DT’s Voting Strategy

Background

I won’t forget 2000, 2004, or 2008. Our democracy was tarnished, torn, and battered on those election years. Perhaps we never had the democracy I always thought we had, but I know we don’t have it now. And that cynical, cruel, destructive action from the political machine has nearly destroyed this country.

Of course what made 2008 much worse for us was it was our party. They tore at the very fabric of society and left a large scar we still see today. It wasn’t enough that they cheated in many of the caucuses, hardly democracy anyway. No, they could even stop at that to steal the election. They went the extra mile, rubbing salt in the wounds, by stealing a whole states worth of primary votes, and then when that wasn’t enough for the heartless greedy soulless appetites, they didn’t even have a roll call and count the votes. Clearly for fear that the real winner might somehow still win. On that day we learned they were the same corrupt corporatist machine as the Republicans. No damn difference. They make different noises, and they throw in a few bones, but on the big issues, they’re the same.

Many in the Democratic party where abused, called old, called women (to them an insult by itself), called Republicans anyway, and called racist. They told anyone in the Democratic party, that if they didn’t like what they did at the convention, they could leave. They weren’t wanted, or needed. The New Democratic party had a new coalition now. They were made up of, funny enough, Republicans, mostly moderate, independents, and young people of no particular political persuasion or philosophy because to them it was all about personality and a messiah. They were made up of a solid group of African Americans some of whom were uncomfortable with how things happened, but understandably wanted an African American president more than anything. And on top of this new coalition were the party elites. You know the ones. The ones that never really liked that working class people were in their party. Never were really comfortable with, you know, little people. And funny enough, mostly white upperclass “progressives” that aren’t comfortable with people of color either, but this new choice gave them what they thought was a get out of bigot jail free card. But make no mistake, the party elite don’t particularly like the members of the new coalition any more than they liked the old group.

So from this, we got a New Democratic president and a supermajority in both houses of congress. Almost unprecedented power not seen in quite a while. With that power and by the winning margins, they had a large mandate to be and do anything different that Bush. They could have easily wiped out injustice in our laws towards women and LBGT and minorities. They could have reformed health care, bringing in at a minimum a public option. They could have made great strides economically with FDR style work stimulus programs. They could have performed a miracle not seen since FDR himself. But what did we get? We got none of that. We got the most cynical health care bill that does the opposite of what it should. It forces people to buy private insurance with massive loopholes allowing no caps and still the ability of the insurance company to effectively kick you out of your plan when you get sick. It puts more power and money in the hands of insurance companies. It is in a word, criminal. And we’ve seen us move backwards in women’s rights. And for DADT, we see the courts pushing forward and this very president pushing us backwards. And that’s nothing compared to the continuation of spying on Americans, wars, and now hit lists of American citizens.

Lessons Learned

The bottom line, the last four years of this same group running congress and the last two years of our president, has been as bad as the other party. Make no mistake, it makes me very sad to say that. My former party has unabashedly become puppets to the corporatists, and they don’t even hide it any more. They make it clear with their actions and sadly even often with their words, that they don’t care about Americans or American. Same as the other party. These two parties are both bad for America. And the saddest thing I’ve noticed, I think this new found power of this New Democratic party makes them even more susceptible to doing the bidding of the oligarchy because they so desperately want to hold on to the power normally granted to the other party.

And so, I resigned from my party of more years than I care to remember. That party does not represent me. Sadly for me there isn’t a major party that represents me. So I am independent. I’m proud to be a liberal independent.

Strategy Basics

Now that I’ve set the stage for you, met me say a bit about my voting strategy. Firstly, party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Those are clearly nothing more than tribes or gangs or country clubs. They mean nothing. As we have sadly learned. As far as I can tell, you can’t tell an individuals values from the party or lack of party to which they belong. You can make some guesses that a Democrat might be more to the left on many issues than a Republican. But you could easily be wrong. So I discount that.

So what’s left. Like with picking a presidential candidate during the primaries, you look at their experience, their record, you watch and listen, and you analyze. You look at who their supporters are, who they associate with, and who their backers are. Some of those are hard to find. But you dig anyway. Sometimes you meet them or see them at rallies. You try not to be taken in by celebrity or charisma or outward looks and charm. That’s not what you’re hiring them for. You do your homework. No one is going to be the same as you on all issues. And sadly I think the longer a politician is in office, the less likely they’ll have integrity and any semblance of what’s best for their constituents. It very quickly becomes about holding power and doing what the powerful want. So how long someone has been in office is a major factor, no matter how much you may think you like them.

Candidate Choices

First there are zillions of candidates and other choices on ballots. So there can be a lot of work. I do look at some organizations material showing their choices and why. We’ve all learned to be wary of such organizations because they have their own agendas. They’re not in it for you, they’re in it for themselves. So verify.

If you’re lucky, you have some choices. If there are more than two party candidates, you may even have some very good choices. Green or other liberal parties often have good choices. Sometimes independents are great. And on occasion the New Democratic party candidate might be great. Sestak comes to mind.

And as mentioned above, how long they’ve been in office is a major factor for me. Perhaps there could be a formula for this that takes away points for every year they’re in office. And then maybe points for matching issues, and independence of funding, etc., etc. We’ll leave that for another post.

Alas, what happens when there isn’t a good choice. What do you do? You can either vote for the lesser of two evils, write in Elvis, or something else.

Other Factors – The Protest Vote

Finally, there is indeed another dimension to this. The something else mentioned above. If you don’t have a great candidate, which sadly is often, there is the protest vote. This can be either to punish or mess up the tribe you’re more likely to be aligned with politically, say Democrats, or it can be to just generally fuck with the two main parties and keep them changing and scrambling. That is, throw wrenches in the works to slow them down.

Why would you consider doing this? After all, the other party is at least 2% more evil. Wouldn’t that help them? Yes, yes it would. And yes, they are a bit more evil. I’m a liberal, and to me, that’s still true despite what we’ve seen happen to the Democratic party. But that’s not the point. Let me put that another way, THAT’S NOT THE POINT! Here’s the point. And we’ve made this point a million times at this blog and still people don’t quite get it. If you will vote for the Democrat over the Republican every time, no matter what, because they are indeed ever so slightly better than the other guy, then why on earth would that party ever, ever, ever listen to you and your wishes and needs? I mean EVER. If they have your vote no matter what, you don’t have any value to them. That’s worth a simpler rephrasing to make sure it sinks in. YOU HAVE NO VALUE IF THEY CAN COUNT ON YOUR VOTE!!!

I think I made that clear. So if you don’t like what your slightly less evil party is doing or your slightly less evil candidate is doing or is about, don’t vote for them. Don’t vote for the lesser evil of the candidates. just don’t vote for them. Don’t do it. Don’t reward that party for putting up crap candidates.

So what choices do you have with your protest. You can actually vote for the other major party. That one is a tough one. Well, not so tough if that candidate is actually relatively moderate. And even on occasion actually more liberal than the one in your party (or closest equivalent). But usually that’s a really tough thing to do. You have to be brave and hold your nose. Now that I think about it, it’s just like how my old party has made me vote for them for years. Come to think of it, they’ve trained me quite well to do that. Not so hard perhaps.

But if that’s too much, another choice is to not vote for either candidate, none of the above if available, or to write in a nonsense candidate. Or, even though mentioned above as a reasonable option, some may consider voting for third party candidates to be in this protest camp. I like that last approach because it’s a twofer. You’re actually voting for someone pretty good, and your protest and and affecting the Democratic party.

My Vote

So what am I going to do. I won’t bore you with all the smaller local candidates like dog catcher or referendums like should we ban coffee houses from using pink whipped cream. OK, I made that one up. But I do have a congressional race to vote for that’s of interest. FYI: Here’s the League of Women Voters sheet on my district ballot (warning, link is to PDF). I get a lovely choice of candidates for congress. (Yes, that’s a snark.) First is the Democrat Tom Perriello who, as you can see from the sheet, is a founder of a number of faith-based organizations. Yes, not just one, but a number. And as you might have guessed, he’s anti-abortion. Worse still, he was an eagle scout. {{Shudder}} So basically a Republican-lite. Then we have Robert Hurt, the real Republican. He really sucks. And third, we have an independent candidate Jeffrey Clark, who is, you guessed it, another Republican. Though at least he was in the Army and did some real work. And I have to admit, I like the part on immigration where he wants to send business men to jail for hiring illegal immigrants. Kind of going against the grain of corporate interests there.

