Iowa has NEVER elected a woman Governor or a Dem woman to Congress.

In its entire history, it had never elected ANY woman to the US Congress till GOP Joni Ernst was elected.

In its state government, only 27/100 members are women. Only 7/50 Senators are female.

And yet Iowa, and New Hampshire, the least diverse state in the country, are the two bellwethers for the election.

Iowans aren’t accustomed to women in positions of political power. It’s amazing that Hillary is doing this well.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_General_Assembly

http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-this-could-be-the-year-iowa-sends-its-first-woman-to-congress/

In its 168 years, Iowa has never elected a woman to Congress, or picked one as its governor.

For many residents who pride themselves on a progressive civil rights history that predates statehood, that political reality has become an exasperating distinction shared with only one other state – Mississippi.

“It’s very irritating to be grouped with Mississippi,” says Roxanne Conlin, a Democrat and former U.S. attorney who ran for governor in 1982, the first Iowa woman to do so, and for Senate in 2010. “When I tell people, they just can’t believe it.”

The GED privatization of 2014: another example of institutionalized racism

In 2014 the GED (high school equivalency) got privatized -- and failed 2/3 of students,

while doubling the cost to take the test. Of course, by failing more, they're hoping that more students will opt to spend the money to re-take.

In the year before the new test, 743,000 students took the old GED and the majority passed. (560,000). In the year after the new test, only 248,000 took the test and only 86,000 passed. So there was a drop from 560,000 GED degrees to 86,000 in a single year.

Tests can only be given on computers at Pearson centers, which are often in areas inaccessible to people without cars, which further limits the numbers of test takers.

The GED used to be administered by a non-profit that sold it to the British-based multinational, Pearson Vue. (The profiteering testing company that's behind so many of our tests.)

So all these high-school dropouts who at one point would have been able to get a GED are now blaming themselves for not being able to take the test or for failing it -- when we are the ones who let them down.

ON UPDATE -- this is another example of "institutionalized racism."

In the last year of the old GED, 2013, 57 percent of the candidates were non-white. Yet, since the typical candidate was almost 28, s/he came from a class that should have been about 59% white (based on numbers from 2002 -- which probably underestimate the number for white students since it is for all students K-12 and higher grades had more white kids.) Therefore, privatizing this test had a disproportionate effect on minorities -- yet another example of institutionalized (and almost invisible) racism.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/how-privatization-ged-high-school-equivalency-degrees-has-created-new-roadblocks-poor

Dynamics in the realm of education reform are also transforming the GED. Ostensibly as part of a national push to “reform” K-12 education, the GED was “privatized” – sold – by the nonprofit organization that previously administered the high school equivalency test as a public service. Supporters of this change argued that the private sector would administer the test in a more rigorous manner that would send a clear message to students that staying in high school through graduation would be preferable to dropping out and counting on getting a GED later. Beginning in January 2014, the GED became a proprietary trademark of Pearson Vue, a for-profit multi-national corporation heavily involved in all aspects of national education politics and standardized testing. The content of the GED was made more difficult, and other aspects also changed. The test became computer-based and people must now take the test at certified Pearson test centers, paying a fee online that nearly doubled the cost from $60 to $120.

These changes have hindered many individuals who hope to prepare for and pass the GED test. The test content is now so difficult that even with preparation, many cannot pass. Preparing for the test now requires access to a computer, but many aspirants do not have such access – and many programs that used to help students do not have a bank of computers. In practice, this means that prep programs can no longer be run at convenient locations in low-income communities. And the requirement that the test itself must be completed at a Pearson-certified center makes it more difficult for many to get to the testing location, especially rural residents without cars. The new electronic format can also become a barrier, because people must become computer-literate even before they prepare to handle the test content. These new barriers hike costs, creating obvious difficulties for low-income people who struggle to afford food or to pay the rent. Many of them find the $120 fee an insurmountable expense, and online payments can also be challenging for those who lack credit cards or bank accounts. Requiring online payment rather than permitting the use of cash or a money order means that many individuals must purchase single-use credit cards that have a hefty activation fee.

