.

Just an aside, since I haven’t really taken the time to mention this, some of you may have noticed that I beefed up my “All Things Women” section of the blogroll about two or three months ago. There are several that are WOC (women of color) blogs from which I’m learning so much. I don’t always agree, but I don’t have to. Just being exposed and knowing what’s there, e-mailing the bloggers offline and asking questions, trying to figure out something about which I know embarrassingly little but about which I can do so much more than I am has made a huge difference in what sticks out to me and the range of perspectives I try to consider or seek out or notice are missing. I’ve got a long way to go, but I’ve met some incredible people along the way who, if you give them a chance, won’t give up on you or let you give up on yourself.

It’s weird to realize how few of the Ohio blogs I read have any links to blogs by POC (people of color) and I can’t judge others about that when I really hadn’t gone out of my way trying to find them, to link to them. But that’s really a whole ‘nother post - maybe a whole ‘nother blog.

Anyway, please visit Michelle Obama Watch. Gina, of What About Our Daughters, was credentialed by the DNC for the convention in Denver. If you’re going, please please let her know that you’ve read about her and maybe even read her blog and the new effort to keep everyone on their toes about the media and other’s wrongness in portrayals of Michelle Obama.

If you’re going to talk the talk about what’s racist and what isn’t, the least you can do is read what the people who are most affected have to say about it, you know?

Hattip The Chief Source who tipped Village Green.

Here’s the link.

“In April 2004, around 1 million women went to Washington to rally for women’s rights. One of the main speakers at the event was the junior senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, even then the object of future presidential speculation. Her surprise appearance elicited an ecstatic response from the crowd. For all its size and enthusiasm, though, the rally failed to achieve its central goal of defeating George W. Bush in the presidential election and protecting the abortion rights majority on the Supreme Court. And now, after a valiant effort, Clinton has apparently likewise failed at her goal of becoming the first woman president of the United States. At 40-something, organized feminism is having trouble reproducing. … And what this precise electoral moment tells us is that in fact it was never in a position to function as an effective electoral force.”

Feminist author Linda Hirshman, who wrote “Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World,” will be online Monday, June 9 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss her Outlook article how the end of the Clinton campaign is indicative of how splintered the feminist movement has become, and how women can better work together for future advancement.

Submit your questions and comments before or during today’s discussion.

Got something to say? GO SAY IT! Or just listen and learn - that’s pretty damn important too you know.

If you can’t be there, you can check out the session’s archive later.

I never believed that having Hillary Clinton on the ticket would be a downer.  I always believed that it would help more women make the choice to run for office, and succeed in doing so. (It’s true that I never actually wanted her on the ticket to begin with, but that’s anothe story. I just never thought the argument that she’d drag down others held water.)

My involvement in bringing the White House Project to Ohio this weekend isn’t a direct result of Clinton’s existent.  I laugh but it’s really a high school friend’s voice from 30 years ago - when she said that she’d be the first female president - that still rings in my ears.

In some ways, it’s amazing and depressing that it takes this long for change. But on the other hand, it is so gratifying to know that I’m not the only who believes in the importance of the changes we’re witnessing.

The Washington Post published this op-ed today by Marie Wilson, the founder of the White House Project and force of nature who is here in Columbus this weekend. Here’s part of it:

The fact that we now have women at the top and the bottom levels of politics across this country is no accident of fate — it is the result of decades and decades of work and ambition. And it is a strategic imperative if we are to have a truly representative democracy, one in which women of all colors and from all communities lead in equal numbers alongside their male peers.

As more women enter the political pipeline at all levels, the quality and character of our political institutions will be better off for their participation. They will increasingly reflect the diverse nature of our nation’s experiences and embody the richness of our collective visions for change.

Clinton’s candidacy has brought unprecedented visibility to women’s leadership. We may at times have disagreed with her campaign tactics, her voting record or her political maneuverings. And her candidacy did highlight certain fissures between women of different racial, generational and political backgrounds. But whether we liked Clinton the person or Clinton the candidate pales in comparison with this unassailable truth: Her candidacy has helped change the political game forever.

Now it’s up to the rest of us to do our part — by encouraging women’s leadership in every shape and form. We do that by inviting our female friends and relatives to take the next step in their political lives by running for office, big or small. We do that by being brave enough to run for office ourselves. We do that by supporting the female candidates who do run for office — not simply because they are women but because they are just as qualified as their male peers to bring about the changes we seek.

And at noon today there will be a streaming webcast of Hillary Clinton’s event during which she’ll endorse Barack Obama.

When some Ohio bloggers and I tussled over who needs to do what for the Democratic party to come together, to persuade non-Obama supporters to consider Obama, I said that leadership to me often involves taking the steps that aren’t expected, that aren’t what’s always done (by the way, that’s the argument I made to some entities in Ohio in demanding Marc Dann step down; isnR