So who am I going to vote for? Well, first the polls seem to be fluctuating between Hurt winning by 5 points to Hurt winning by 10 points. Basically Hurt’s just been running against Obama/Pelosi. And of course as you’d expect from the New Democratic party, Perriello’s been lying about the health care bill (hey, at least he’s trying to defend it I guess), and slinging mud. I can’t vote for Perriello I’ve decided. He’s part of the new coalition that is moving the Democratic party further to the right. But I don’t think I can vote for Hurt. Since it probably doesn’t matter, I’m currently leaning towards Clark just for the protest (of the third party variety). That is, it’s not a good third party candidate where I get a twofer and feel doubly good, but it’s just a protest vote, plan and simple.

November 2nd, The Big Picture

Since others have mentioned their general thoughts on the rest of the elections, I thought I’d do the same. I can’t pretend otherwise, I want this New Democratic party to be dismantled. The new coalition is already falling apart given the poll numbers. The new voters just voting for a personality or messiah are either disillusioned or bored. That’s the thing about new voters, you get what you pay for. And as you’d expect, the Republican’s that joined are back to being Republicans. And it turns out the independents they pulled in are also either disillusioned or bored. None of them seem to be in the coalition any more. And sadly for the Democratic party, they threw out a big part of their base in 2008. So I want them to fall apart. Not because I want Republicans to run the country and destroy it. And sadly that’s possible. But because I don’t want this New Democratic party to destroy the country first. And make no mistake, Obama and Pelosi and Reid will continue down the path of being worse than Bush on a number of fronts and go further by cutting social security and medicare, and education is next after that. I want them out.

So I will not feel bad for them when they lose the House, which I think they will. And I won’t feel bad as they lose some in the senate. I will be very happy to see Reid go. And yes, that means a really scary person would get that seat. I certainly am not for her nor would I vote for her, but I wouldn’t vote for Reid either because he’s only less evil. He has been an utter disaster. He needs to go. And as for Pelosi, what can I say in print after her part in the 2008 primaries. Well, let’s just say I’ll be very happy to see her lose her position and will be happy to see her retire. I’m sure she’ll have fun working for some health insurance lobbyist like may of the other Democrats that leave office.

For predictions, I’m thinking the Republicans will win around 50 seats in the house and about 5 seats in the Senate. Funny enough, that’s been my prediction since the beginning of the mid term season and it hasn’t changed much. We’ll see very soon.

There you have it. My ramblings went a bit long, but that’s my current approach to voting. What’s yours?

The Democrats are going to run on “results” in November??

Bart Stupak, poster boy for the "party of results"

I know, I know.  It took me awhile to stop giggling too.  They can’t possibly be serious.  But that’s what PoliticalTicker is claiming.   Swallow your coffee before you read it:

Washington (CNN) – When voters head to the polls in November, the Democratic National Committee would like them to remember Democrats with one word: results.

On Wednesday at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, chairman Tim Kaine revealed his party’s new message and strategy months ahead of the midterm elections. Kaine talked about the efforts with CNN Chief National Correspondent John King in an interview that aired on John King, USA.

Kaine told King that Democrats hope to convince voters they are the party of results. Part of their new strategy will involve pushing that message, helping local candidates, and convincing many of the new voters – that voted for President Barack Obama in the last election – to support Democrats in the midterms.

The DNC chairman said that while the economy still needs improvements, it’s moved from recession to recovery.

Kaine said, “I think the improvement will be noticed by our voters and we’ll be able to make the case to them, do you want to keep climbing or do you want to hand the keys back to the guys who put us into the ditch?”

Yeah, I’m sure that’s what they will be thinking as they head out the door today with their complimentary cardboard box for their stuff and their three month severance packages.

Actually, that’s not what I’ve been witnessing here in the heart of middle class suburbia.  What is happening is that the Republicans in NJ are stirring up an anti-tax rebellion and directing it against hapless teachers.  Why should THEY be getting decent bennies and a steady paycheck when the people footing the bill with their ridiculous property taxes are seeing their industries disappearing and their own lives on the brink of disaster?

Tim Kaine and the Democrats are utterly clueless.  They have no idea what is really going on out here.  Results?  What results?

Was the stimulus package big enough to stave off these drastic cuts in our school districts?

Did Democrats end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Did the Democrats fight hard for the entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the capital they need to start new ventures so people would have jobs?

Did the Democrats soak the rich bankers within an inch of their lives so that they would learn a valuable lesson and the financial catastrophe they brought upon us wouldn’t happen again?

Did Democrats put together an adequate bailout and mortgage restructuring package for strapped homeowners so they wouldn’t throw in the towel and walk away from their obligations?  Did they make it easier for mortgage owners to keep money flowing to the banks to keep them solvent?

Did the Democrats impose some emergency regulations so that bankers would stop gambling away our futures?

Have the Democrat done ANYTHING so far to make sure that no one touches Social Security and that we get our Trust Fund money back from the thieves who took it?

Did the Democrats give us actual health care reform that’s truly universal, affordable, with competition?

Did the Democrats protect womens’ rights and autonomy of her own body?

Did the Democrats fix gender paycheck inequalities for real or did they simply pass a law with no teeth?

Did the Democrats try to protect American workers’ jobs?

I haven’t seen any results.  I’ve seen them turn their backs on their own voters in 2008 in order to elect their lightbringer, an easy win for them.  All they had to do was change the roolz in the middle of the game and cudgel frantic American voters with false accusations of racism to guilt them into voting for one of the most unprepared but nakedly ambitious presidents since George W. Bush.  But it wasn’t enough to make him president.  No, the world had to give him a Nobel prize as well.  What’s next?  A MacArthur genius grant for curing cancer?  Where does he find the time??  The awards must be piling up on his little display etegere, like a bunch of 3rd place martial arts trophies.  Everyone who participates gets a prize for trying.

And the whining.  I can’t stand it.  We are now supposed to believe that a minority party, the Republicans, are responsible for all that has gone wrong.  They stand in the way.  They say no to everything.  Even when Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the Republicans were responsible.  How can that be??  I am trying hard to wrap my head around this concept.  Here’s what I’ve got: 1.) Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the senate.  2.)Republicans got what they wanted anyway.  3.) Soooo, maybe the problem is actually *in* the Democratic party.   Three names come to mind immediately: Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak.  You can throw Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu in there as well but at least they can be leaned on.  Who leaned on Nelson, Lieberman and Stupak?  Those three swaggered all over Congress and Stupak in particular got whatever the hell he wanted.  It was Bart Stupak vs the majority of voters in the USA and Bart won.  BART won.  The Democrats allowed Bart and Obama to screw millions of women out of their personal autonomy and Democrats have the nerve to blame Republicans?

I don’t think Democrats understand the impact of their cowardice.  Women are not a special interest.  Workers have to work to pay taxes.  The financial investment industry is out of control and wrecking havoc around the world.  Our current wars are pointless wastes of lives and money.  Sick children should never have to pass through a gauntlet to get affordable health care.  And we need teachers, even the mean ones who can’t be bothered to address the needs of the gifted.  If they do a good job with the other 98% of the students in their classes, we will have gotten more than our money’s worth.

You want to know what I want to see in the results category?  I want to see real passion on the Floor.  I want to see yelling and screaming.  I want to see the progressives and liberals eat some red meat and throw a fit until the Bart Stupaks in their own party back down.  I want to see eggs thrown and smoke bombs and bloody noses.  I want to see incivility.  I want to see so much fighting in Congress by Democratic representatives on behalf of Americans not in the bonus class that the editorial page of the New York Times faints before it can reach the smelling salts.  I don’t want two Republican parties.  I want to see Democrats actually ACT like Democrats. 

Shove your “party of results” meme until you have some results.  I own my vote.  I don’t give it away for social promotion purposes.  You can’t scare me with the Republican boogie man anymore.  I voted for downticket Dems in 2008 but they haven’t pulled their weight.  If Republicans win this fall, Democrats have themselves to blame and no one else.  It was their responsibility to get things done and they blew it.  They coasted.   This fall, I’m not voting for either party.  I’m voting for a party to be designated later.

And stop calling me for money.