The upshot of the privatizing changes in GED prep and testing is dramatically visible in testing statistics. In 2013, 743,000 people completed the GED test and 560,000 passed. But following the privatization of the GED and the implementation of Pearson’s new requirements in 2014, only 248,000 aspirants took the test and mere 86,000 passed! Obviously, these are precipitous decreases in the ranks of test takers and new GEDs. The huge harm done speaks for itself.

Correcting a Wrong Turn

Rather than leading to positive reforms, corporate ownership of the process for certifying high school equivalency degrees has raised still higher barriers for the poor, making it harder for those who have not completed high school to obtain an equivalency diploma as a route to improved employment prospects. In reality, the recent changes are condemning people without a diploma to a life of poverty – and given the correlation between education and health, reducing their life expectancy as well. This means that privatization is more than just a failed reform experiment. It is a moral issue, because a ruse for reform has turned out to make it harder for people to get ahead in life. Meaningful education reform, by definition, should increase access and improve educational outcomes rather than create higher barriers and limit people’s options. Basic considerations of social justice demand a change of course for the GED. At this point, an outright reversal of the recent privatization of the GED may not be likely. But citizens and reformers alike need to push for basic changes and demand sufficient public funding and support for adult education programs designed to prepare students. The GED must, once again, become a realistic option for hundreds of thousands of mostly low-income Americans who aspire to a better life for themselves, their families, and the larger community.

Information about the old GED here:

http://www.gedtestingservice.com/uploads/files/5b49fc887db0c075da20a68b17d313cd.pdf

The racial and ethnic distributions of candidates (Table 6 on pages 26–27) have remained relatively stable during the 2002 series of the GED® test. However, this year there was an increase in testing for the Hispanic ethnic group in particular. Of all candidates who indicated ethnicity when they tested in 2013, 42.8% were white, 26.9% African American, 24.8% Hispanic, 2.4% American Indian/Alaska Native, 2.3% Asian, and 0.6% Pacific Islander/Hawaiian. The percentage of African American test-takers has increased from 20.6% in 2003 to 24.8% in 2013.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp

From fall 2002 through fall 2012, the number of White students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools decreased from 28.6 million to 25.4 million, and their share of public school enrollment decreased from 59 to 51 percent.

Did Obama intentionally call out Bernie Sanders on gun control?

Bernie supported the PLCAA, which helped manufacturers "enjoy virtual immunity from lawsuits," in Obama's words.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-record-gun-control-crosshair-president-obamas/story?id=36175877

Before you slam Planned Parenthood, try reading why they endorsed Hillary.

Wouldn't it be more fair to consider their reasons before you announce you're cutting off their support?

I, for one, think it was brave and inspiring for Hillary to testify in front of Congress on how abortions are an essential part of women's healthcare, knowing that the less controversial choice for an aspiring President would have been not to testify.

Like Bernie.

And while you're at it, you can watch Hillary testify -- and blow some Rethug minds apart.

Susan Sarandon, it's an idiotic idea to say, as you do

that some Democratic women are supporting Hillary over Bernie "just because she's a woman."

Many women -- and men who want a more just society -- think that Hillary's gender can be considered along with all the other attributes and experience that she brings to the table.

Her experience as Secretary of State and as Senator from the very large, diverse state of NY; her intelligence, huge knowledge base, fantastic campaign organization, and decades of devotion to progressive causes are reason enough to vote for her.

But yes, her gender for some (especially Republican women and Independents) might be the tipping point. Because it is a BIG FUCKING DEAL that no woman has ever been elected President in more than 200 years and women didn't even have the vote 100 years ago.

That is not the same as saying other women are voting with their vaginas, and it is extremely insulting to Hillary supporters, whose support Bernie would need if he goes to the General.

Despite what many Bernie supporters think, all gender issues aside, supporters of all three candidates, not just Bernie, have good reasons for believing that their candidate is the best.

We once had a female Bernie run for President. 1972. Her name was Shirley Chisholm.

A black woman with Bernie’s passion, who called for a bloodless revolution, ran for the Democratic nomination for President in 1972 and lost to George McGovern (and several other men), who went on to lose 49 states to Richard Nixon. This woman was Shirley Chisholm.

