Should Carol M-B be appointed Secretary of State to offset *'s tokens

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell? Should the next Democratic President try to outdo Bush's current administration as far as racial diversity?

No

I'm all about the job going to the best person qualified -- regardless of race.

We do not need tokens. She is perfectly able to do anything they might ask of her. Tokens?

it just ain't gonna happen :eyes:

Whoever else makes it inot the WH should have as diverse a cabinet as possible.

...Carol Mosley-Braun should be appointed Secretary of State because she's highly qualified for the position. The Bush administrations "racial diversity" is for show, trotted out to try and shield this administration from criticisms of its lack of concern for issues important to minority communities. The positions they occupy are ones in which they can't address those issues of concern, therefore, what is the value of their appointment? Diversity for the sake of appearance is lipstick on an ugly, institutionalized racist pig.

We all know that WHOEVER wins the Democratic nomination (unless it's
Carol herself) NEEDS to make Carol Moseley Braun their serious NUMBER
ONE candidate for Secretary of State and (whether officially or
unofficially) somehow let word out about that intent before the 2004
general election. We Democrats need an African-American woman to be
our next Secretary of State to offset Bush's "token blacks" Powell and
Rice and to mobilize our American-American base to GO OUT & VOTE for
the Democratic ticket!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarolMoseleyBraunForSecretaryOfState

Just wondering if anyone agreed with this approach.

The Dems don't need their own tokens (regardless of qualifications) to offset Repub tokens. Dems need to put the best people into the positions. CMB is intelligent, experienced in gov't at all levels and would bring tremendous value to the next Admin, regardless of her race. That should be reason enough, don'tcha think?

issues that minorities are concerned with? Jobs, healthcare, education, etc.

that all americans should be concerned with,not just minorites.

but I actually don't think she's terribly qualified to be SoS. One term in the senate, and a 2-year ambassadorship to small nation (New Zealand).

She didn't even serve on the Foreign Relations committee. She did, however, serve on Housing and Urban affairs. I think she'd make a great choice for HUD secretary or Health, Education and Welfare.

the left boasts much deeper representation of qualified candidates of colour for high office. Certainly visible minorities ought to have senior representation in a Democratic cabinet, but the appointees will be deserving of the priviledge, unlike Rice.

She may be a token, but from reading her credentials, she seems qualified to me. She just happens to be working for the wrong administration.
http://racerelations.about.com/cs/prominentpeople/a/condoleezarice.htm

Quite frankly, to call either Rice or Powell a token is simultaneously an insult to them and a demonstration on one's ignorance. Any remotely fair reading of either's resume shows that they are qualified for the positions they hold.

It may be painful for some to admit it but Ms. Brown cannot post a resume that approaches that of Mr. Powell or Ms. Rice. I readily acknowledge that we should not have government by resume - policy positions are very important - but one cannot dismiss the importance of resumes in judging whether someone is a token or legitimately qualified for the office he holds.

Calling Rice and Powell tokens is a wonderful way to demonstrate that one should not be listened to on any other subject.

So, next time try reading the post before making assumptions. BTW, tokenism has nothing to do with qualifications. Tokens are used to give the impression of diversity only. Someone can be overly qualified but still used as someone's token.

My post was an affirmation of yours, or at least I thought it to be. I thought that my post just basically expanded on your comments.

I somewhat agree with your point that one can be both a token and qualified; however, in the context in which the thread was started I interpreted the use of the word token to denote someone who was picked with no reference to qualifications, solely to promote an image of diversity. If that is not what what intended by the thread initiator, then I stand corrected. However; by advocating Ms. Brown for SecState i think I was not wrong. Any fair review of Ms. Browns "resume" shows that other than a short stint as an ambassador she has no experience at all with foreign relations (unless one wishes to count her snuggling up to the dictatorial regime in Nigeria).

Based on your answer, it doesn't seem like any of the candidates, besides maybe Clark, are qualified to hold that position.

I don't think Carol for Seceretary of State is a splendid idea or a straightforward yahoo group for wouldbe supporters, but you're making some provocative assertions so I'm going to jump in here.

In actual fact the resume of Ms. Braun compares favorably to that of Ms. Rice. On what grounds? I'll spell it out for you. Rice's ideas were tired before she ever got around to thinking them. That kind of mentalilty doesn't do much to address our real national security concerns in this day and age--if it ever did. Rice is on board as the token academic. But let's be honest about her accomplishments, shall we? One does not get to be provost of Stanford or a Bush appointee by dint of brilliant analytics and erudition. In terms of actual qualifications, a position as a defense liason to our embassy in Romania would not have been inappropriate for Ms. Rice.