Remember When We Believed In a Place Called Hope?

Remember when Donna Brazile told us all that the Democratic Party was forming a New Coalition that was “…more urban, as well as suburban…” and that the party didn’t need gays, Hispanics, blue collar voters (more commonly known as Jacksonians) and us bitter, clingy feminists anymore? Donna was either flying high that night, or she was serious. We can safely assume she was serious, particularly after she wrote this gem in response to an innocent young voter’s (ie: me) inquiries about seating the delegates in Florida and Michigan.

As of today, I am not going to respond to any more anti American, Anti Democratic emails. Have a nice day.
I am sorry because you are sincere, but the Hillary forces are uncivil, repugnant and vile. When you come up for air and would like to email a person who cares about America and not just a personality, I will respond.
Thanks for your time and your interest.
Donna

This afternoon, in between being uncivil, repungant and vile and also hating America (and also toting a gun and being raycist), I came across this article on FB, which explains why the conventional wisdom about Obama’s current joke of a Presidency is, as usual, wrong:

The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama’s decline in the polls represents a new, unexpected turn against him. But an examination of the results of the recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts suggests that what we might really be seeing is a return to the skepticism that significant portions of the electorate have showed about Obama from the beginning of his national career.

For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee.

On February 5—Super Tuesday— Obama did poorly in both New Jersey and Massachusetts, losing to Clinton by 10 and 15 points, respectively. The exit polls were in line with Obama’s performance throughout the primary race: He did very well with blacks, wealthy voters, highly educated voters, and very young voters. He did poorly with working-class whites and older voters. In New Jersey, Obama was +20 among voters under the age of 29, but about -26 among voters over 50. In Massachusetts, he ran even with young voters, and -31 among those over 65. As for education, Obama was -41 among voters with only a high school degree, but ran even, or just ahead, among voters possessing postgraduate degrees. And then there was gender and race. In New Jersey, Obama was -19 among white men; in Massachusetts he was +1.

[…]

The question, then, is how these various coalition groups—the white ethnic enclaves, the Jacksonians, the suburban and industrial town voters—have reacted to Democrats since Obama took office. And the answer is: Without enthusiasm.

(Note: only cool young people like me and Regency voted for Hillary, but you all ready know that.) There’s usually no point in Nostalgia. But remember when the Democratic party was the party of the “Big Tent?” Remember when it was supposed to represent the interests of those who were “invisible,” as our Shero used to say? Remember the party that could overcome the labels and name calling defined by the Village and the Right Wing Noise Machine in service of things like Health Care for children, job creation, the environment and tax cuts for the Middle Class? I’m having a hard time, because it’s been a long time since the Big Dawg was President, and I was only an (adorable) little tot back then, but I digress.

The point is, the Democratic Party we once loved and belonged to bit the dust on May 31st at the RBC meeting, but we all know that. Its just that its only now, too late, that the rest of the world is realizing we were right all along about our beloved leader and the “New Coalition.” It is extremely enjoyable to relish in Donna and the rest of the DNC’s Karma, and it is at times satisfying to watch President Obama crash and burn, not because we wanted that to happen–Obama’s failure isn’t just dragging down his poll numbers, its also dragging down this country and all of the unemployed people who are struggling to make ends meet while Wall Street Bankers point and laugh at them from on high atop of their giant mounds of bailout money–but because it is only small consolation after having our vaginas compared to grilled cheese sandwiches (well, my vagina wasn’t compared to a grilled cheese sandwich, but I was still mad about the reference in general) and being basically kicked out of the party a lot of us remained loyal to our entire lives, despite it being such a hot mess.

However, vindictiveness gets us nowhere. The PUMA brand appears to have been usurped by disturbed lunatics such as the Hillbuzz boys, who now spend their days photoshopping pictures of Senator Claire McCaskill in pajamas and campaigning for conservatives like Sarah Palin, Scott Brown and Michelle Bachmann, and the Teabaggers Tea party is a front for the Right Wing.

Many have suggested forming a third party, but as Joseph Cannon explained third parties have been shown to be unsuccessful and their candidates are spoilers. Like it or not, we have a two party system and its going to stay that way. So what do we do?

The right wing nutsos — the Friedmanites, the libertarians — did not say: “We’re not getting what we want from the Republicans, so let’s form a new party.”

Actually, I tell a lie. Before the great takeover occurred, and during the days of Nixon, some right-wing ultras did go down the third party route. A Libertarian party was formed, and the American Independent Party did well in the ’68 and ’72 elections, under George Wallace and John Schmitz.

George is the one who made that remark about there not being a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. John is the one who said “If you’re out of Schmitz, you’re out of gear. And if someone doesn’t get that kid get to shut up, I’ll do it myself.”

Apologies for that digression. (If you weren’t alive at that time, you may be confused by the references.)

The reactionary element within this country achieved much greater success when it decided to take over the Republican party. They have now commandeered it to such a degree that John Schmitz’ son Joseph has a comfy place in it. (Joseph used to help run Blackwater and he was the DOD IG under W.) The fanatics not only took over the party, they also commandeered the national debate. They set the limits of permissible thought.

It’s time to take the party back from the “New Coalition.” Its time we gave Donna a fork and made her eat her words. Its time real liberals–and by real I don’t mean fauxgressives of the former Neocon variety such as Arianna and Morkos– I mean real liberals, took the party back from so called “Blue Dogs” and Howard Dean and his crappy “Fifty State Strategy.” Its time we got our party back. Because deep down, we know it still always belonged to us. One needs only to take one look at the flailing Obots on the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos to see that. I miss our “Big Tent.” Lets call it up and tell it to please come home.

I remember being a little kid and knowing I was a Democrat, because I thought that no matter what, I would never feel invisible if there was a “D” after my name. That was what I loved about the Democratic Party. Now so many Americans feel more invisible than ever. Even Wanda Sykes.

I miss my Clinton panties too.

Clinton isn’t out there preaching that only certain types of love are acceptable. He isn’t bemoaning what is wrong with our nation, but constantly emphasizing what is right with it. Clinton is not a gloom and doom kind of guy waiting for an imaginary apocalypse to free us from this evil world. Clinton prefers to see the good in people rather than the worst. The President is an almost idealized concept of an optimist who believes that as long as we are here, we might as well try to make it the best world that we can.

Most of us appreciate that. Because in the end, we, too, would like to believe that we are people who-though we are often flawed and all too human- struggle each day to make the world a little better than how we found it.

Clinton just seems more like one of us. He actually has facial expressions. He plays the sax. He eats at fast food restaurants and struggles with weight gain as a result. He gets all red in the face as he jogs around the block. He even makes bad choices when it comes to picking out which tie to wear for the cameras.

I don’t think anyone would call him a saint. And that is the number one reason that the Republicans hate him so very much. He isn’t a saint at all. Neither are we.

As Andy points out in the song, “He made too many enemies… Of the people who would keep us on our knees..”

And all the while that the Christian Coalition driven lemmings in our government have been harping on the fact that only a saint can run this country effectively, Bill Clinton has been proving them wrong.

And the Righteous Republicans really, really hate that.

Do you still believe in a place called hope? I think I do.

The “screaming woman” who confronted Jane Hamsher on C-Span wasn’t actually screaming

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake

I admit I have been warming up to Jane Hamsher a bit in the past couple of weeks because of her strong fight against the abortion language in the health care bill. But apparently I got fooled again. We’ve all read and discussed Jane’s post, “Shaking Off the Hangover of the Primary Wars.” Riverdaughter did a spectacular verbal takedown of Jane’s rationalizing yesterday.

The post itself is troubling enough, but Jane’s comments about Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the thread clearly demonstrate that she (Jane) is not yet ready to take responsibility for actions she took or did not take during the divisive primary fights of 2008.

Many of us were able to see through Obama early in the primary process–after doing our own research on his character and his political experience (or lack thereof). But Jane claims that her site remained neutral throughout the primaries because there were no significant policy differences among the top three candidates, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.

It’s true that FDL did not publicly endorse a candidate, but the posts and comment sections certainly favored Obama. It’s possible Jane couldn’t control the Axelrod astroturfers and just threw up her hands, as Digby did. But she allowed her comment sections to be infested with abusive language toward Clinton and anyone who defended her. And she banned commenters who complained about the bullying.