Shirley said that it she faced more discrimination running for Congress in NY, and later for President, as a woman than as a black person. She survived three assassination attempts during her run.

Older women saw what happened to Shirley and are well aware of the discrimination that any woman must overcome.

Still.

Even today if Bernie were Bernice, he wouldn't have had a chance.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-15/advice-for-hillary-clinton-on-campaigning-as-a-woman

Representative Terri Sewell, the Alabama Democrat, recalls interviewing the pioneering New York congresswoman and presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm for her senior Princeton thesis in 1986. When she asked whether it had been harder running as an African American or as a woman, Chisholm said the latter was “unequivocally” more challenging. And in Sewell's own experience, “that’s as true today as it was when she told me that 30 years ago!”


From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm

1972 presidential campaign[edit]

In 1972, Chisholm became the first black major-party candidate to run for President of the United States, in the 1972 U.S. presidential election, making her also the first woman ever to run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.[2] During the campaign, she survived three assassination attempts.[22] At the Democratic Convention, she won 152 first-ballot votes.[2][23] Decades later, observers would credit Chisholm's 1972 campaign as paving the way for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in their bids for the presidency in 2008.[3]

SNIP

She also struggled to be regarded as a serious candidate instead of as a symbolic political figure;[12] she was ignored by much of the Democratic political establishment and received little support from her black male colleagues.[3] Many headlines constructed Chisholm as an emasculating matriarch with headlines such as the Boston Globe’s “Rep. Shirley Chisholm outflanks her black political brothers”.[24] She later reiterated, "When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being black. Men are men."[9] In particular, she expressed frustration about the "black matriarch thing", saying, "They think I am trying to take power from them. The black man must step forward, but that doesn't mean the black woman must step back."[6] Her husband, however, was fully supportive of her candidacy and said, "I have no hangups about a woman running for president."[13]

Of 30 finalists in major French comics fest, not a single one was a woman.

("The more things change, the more they remain the same.&quot

Nine of the finalists then asked to be removed from consideration -- good for them.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/01/06/angouleme-fest-to-add-female-finalists-after-comics-legends-threaten-boycott/


On one hand, this is not a complete surprise, given that 41 of the 42 Grand Prix winners/presidents have been male. (The American winners, for the sake of noting the degree of stardom, have been Will Eisner, Robert Crumb, Art Spiegelman and Bill Watterson.) It’s also worth noting that the judging process had been criticized in the past for being clubby and insular, as well as old-fashioned and obsolete.

On the other hand, given the wealth of great women comics creators, how do you manage to go for 0-for-30 in 2016?

Although the long list is replete with legends and A-listers, the shoddiness of the oversight was met with swift derision and backlash, and talk of boycotting spread like social-media wildfire. Nearly one-third of the 30 Grand Prix nominees have insisted that they be removed from the list and/or said they join a boycott.

(Those nine, according to cartoonist Matt Madden, are: Christophe Blain, Charles Burns, Pierre Christin, Dan Clowes, Etienne Davodeau, Milo Manars, Riad Sattouf, Joann Sfar and Chris Ware.)

Hillary's Chief Financial Officer: Gary Gensler, "Scourge of the Big Banks"

Sanders voted against approving Gensler to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Association because of his Wall street roots. But he proved to be a very tough regulator.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/07/sanders-clinton-spat-over-wall-street-spotlights-discord-over-gary-gensler/

Former Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), who co-authored the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, said it is “outrageous” to criticize Mr. Gensler. Mr. Gensler pushed to toughen Dodd-Frank as it was being drafted, sometimes defying the Obama administration, and pushed “aggressively” to implement it, said Mr. Frank, who also advises the Clinton campaign.

“He is an example of how this notion that anybody who ever served in the industry can’t do a good job regulating is entirely wrong,” Mr. Frank said Wednesday. “He was by far the toughest regulator.”




This story is from April, 2015 -- nine months ago.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/hillary-wall-street-117092

Campaigning on Hillary's behalf, Bill draws a standing ovation in Iowa.