Braun by contrast has had to struggle to achieve most of her positions in life. Even her confirmation as ambassador was hard won (more on that in a minute). Her consultuncies came after years of service in relevant fields. While in the Senate she also served on Finance and the Judiciary, btw. Why not Foreign Relations? Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that her archrival Jesse Helms chaired that committee. I don't know. But it is clear that she took a keen interest in foreign affairs, and international law in particular.

Now, about this business of snuggling up to Nigerian regimes, Ms. Braun never snuggled up to Sani Abacha, and never did anything with respect to Nigeria that ran contrary to US strategic interests. Ask Bill Richardson. Ask any member of the Foreign Relations Committee that confirmed her ambassadorship--that'd be anybody except Helms. Ask Bill Clinton or Al Gore. Carol's great snuggly crime was to befriend the wife of a despot. And beyond that, what? That she favored a rational and pragmatic approach to effecting democratic change in Nigeria? You would make it seem as if she opposed all sanctions and didn't care one whit for people's suffering under military rule. But for one to make that case, one must resort to insunating facts that aren't in evidence, and ignoring facts that are as plain as day. Can you, for example, name one US Senator in the Twentieth Century who did more to recognize and uphold the legal rights of Nigerian women than did Carol Moseley Braun? Maybe you think you can, but it's a tough case, and I'll gladly argue it. Because at the end of the day the case against Braun just doesn't add up--unless you're somekind of "wingnut" who doesn't give a darn about facts and figures and all that stuff.

Again, I don't think Carol being appointed Secretary of State is such a grand idea. But let's think about it for a moment. What kind of Secretary of State is Colin Powell? In large part that's defined by the administration he's serving in. Think about it. If the central objective of your government is to wage war left and right and steal enough oil to fill seven seas, well then, Colin Powell is just the kind of person you would want running the State Department. For papering over murderous policy and softselling wars of aggression, he's the man you want. If. on the other hand, you want to promote peace and justice, if you believe in Annan's vision of the UN. if you accept the Millenium goals for the developing world, if you think the real problems we face are poverty and disease and environmental degredation and the way to tackle them is through international cooperation, if you think knowledge and understanding accomplish more for us than bombs and bribery, then Colin Powell would not be at the top of your list for Secretary of State. Carol, however, would be. So the question of qualifications really comes down to what kind of governement you want to put together, and what you hope to accomplish by it.

I think she's great and I'd like to see her in the cabinet, but not out of tokenism and certainly not to counteract Bush cabinet appointments.

I think she's qualified for any number of appointments, and I hope she's considered.

in earnest?

and on edit: In California, black people were loyally Democrats NOT for tokenism but because they KNOW which party actually GIVES a shit about levelling the playing field.

:hi: and you are right.

:D


:D


:D


:D


:D


:D


:D

Glad to see you back

If not, how do you know why blacks in Cali. are loyal Democrats?

By the way, Powell and Rice will walk away from their positions with the possibility of running for President one day. It may be true that the blacks in Bush's cabinet were simply hired for token purposes, but the fact remains that they're there and gettting the opportunity to take part in national affairs.

Little black children look at them and draw inspiration--they're not worried about tokens and party affiliations.

but Powell had that opportunity LONG before Bush's administration and was courted by both parties. And the answer to your question is NO I am not black, but I have canvassed recently in black neighborhoods and worked with all ethnicities with labor unions for two decades.

blacks all over america are...consider the alternative :puke: a friend of mine told me he was paid to be a "black for nixon"...he took the money, dutifully attended the functions, and voted democratic. i am sure there are still "opportunities" for african-americans in the republican party...they surely need some black faces at their convention.

When I ask my *some* of my male friends about certain issues they seem to be almost right-wingish in their responses, yet they know that voting Republican is not an option. However, I think Democrats should take note that if the KKK element suddenly seemed to be removed from the Repub. party, a large split in the black vote may follow.

in the party (i still say racism is a republican party value) they could get more blacks to vote for them.

there's a powerful lot of damage to be repaired...if it's even possible to repair it.

I think she wields enormous power behind Bush. You really think she's a token?

Her horrible ideas aside, she is an effective member of the cabinet and represents her viewpoint with sincerity. I think she is very wrong in her positions -- but, just a token? Hardly.