Jane writes:

Sophisticated campaigns marketed the candidates as personalities and people became attached to them and felt like they knew them. Everyone who opposed them was the “enemy,” rhetoric was amped up and overheated, identity politics were exploited by both sides as strategic campaign elements and suddenly the blogosphere was a giant pie fight.

We made the decision to stay true to our charter and didn’t take sides, pledging to support the candidate that emerged with the nomination. We believed that once the election was over and we could get back to discussing issues again and evaluating politicians on both sides of the aisle with the same yardstick, we’d be back in our element.

She assumes that everyone who followed the primary battles focused on candidates as personalities rather than looking closely at their characters, policy goals, and personal accomplishments. She could not be more wrong. Most of us didn’t support Hillary Clinton for her personality. I actually began the primaries as an “anyone but Hillary” voter. But her performances in the debates convinced me she was the best candidate. It wasn’t about her personality or about her husband, and it wasn’t about her gender–although I admit I would have liked to see a woman President in my lifetime. I supported Clinton because she showed herself to be smart, knowledgeable, and most of all issue-oriented.

Obama, on the other hand, was all about Obama. He never was specific about issues, he never demonstrated any commitment to Democratic ideology. He admired Ronald Reagan, for heaven’s sake! He cozied up to fundamentalist preachers their anti-abortion, homophobic followers. Most damning of all, it became obvious from his many comments about and to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin that Obama was a misogynist through and through.

I knew Hillary was more conservative than I am, and I knew I probably wouldn’t be happy with her Iraq and Afghanistan policies. But I was even more concerned about domestic issues. All I wanted was a Democrat in the White House who would fight for universal health care and would protect what is left of our social safety net. Instead, thanks to people like Jane and Markos, we ended up with a Republican pretending to be a Democrat–who, if anything is as bad or worse than George W. Bush.

In the discussion thread attached to her post, linked above, Jane posted this comment:

“I had a woman call up and scream at me when I was on CSPAN the other day for all the horrible things Markos and I had done to Hillary Clinton during the primaries, telling me that I had destroyed the Democratic party.

“And I’m like, seriously? I know some people you should meet, you guys would have an interesting fight.”

Many thanks to Gweema for posting the link to Jane Hamsher’s appearance on C-Span’s Washington Journal on November 26, 2009. I watched the whole thing, and right now I’m practically shaking with anger (want to call me a “screamer,” Jane?).

The women caller on C-Span did no screaming. She did not even raise her voice. Instead, she listed her credentials to confront Jane Hamsher and then did so very articulately. Jane responded with condescending lies and half-truths. I decided to transcribe that portion of the interview so we can dissect it here. The relevant section begins at about 25:50.

Elizabeth from Tennessee, calling on the Democratic line, wishes Jane and the interviewer a happy Thanksgiving and says she appreciates their working on the holiday weekend. Here is Elizabeth’s question:

To Jane Hamsher, I have been a lifelong Democrat, I was very involved in the health care battles of the 90’s. I was involved in actual implementing of town hall meetings back then in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois; so I don’t take a back seat to you.

But in the area of February of 2008, I discontinued reading your blog and also the dailykos blog altogether because of your extreme hatred and villification of another Democratic candidate, and that was Senator Hillary Clinton. [Jane Hamsher rolls her eyes at this point]

I don’t know how much you are aware [of]…how much damage you did and how much damage Markos did–

Hamsher interrupts the caller: “Are you sure you’re talking about our blog? We had Hillary Clinton on [patronizing laughter] …

Elizabeth says: I’m talking about your blog, ma’m, and you should know it. If anyone wants to know they should go read…from that time. [interviewer breaks in and asks when this was, but Elizabeth goes on with her points.]

“You mentioned today that Obama was an anti-war candidate. He was no such thing. In fact, throughout the campaign, he continued to say that Afghanistan was a good war…. ”

[Jane Hamsher breaks in to agree with Elizabeth on this point.]

Elizabeth says: “You really caused a lot of people to leave the Democratic party during the 2008 campaign. And I’m telling you now, I’m sorry that you’re sick, I’m sorry that you’ve had three bouts with the cancer, but I’m gonna say this. You are going to be shown exactly what damage you caused our party last primary season, and I will never forgive you for that.”

Elizabeth was a bit harsh at times, but she maintained a level tone of voice and did. not. scream. In fact I’d have to say that Jane’s characterization of Elizabeth’s presentation as “screaming” verges on sexism. Perhaps Jane has some unconscious issues in that department.

Here is Jane’s response [highlighting is mine]:

I know that there was a certain class of women who decided that they would start supporting John McCain over what they thought was bad treatment of Hillary Clinton. In fact…I took a video at the Rules Committee meeting, a woman, Harriet Christian who said that…she was not going to support a party who would have an inept black man as a candidate, and that became a…rallying point for some people.

We didn’t take a position…in the primaries. We said that we would support whoever was the winner and in fact had Senator Clinton as a guest on the blog, so I think we represented all viewpoints. I think there were people their who were Hillary Clinton partisans; I think that there were people there who were Barack Obama partisans, and I think that each side…collectively saw the other side as the issue. But I don’t think we were unfair to Senator Clinton, and I don’t believe that the people who left the party to vote for John McCain, who was very much an anti-choice candidate, a pro-war candidate, reflect the same values that I have anyway, or reflect the values of Senator Clinton.

There is so much wrong with Jane’s response that I don’t know where to begin. You do need to watch the video–her facial expressions while listening to the caller and responding to her are unbelievably patronizing and condescending. It is evident from her use of the words “class of women” that Hamsher sees herself as superior to these working class (?), pathetic women (though we’re not all women by any means) who mistakenly think that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly. In addition she twists Harriet Christian’s words in order to imply that Harriet is a racist.

And what the f&ck is it these people don’t understand about protest votes anyway?

I honestly think that Jane’s rationalizing is an unconscious defense mechanism. Now that she has seen what Obama really is–a DINO, a conservative hack, maybe just barely qualifying as a Rockefeller-style Republican–she has to go back and try to cover up her own behavior during the primaries. But Jane has a very very long way to go before she understands the damage that she and the other A-list bloggers caused. I sincerely doubt that she will ever take responsibility for her actions–or lack of actions. For one thing, Jane was at the Rules Committee meeting and apparently she had absolutely no problem with Obama being given delegates belonging to to Clinton or with Obama getting delegates from a state he didn’t compete in!

Obviously Riverdaughter demolished Jane’s rationalizing yesterday afternoon, so I don’t have to do it. I’ll just post these three paragraphs from RD’s righteous rant here:

People like me are pretty steamed at you and your buddies. You took away our choice. We didn’t get a fair primary season. We didn’t even get a floor fight. There was no unity, Jane. It was all an illusion. Your guy was forced on many, many Democratic voters because YOU decided that Obama was best for us. And many people swallowed that because they were convinced that Republicans were worse. So they voted for a Democrat and they got a Republican anyway.

Jane, how many times do we have to tell you that it wasn’t about Hillary after May 31, 2008? It was about choice. Remember Choice, Jane? The right to self-determination? The ability to choose your own destiny? If someone else took that choice away from you, you’d be on their doorstep with a bullhorn and wouldn’t let up. But because it was YOUR guy who won, it was OK? What about the choice of the rest of us, Jane? What about CA, NJ, NY, MA, OH, PA, TX, IN, NH, WV, TN, FL, MI and so on and so on? Those big, Democratic states did not vote for Barack Obama in the primaries, Jane. They deserved to cast their votes for the candidate they *did* vote for. I was one of those voters, Jane and I am not letting the Democratic party off the hook for its outrageous behavior towards me and the others. With a primary this close and disputed, the nullification of my vote was unforgivable.

That is why the primary of 2008 isn’t going to go away and why you are going to continue to get angry callers who blame you and your friends for the state of the country under Obama. You took our choice away. Your incredibly high handed and self righteous decision to support Obama and shut down the rest of the party for the supposed good of that party has lead us to this point.

Don’t come crying to me with any more of your action e-mails, petitions, and fund-raising drives, Jane. I figured it out. You think I’m in “a certain class of women” who are beneath your contempt. You won’t get another chance from me, Jane. You’re just not seeing reality clearly yet, and I’m not sure you ever will.

In defense of Jane Hamsher, Democratic party loyalist

Who could have predicted?

Jane Hamsher has taken a lot of heat lately from the likes of Booman, whoever the hell he is (we never read him).  Apparently, he wrote a post directed at the disillusioned party faithful who are now disappointed in President Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress.  We know he must be talking about Jane and other bloggers like BTD because he sure as heck isn’t talking about us.  We were hep to that step and we didn’t dig it a long, long time ago.  We’ve been calling ourselves Democrats in Exile since about May 31, 2008.  Do we regret the fact that we no longer have a party to call home?  Heck no.  We know all about free milk and a cow.

But this is a painful lesson for people like Jane Hamsher, who has now been told by Booman that if she doesn’t stop voicing her discontent at the bill of goods that Obama failed to deliver, she isn’t a real Democrat.  I beg to differ.  Jane has indeed defended her party credentials quite admirably in a post today.  I advise everyone to go and read it in its entirety as well as the comments.  It seems some of the commenters are still confused about who supported Hillary, PUMA, both, either and why.  I’ll try to clarify that at the end.

It’s not my intention to dump on Jane Hamsher.  She really does mean well.  I will always admire her for what she did in CT for Ned Lamont.  It must feel like a real sucker punch to be sold out by her own party on the issue of reproductive rights too.  I remember that Jane feels very strongly about that issue.  FDL was also doggedly persistent on Plamegate and I sat riveted to my monitor throughout the duration of Scooter Libby’s trial.  Jane was barely out of major surgery when that happened.  But it was the quality of the journalism, not just Jane’s incredible resilience, that merited an award for FDL.

But something went terribly wrong in 2008.  Jane, the party loyalist, took the path most traveled and lost her way.  She documents some of the atrocities in her post today.  Most of it consists of pitiful excuses for why Jane stayed neutral during the worst of the primary abuses.  I’m sure she would like for the primary of 2008 to die an ignominious but quiet death somewhere so we can all let bygones be bygones and get on with it.  It’s not going away, Jane.

Some of Jane’s commenters and perhaps Jane herself think the problem with us “bitter” holdouts is the fact that Hillary lost.  When they notice us, if they notice us at all, they think it is all about Hillary.  But a couple of days before Hillary dropped out, I had a conversation with Peter Daou on the phone.  I was enraged by what the DNC had done and not just because of Hillary.  Of course I was angry with how they had betrayed her but I was more angry at how they had betrayed US, the voters.  I told him that it wasn’t about Hillary anymore.  It was about the Democratic party primary voters.

Let me address some of Jane’s excuses for doing nothing during the primary war of 2008.  Jane says that during primaries, it’s all about personalities.  Maybe.  But I have certainly never seen anything quite like the massacre I witnessed on DailyKos or the emnity between the campaigns that was generated by Obama’s people.  It was like the primary was taken over by the smartest guys in the room from Enron.  That was my first clue that something wasn’t cool about Obama.  His followers seemed too “ends justified the means”.  The campaign was very weak about reining them in, which eventually lead to the “Sarah Palin is a cunt” T-shirts. But the aggression didn’t stay on the blogs.  Nope.  It made its way to TV and print.  It was evident at every televised debate.  It got ugly when the accusations of racism were thrown at the Clintons.  I thought it couldn’t get lower than that.  That’s when Obama lost me for good, Jane.

But your site stayed neutral.

Then there is the issue of their voting records.  Yes, they were very similar.  So, I can’t understand why Hillary got branded as a “corporatist” and Obama didn’t.  On what basis was that label applied, Jane?  But it was even more illogical than that.  If there voting records were virtually identical, why in God’s name would you choose to go with a guy who had virtually no face time in the Senate and ZERO experience in the Executive branch? Then there was the whole Lieberman Resolution on Iran which Hillary was forced to vote for, because no one with an ounce of common sense would vote against what amounted to an opinion poll on whether Iran should be punished if they used terrorism.  But Obama was conveeeeniently absent that day.  Huh.   But wait, there’s more.  Remember the MoveOn Petraeus Ad motion that Obama voted present on?  How about all of the Illinois Senate votes on reproductive rights and abortion that Obama voted present on?  Or how about the fact that he rode to the WH on a speech he gave on the Iraq War Resolution but never had to vote on?  It was a missing data point.

But Jane’s site stayed neutral.

Then there were the caucuses that were overrun by bussed in Obama people and the caucuses in Texas where the fraud was documented and reported on at length by the likes of Pacific John, who witnessed it.  There was the RBC hearing of August 2007 where Florida and Michigan were punished.  Two whole states’ voters disenfranchised for no fault of their own simply because the politicians involved had a dispute over timing.

But Jane’s site stayed neutral.

Then there was the RBC hearing of May 31, 2008.  We keep coming back to this but Jane doesn’t get it yet.  The issue was not simply Florida and Michigan, Jane.  The issue was CA, NJ, NY, OH, PA, MA and all of the other big and little primary states where voters did not vote for Barack Obama, sometimes by more than 10 points.  We covered that hearing, Jane.  We had boots on the ground too.  We saw Amy Siskind giving an impassioned speech about what it meant to her to be disenfranchised simply because she voted for Hillary Clinton and didn’t like being called a sweetie.  And then we watched when Donna Brazile had the nerve to call Hillary Clinton a cheater simply because she wanted to keep four of her delegates and leave the rest of the uncommitted delegates at that status.  Clinton’s position, as communicated by her representatives, was extraordinarily fair.  Instead, that same committee gave Michigan’s votes to a man who wasn’t even on the ballot and by doing so, wiped out every other Clinton voter in every other state.  They knew this is what they were doing.  They threw the game to Obama, in front of all of us.

But Jane’s site stayed neutral.

Then we went PUMA, which simply meant that we were going to withhold our votes from the Democratic party because we could not reward this outrageous, undemocratic and fraudulent behavior.  Since the convention hadn’t taken place and Hillary hadn’t officially withdrawn her name from the race, we felt there was time for the party and the party faithful to come to its senses.  We hoped that the party loyalists would put principles before party.  We thought they would be alarmed by the amount of money pouring into Obama’s campaign.  Where was it all coming from?  What did the money people see in a less than one term senator who had almost no legislative experience?  Then there was the FISA vote.  We were glad to see Jane as a signatory on a sternly worded letter in The Nation.  But when we got to Denver to protest the shameful way the party was treating Hillary Clinton and her voters, where was Jane?  I swear, Jane, if you had woken up and smelled the coffee and joined us, I would have followed you to the ends of the earth.  What did a full time working person with a new blog and a ferocious out-of-the-blue insurgency know about organizing and making a scene?  I could have used a Jane Hamsher.  If Jane Hamsher had stood up and demanded a real roll call vote for Hillary Clinton, if Jane Hamsher and her followers had insisted upon fairness and against delegate intimidation, Jane would have little to complain about today.  Jane could have said, “Well, at least I tried.  At least I did *something* to keep the party together.  At least I stood up for principle instead of letting a tidal wave of accusations and incrimination destroy the good intentions of the people who voted for Clinton.  At least I could say I stood up for the working class instead of the bonus class who controls us now.”

But Jane can’t say any of those things because Jane’s site flipped from neutral to pro-Obama as soon as the Convention was over.

This in spite of FISA and primary voting improprieties and Obama meeting with evangelicals and promising them God knows what.  In spite of the overt misogynism of the media that Obama never decried or the fact that the candidate barely called himself a Democrat or that he lobbied for the first TARP bailout bill- before the election- Jane was happy to climb aboard the Obama bandwagon and buy into the scare tactics on abortion to whip the rest of us into line.  We were all supposed to come together in unity and support Jane’s Democratic presidential candidate.

And now Jane doesn’t like her guy or the Congress he rode in to town with. Who could have predicted that he’d turn out to be a corporate loving, weak president with an equally craven Congress behind him?   The nation was in such dire straits last year that only a skilled and experienced politician with a quiver full of well developed policies ready for action could have *maybe* put the country and its financial sector straight.  We got Obama and his billion dollar campaign backers instead.  And BTD is still citing the DLC as the reason why he couldn’t get behind Clinton.  Oh, please.  When Bill Clinton was president, the center was where the left is now.  To centrists back then, the Left was a bunch of tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing, Alfie Kohn loving, Noam Chomsky pacifying vegans.  We’re not the new Centrists, the Lieberman types.  We former Clintonistas, Democrats in Exile, last year’s PUMAs are FDR style liberals.  You would think that Jane and us would have a lot in common.  But Jane has some weird mental image in her mind about who we are and who we support.  We are not Palin people.  We’re not birthers.  We’re not tea partiers.  And we sure as hell aren’t racists.

We are Democrats who were set free from the party or set ourselves free to go our own separate ways.  We put principle before party.  That’s all.  We saw what the Obama campaign and the DNC was willing to do in order to get him elected and suspected that big, corporate money had a lot to do with it.  It was the neo-feudalists flexxing their muscle and we wanted no part of it.  So, yeah, we are not Democrats anymore.  For us, the primaries told us everything we needed to know about Obama.

But one thing you can’t say about Jane is that she is not a Democrat or loyal to the party.  She is the most loyal of them all and she is facing an uphill struggle.

My condolences, Jane.

I’m tired and I don’t wanna do it

---

I know I’m supposed to be all excited that Nancy Pelousy promised that there will be a roll call vote on single-payer, but I can’t work up any enthusiasm:

Seeking to dampen liberal anger about deals cut with centrists, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said House leaders have agreed to allow a floor vote on a government-run, single-payer system.

“A lot of members on our committee want a vote on that,” said Waxman said in an interview. “I believe their wishes will be accommodated.”

I guess the memory of last year is still too fresh. After a year and one-half of campaigning, with debates, fundraisers, rallies, primaries, caucuses, drama and trauma we had two nominees in a virtual tie, with Hillary holding a slight lead in votes and Obama (thanks to the RBC and the boys from Brazile) holding a slight lead in pledged delegates. Neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination outright.

The Democratic leadership had annointed Obama and they used threats and promises to apply pressure on the superdelegates to choose  so that they could declare Obama the “presumptive nominee.” Then they began planning his coronation with a scripted delegate vote where only his name appeared on the ballot.

PUMA members and other liberals put a lot of effort into making the roll call vote genuine, and succeeded in getting Hillary’s name put on the ballot. Since superdelegates could change their votes up until the last minute it was hoped that enough of them could be persuaded to support Hillary and give her the nomination instead. This application of democratic principles and Democratic rules was commonly referred to by Obama supporters as a plan to “steal” the nomination.

We got our roll call vote but it was a sham. The delegates actually voted in their hotels where they were strong-armed into voting for Obama. Despite the millions of tax dollars spent to hold primaries across the nation and laws requiring delegates to cast their votes for Hillary their votes were cast for Obama instead.

Even Hillary went along the kabuki.

This single payer vote will be another sham. All it will do is give Democratic sell-outs political cover so they can face the voters next year and say “I voted for single-payer.” After the votes are dutifully counted and the bill is defeated, they will pass a piece of shit Obamacare instead.

No single payer. No genuine public option. No ponies.

It might be different if the A-List “progressive” bloggers hadn’t betrayed us, but they sold their souls for Kool-aid and the occasional conference call with Obama. Right now they’re too busy worrying about birthers and Sarah Palin and beer summits to concern themselves with health care reform.

I’m gonna save my enthusiasm for the SF Giants and the Oakland Raiders. Unlike single payer, neither team has been mathematically eliminated yet.

---

---

Please Digg!!! Share!!! Tweet!!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Wednesday: Obama’s loss is a matter of trust

Heidi Li Feldman has an excellent series of articles about progressive populism and the direction of the Democratic party after the election.  But we also need to do a retrospective analysis of what went wrong with the this incarnation of the Democratic party.  In Surely the DNCC Jests, Heidi shows how the roll call vote was subverted to award rather than elect Barack Obama.  Six state were crucial to securing his win: NY, NJ, MI, OH, FL and PA.  The final count can be found at the DNCC page.

If you are a regular Joe Bagodonuts and you are only following the nightly news, you might look at these numbers and think Clinton lost fair and square.  Obama’s delegate count puts him ahead by 3:1.  What the DNCC won’t tell you is that the pledged delegate count prior to the roll call vote put her well within striking distance of winning the election.  So, why didn’t she win it, given that she was the most electable candidate?

The answer lies in the Superdelegates.  It was the superdelegates that decided this election.  The pledged delegate count seems almost engineered to cover up for this fact.  Of course, it took a lot of arm twisting and threats to make sure the pledged delegates caved.  Ricki Lieberman sent another compilation of first hand delegate accounts describing how the delegates were hounded. Here are a couple that give us some insight as to how the process was highjacked:

CONNECTICUT: “For 17-18 months I have been working on and for HRC I could not figure out what was wrong with the politicians in Ct something was wrong I just couldn’t put my finger on it.  Then many months ago I revc’d a call from a women who is very active in the Dem party in Ct.  She had told me at that time that the politicians in Ct were getting threatened by Dodd with their political careers if they did not support/vote for BO.  Of course I tried to verify this info but could not, though people did admit to hearing that.  Then at a fundraiser I held in Ct for HRC I was told this again to my face by an elected Dem town chair person and elected HRC delegate.  Prior to the convention two elected HRC delegates switched and announced their support and vote for BO, one a mayor the other state representative.”

KENTUCKY:A campaign volunteer: “I was there in Denver and witnessed Ky delegates being berated and strong armed.  Lots of people in the Kentucky delegation witnessed an Obama delegate screaming at a Clinton delegate and saying she was a racist because she wouldn’t change her vote. For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of being a Democrat.”

MAINE: “I was approached by a member of the Maine delegates on Tuesday night and was told that if I didn’t vote for BO I would regret it. I then said to
them that I came here representing a lot of Hillary supporters and would vote for her every time I could.  I then said I have nothing else to talk to you about so please leave me alone.”

For the roll call “We where sitting right behind ARKANSAS. When it was their turn for the roll call the women that was talking was the widow of the head of the democratic party talking.  She was reading what was written to be said.  She stopped because she couldn’t believe what the note said. A man stepped in and said the Arkansas votes where all for BO.  Cell phones started to ring in front of me.

There is a cause and effect relationship for what happened during the primary season and the disaster that the Democrats find themselves in now.  We can see how the primary season was corrupted in the Democratic Convention, which in a way is just a giant caucus.  Two forces seem to have been at the heart of what went terribly wrong.  The first is the superdelegate system itself.  I think it is too facile to say that their flipping has everything to do with money.  The total amount of money given to these superdelegates was substantial but on an individual basis, it’s hard to see how Frank Lautenberg benefits from the $10,000 dollars or so that he got from Obama.  It takes millions of dollars to run a senate campaign in NJ and Frank is pretty old.  Who knows if he’ll even run another term?  What is even less plausible is the rational for voting for Obama based on the fact that the DNC was going to withhold funds to downticket Dems in certain states, like NJ, CT and NH.  I’m not denying that they threat wasn’t made.  I am questioning the logic.  How would an Obama presidency get anything done if it had lost Congress due to some pre-election pique?  Or was the Obama campaign saying that it would have let Congressional candidates lose if Clinton had been the nominee?

No, the problem with the superdelegates is that a vast majority are middle aged white guys who have no experience with the rank and file not falling in line.  We all got behind Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.  They weren’t particularly exciting candidates but they were ours so we sucked it up and voted for them.  Middle aged white guys don’t have the experience of having women directing things.  Their life experience is one of women in subordinate positions.  Women in power are few and far between.  Mostly, we submit.

Then there are the zealous Obama supporters who were born or raised during the Reagan era.  Their parents were Baby Boomers.  These children are suffering from Affluenza.  They’ve been given everything.  Oh, sure, student loans are expensive but for the most part, boomer parents had the money and means to raise their children without want.  They sacrificed a lot for their kids and so it should come as no surprise that the kids still expect sacrifice.  These golden children think rather highly of themselves.  It never crosses their minds that we will not instantly comply with their demands.  So, they got a little red in the face when they demanded that delegates switched.  So what?

Obama took full advantage of this.  He could have let the roll call proceed and honored both Clinton and her voters.  In fact, given the closeness of the delegate count, his pretension of being the presumptive nominee is one for the history books.  With Florida and Michigan restored to full votes, he was not entitled to call himself presumptive nominee.  But that didn’t stop him and his crew from strong arming and scripting the convention down to the last detail.  It didn’t stop him from engineering a humiliating loss for her on the convention floor as her delegates were flipped and Nancy Pelosi rammed the whole procedure through.

And now, the DNC and the Obama campaign are surprised that women are abandoning them and that Obama can’t raise enough money for the general.  I’m surprised that they are surprised.  What we have witnessed is an abuse of our caucus system, fradulent primaries and superdelegates substituting their will for the will of the voters.  And all of this was done with Obama’s approval because it was more important that he win than whether the party survived his candidacy.  He was even willing to let Congressional candidates lose if he couldn’t be at the top of the ticket.

Those of us who are holding out aren’t doing it because we’re racists.  It’s not because we are wedded to Hillary.  She’s right about never looking back to what might have been.  We have to move forward.  But we will never support a man who has so utterly destroyed our trust in him and the party apparatus that put him in power.  Not only have they failed to exercise leadership and control but they have put victories for downticket Democrats in question as well.  They have subverted the process to the point that we may lose the slim margins we hold in Congress while we end up with a Republican running the White House.

How can we EVER trust Barack Obama for this catastrophe?  There is no way at this point in time for him to earn that trust back.   Nothing but emergency measures with major corrections will fix this election cycle.  And such measures will only underscore the precarious position the Democrats have put themselves into.

When trust is gone, it takes a long time to get it back and it isn’t going to happen before November.

Delegate Account #1: We the Sheeple

This account is number one of a series that we hope to bring you with the help of Michele Thomas of 300 Delegates.  These are first hand accounts of what happened in the lead up and during the Democratic National Convention in 2008.  We hope to present new ones right up to the eve of the election.

Note to the media:  Here was a real story for you.  What happened during the convention should go down in history as one of the most infamous abuses of the primary voting system.  But we in the blogosphere have heard precious little media coverage of the story.  In an election year when the Democrats had everything going for them, the reason for their inevitable loss isn’t the fault of Hillary’s dogged refusal to leave the race, nor the entry of Sarah Palin, though both of those two events, both entirely reasonable, were contributing factors.  The primary reason why Barack Obama is going to lose is because he burned his bridges during the primary caucuses and during the largest caucus of all- the convention.  The media should be aware that these are not the days of falling trees, forests and no ears.  In the era of the Internet, the ability to get the truth out has a much lower threshhold barrier.  First hand accounts are always the most valuable.  When the narrative of the first hand account clashes with consensus reality, it is the consensus reality that starts to break down.  The media becomes progressively less trustworthy.  Hey, it’s your livelihood, not ours. We do this for free. Just sayin’.

Without further ado, here is the first hand account of sbc, a delegate from Portland, Oregon:

****************************
Thoughts on the Denver Sham(e) by We the Sheeple

I was SO looking forward to this Convention.  Staying in a hotel w/ Arizona and Washington, my two former home states, I knew many of their delegates and wanted to reconnect.  Many of us were Wes Clark delegates and recalled how welcome we felt by the Kerry/Edwards people in Boston in 2004.

But there was this strange undertone when talking to some fellow delegates.  A furrowed brow or quizzical look.  “Hillary lost.  Don’t you ‘get’ it?”  I was repeatedly asked when I was going to “let go” or “get in line.”  After being berated on the streets of Denver for wearing my HRC T-shirt on Saturday, I was loaded for bear.  Don’t tell me how Obama is better than McCain.  My DOG is better than McCain!

Tell me what is it about Obama that is supposed to impress me.  His health care plan that leaves 15 million people still uninsured?  How’s he going to pay for it?  Rolling back my tax break?  That’s going to pay the $60 billion plus health care price tag?  Well, we really don’t know if it’s $60 or $70 billion.  His policy peeps can’ t seem to come up with a figure.  Or will that be covered by the AMT redo?  Or will THAT money go to shoring up Social Security?   Or infrastructure?  Or cancer research?  You know – his mother died of breast cancer while fighting those dastardly insurance companies.  (Will the trite People Magazine personal anecdotes never cease!)

Or is it his strong stand on filibustering any legislation that let telco’s off the hook for illegal wiretaps that inspired you?  Is that what he stands for?  Oh wait.  His FISA vote?  Did he do that while scratching his head and asking “What’s a filibuster?”

And he’s going to reform our broken educational system with what?  Vouchers?  Or even MORE faith based initiatives than Bush dreamed of – to the tune of $500 million a year?  Why not!  Obama’s Chicago Trinity United Church of Christ already pocketed $1.5 million in such programs.  And did anybody take note of the fact that Obama’s “community organizing” was done thru a church group?  This gets creepier by the talking point.

I guess I couldn’t recite Sen. Clinton’s policies chapter and verse either.  But I knew her RECORD.  She actually HAD a record.  What we thought we knew of Obama’s record seems tossed aside for the sake of political expediency.  Gun control?  Death penalty?  Um…where does he stand today?  Thursday?  How about next Thursday?  Please – someone tell me?

So here we are.  Once again adrift and bereft of any substantive leadership in the Democratic Party.

As a delegate, I kinda knew the “roll call” was going to be theater of the absurd.  I just didn’t think it would be that absurd.  The thing that broke my heart?  The text message from my sister who lives in NJ.  We were never a politically active family.  We were god-fearing daughters of a staunch Republican father but voting was never a required activity.  I convinced her it was important in 2004.  She’s a nurse.  She has three (gorgeous) kids.  She’s seen health care at its worst and deals with it everyday.

Last February, she bundled up her 3 year-old daughter and her 1 year old twin sons and put them in the stroller for the short walk to the courthouse to vote.  The Baby Girl (she does have a name but we call her the Baby Girl) proudly wore her Hillary t-shirt and her “I Can Be President” button and the polling place workers let her keep the button on.  My sister was thrilled that NJ came down on the right side of history in her primary.  My mother, an 80 year-old Japanese woman who was always proud of her country when she became a naturalized  US citizen, thought she would be able to see a woman become president in her lifetime.  When Gov. Corzine cast their 127 delegate vote for Barack Obama in Denver, my sister furiously sent a text: WTF!  My vote doesn’t count?

How am I supposed to defend a system that’s broken?  What civics lesson do I teach the Baby Girl the next time we walk past the courthouse where she went with her mom and her brothers to vote?  The courthouse is white.  The Baby Girl thinks THAT’S the White House and that’s where Hillary lives.  Do I tell her that there are still men out there who will try to hold her back, who will call her names and will tell her that she is “less than?”  Do I explain she will have to fight harder than ever because we couldn’t get it done?

I am all outta love with the hope ‘n change mantra.  Give me facts.  Give me substance.  Tell me how he’s going to get troops out of Iraq.  Immediately or after listening to the ground commanders?  And if the ground commanders say “don’t blink,” will he listen to them or get new commanders?  And can he PLEASE come up with a REAL stimulus package?  One that actually stimulates the economy.  Not one that send checks out so that people can pay off their credit card debt.  A jobs growth program that can carry us into the next decade, taking into consideration a truly global economy and an undeniable manufacturing dilemma?  And what about a small business plan?  THAT would show true initiative when it comes to women since women start small businesses at twice the rate of the weaker sex.  An actual PLAN, please, hold the rhetoric.

This weekend, I’m headed to do some serious diving/sailing in Hawaii, where the messiah went to high school.  I’m sure there’ll be plenty of Obama swag at the airport and on street corners.  Maybe a left over Hillary nut-cracker or two.  I’ll swim with real sharks.  Not the poseurs we are now left with in this political hell hole.

Apparently, BHO has recently taken a stand on what IS off limits.  Palin’s daughter and sexist comments about Palin herself are off limits.  It’s a sham(e) that he couldn’t take such a bold stand when Chelsea was being “pimped out” or when Sen. Clinton was being told “iron my shirt.”  Or when Tucker Carlson said he crosses his legs whenever he hears Hillary’s voice or when Alex Castellanos called a fellow Democratic senator a “white bitch.”  The anointed leader of this progressive party sat and didn’t say a word.  That would have taken real leadership and true leadership sometimes means taking a principled yet unpopular stand.  What would he have lost?  The nomination?  No – but he might have gotten my vote.   sbc

Saturday: Truth and Consequences

The Obamaphiles continue their charm offensive to woo and cajol us to vote for Obama.  How sweetly they shower us with attention and affection.  Soon, they will have us eating out of their hands, our tiny little bird brains filled with brilliant Barackian light and music.

F$&* that $*%^!

Can we please get a better brand of troll here?  The ones we have been assigned are insulting our intelligence.  Let’s knock these myths down one at a time:

1. McCain has skin cancer.  He could *die* in office.  DIE, I say!  Then, Sarah Palin would be President.  OMG!  She’s only been a governor for 2 years!  Woe is me!  What shall become of us??? Truth: Tim Kaine has been governor of VA for exactly as long as Palin.  He was on Obama’s short list for VP. So, if Kaine was experienced for Obama, Palin is experienced enough for McCain.  Plus, the Republicans have maintained a more natural order in their ticket.  John McCain is “mentoring” Palin.  It looks logical and good spirited.  As to the health issue, skin cancer, like melanoma which McCain has had, is curable if caught early.  People with John’s skin type, which happens to be mine also, have to be extremely vigilant about noticing changes in the skin but it *is* possible for us to lead healthy, productive lives with sun protection and immediate treatment of lesions.   He’s more likely to die of heart disease.
2. But she’s so inexperienced.  How would she handle the presidency if she had to step in? Truth: Barack Obama has been running for president for as long as Sarah Palin has been running Alaska.  In fact, she is likely to step into the top spot with more ease than Obama because her experience as an executive is more relevant than his as a legislator.
3. She’s a former beauty queen. Truth: Former beauty queens get scholarships to college.  She got one.  She seems to be very smart.  Very tenacious.  We liked those qualities in Hillary.  Plus, she’s easy on the eyes.  So, she shows that women can be attractive and smart and powerful.  And the people screaming “former beauty queen” are showing their bigotry towards women.  I’m so glad we’re getting this all out in the open this year, aren’t you?  Otherwise, we would have spent the next 40 years co-existing with you troglodytes and sleeping with you and stuff, never knowing what you were really thinking.  Now, we can feel confident that if you don’t measure up in bed, it’s not our problem.
4. She’s anti-choice. Truth: We know what she is but if Obamaphiles insist on calling us post-menopausal, dried up pussies, you shouldn’t be surprised if we are suddenly unsympathetic towards young female Obamaphiles who find themselves unintentionally pregnant.  Some of us fought those battles in the 60’s.  Some of us took advantage of the battles won in the 70’s and 80’s.  Some of us continue to fight in the 90’s and 00’s.  But we’re not your parents who are responsible for getting you out of every scrape.  YOU are responsible for your own fate.  If you don’t like the anti-choice leanings of your next president and vice president, work your ass off for downticket Dems so Republicans can’t ram through any more anti-choice legislation.  You’re old enough.  Do it yourself.  Besides, you female Obamaphiles had a choice in Hillary Clinton who was committed to prtecting your reproductive freedom.  Instead, you picked a man who is actively courting evangelical voters and watering down the pro-choice section of the Democratic platform.  And you have the nerve to call US dumb?
5. She thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution. Truth: So do I.  And I’m a scientist that eats evolution for breakfast.  Hear me out.  Creationism is one of many theories about the origin of life.  Yep.  Betcha you guys forgot about spontaneous generation and the garbage theory (sort of like scientology).  In fact, in my 10th grade biology class, all theories were presented.  It took about 2 days to go through spontaneous generation, the garbage theory and creationism (taught by way of a Navajo myth.  What can I say?  My High School was progressive.)  Once that was over, we spent the rest of the quarter talking about natural selection.  You may be surprised to know that some Christian colleges like Messiah College where Monica Goodling was an undergrad are very natural selection friendly.  They have to be if they are teaching biology in an accredited program.  That’s the way life and biology work and they acknowledge it.  Students are presented with many theories and they are left to sort it out for themselves in an atmosphere that respects evidence based science.  That’s the way it *should* be.  Besides, you can beleive in natural selection and also that your creator caused it to be the way life originated.  Ain’t nobody’s business if you do.  And it keeps the crackpots out of the science class.
6. She’s no Hillary Clinton.  Truth: And neither is Barack Obama.  If the Democrats wanted Hillary Clinton to save Obama’s bacon, really the DNC’s bacon, they should have put her in the top spot and made Obama VP.  That would have been an unbeatable ticket.  Palin seems to have a lot of qualities that Hillary supporters admire.  No, she’s no Hillary Clinton but we didn’t get Hillary despite all of our efforts and the warnings we gave.  It seems like the Democrats are completely blindsided by Sarah Palin.  Heck, we knew she was coming.  She or Christie Todd Whitman were going to kill the Democratic ticket.  But did th DNC listen?  Nooooo. Tough noogies.
7. McCain is only pandering to you wimmin. Truth: Yup.  And???  You think we’re too stupid  to realize this?  Of course he’s pandering to us.  He’s a f%*(ing politician.  That’s what successful politicians do.  They reach out to voting blocs and offer them something.  I know that the Democratic party has abandoned this approach this year because they are above all of that and we’re just supposed to fall in line and hand over our votes like good little girls.  Obama is transcendent and Hillary was just too down to earth and common.  That’s why she needed to be purged.  Or maybe the Democratic party really is just that Good Old Boys club and they only used women’s rights as a come on.  We’re not too stupid to see that.
8. You’re all going to vote for McCain because he picked Palin and it’s all identity politics. Truth: Not necessarily.  Some of us will never be able to cross that ideological divide.  But Palin was the deciding factor for a good many people here.  McCain did something that the DNC refused to do- honor women voters.  As Chicago Dyke said:
   

   More than anything else, she is a clear warning: someone in the McCain campaing has a brain. Bigger than Rove’s, bigger than McCain’s. Fear that, if you long for Democratic victory this fall.

   More than anything else, we want to punish the DNC for turning its back on voters who went to the primary polls in good faith to vote for Hillary Clinton, expecting that our votes would be recognized.  We voted for her in overwhelming numbers in some major D and swing states and our votes were taken from us in the interest of “unity”.  Our delegates were harrassed and intimidated, our persons and characters insulted and derided, our candidate of choice, a brilliant, energetic, dedicated public servant, reduced to a figurehead of “your time has come and gone”.  We were told in no uncertain terms that OUR chance to lead the country had slipped through our fingers in favor of a bunch of amateurish, idealistic, young thugs.  I gotta tell you in advance of the November purge that that attitude went over like a lead balloon.  We will not let you get away with it.  Some of us will stay home.  Some of us will vote N.O.T. (nothing on top).  Some of us will write in or vote third party.  And, now, because of Sarah Palin, some of us feel we have some place to go.

9. The Democrats have no one but themselves to blame.  Oh, absolutely true.

The Dirt on the Delegate Count

I just got off the phone with Michele Thomas of 300 Delegates and she and John West have some hair raising details about what went on with the roll call vote.  The connection wasn’t great so the details are sketchy but here’s the gist of it:

• The Obama camp went after the swing states.  Guess what?  New Jersey is now considered a swing state.  I’ve been saying this would happen for months.  John McCain could snag this state.  We have a history of electing moderate Republican governors.  Plus we have tax issues and McCain could tie right into that.  If he selects a female VP, it’s all over but the crying.  When you think about it, NJ is a bellwhether state.  It would be the height of irresponsibility for the Democrats to run a candidate who is in danger of losing New Jersey.  He’s got his work cut out for him.  The suburbs and asian community went for Clinton and my asian colleagues are not happy about having to vote for Obama.  I dread the months ahead when he might start making appearances here after the DNC has ignored us for 8 years.  And since Linda Stender is a likely congressional pick up in central NJ, we can expect to see our unoptimized roads clogged more frequently with his entourage.
• Delegates report that they were harrassed by Obama whips shouting at them in the hallways to get in line or their political careers would be over.
• This one is interesting: The Edwards delegates voted in the morning for Edwards to keep faith with their voters but were told that they could change their vote in the afternoon if it was in by 4:30pm.  Some of them were planning to switch to Hillary.  But when they went to change their vote as they were told they could do, they were told that they wouldn’t be able to do it.  The roll call was moved up.  It seems like there was a concerted effort by Pelosi et al to wrap it up as quickly as possible to prevent further defections.

And it all transpired on national TV where the whole world was watching.  I’ve set up a segment of Conflucians Say scheduled for tonight at 8PM EST, 6PM MDT.  We’re going to see if Michele and John can join us.  And you too can call in and tell us if you are onboard Obama’s Love Train.