It’s Not About Hillary

     There have been numerous posts throughout Left Blogistan in the last few weeks concerning Hillary supporters. They are right about one thing. Hillary supporters are angry.

The Obama Fan Boiz (OFB) at the original pro-Obama blogs either arrogantly predict that the “true” Democrats among Hillary’s supporters will “get over it” and “come around” by November or they are trying to figure out how they can manipulate Hillary supporters to make that happen. The confident ones tend to be obnoxious and condescending, and can’t seem to stop bashing Hillary and her loyal supporters.

The others are taking a less antagonistic and more sensitive approach, advocating that the people who supported Hillary be given time to “grieve” and stressing things like party loyalty and the different type of Supreme Court appointments that Obama and John McCain would likely make. Roe v. Wade is frequently mentioned.

Both types of OFB are clueless. They don’t even know who we are, let alone what we think.

There are a number of former pro-Hillary sites that are now pro-Obama, some tepidly, some enthusiastically. They too stress party loyalty and the difference between McCain and Obama. Some consider Obama a qualified candidate but would have preferred Hillary, others consider him the lesser of two evils compared to McCain. I hold no animosity for these new Obama supporters. I understand their position, but I don’t agree.

Lastly, there are the P.U.M.A. (Party Unity My Ass) sites. Most of them are fairly new but have seen tremendous growth in the past few weeks. The denizens of these sites are sometimes referred to as “dead-enders.” Markos Moulitsas Zuniga called us a “shrieking band of paranoid holdouts.” I am a PUMA. 

The conventional wisdom is that PUMA’s are mostly older women who consider themselves feminists. The OFB think we are either are racists or GOP ratfuckers. The conventional wisdom is wrong.

PUMA’s do tend to be older than OFB’s, but we are among the demographic that is into blogging, meaning that most of us aren’t retired. We’re in our 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. Many of us are male (like your truly) and most of us are above-average in education (most political bloggers are.) There are large numbers of LGBT’s in the PUMA movement, as well as racial minorities.

There is a common meme that Hillary’s supporters, being older feminists, “identified” with her and took the sexism and misogyny in the campaign personally. Speaking for myself, I found the sexism and misogyny offensive, and was shocked to see alleged “progressives” participating. I agree with Melissa McEwan that such people are “fauxgressives,” because no true progressive can be a sexist.

Many PUMA’s recall the Sixties, even if we were too young to participate in the struggles. I was born in 1960, and one of my earliest memories was the JFK assassination. I was 3 ½ half years old when he was killed, and I recall my mom coming home early from work that day, and I remember the television coverage of his death and funeral. I have clearer memories of the MLK and RFK assassinations, especially RFK because I live in California he visited my town on a whistle-stop tour in the days leading up to the primary. I remember Vietnam and the anti-war protests, Watergate, McGovern (he visited my town on a whistle-stop in 1972) and Jimmy Carter.

PUMA’s are idealists, not racists. We are judging Obama on the content of his character, not the color of his skin. His character, and his resume. Nearly all PUMA’s are long-time or life-time Democrats. Although I am ashamed to admit that when I was young and dumb I voted for Reagan, I have been a yellow-dog Democrat since 1984, and have voted straight a Democratic ticket in every election for twenty-four years. I was a liberal back when it was a dirty word.

PUMA’s remember the Nineties and the Presidency of Bill Clinton. We never thought he was perfect, and his reputation even before he was elected was such that the Lewinsky scandal was not particularly shocking or surprising. We wished he was more liberal and less “triangulating,” but his entire time in office was spent defending earlier liberal progress against an ascendent conservative GOP.

In the early Nineties, it seemed that the “Reagan Revolution” had run out of steam. But it was only pausing to catch its breath. Headed by Newt Gingrich, the GOP went on the attack in a successful attempt to win control of Congress. They had money, organization, candidate recruitment, and media support. They had “talk radio” with Rush Limbaugh and soon had their own television network in FOX News.

Part of the GOP strategy involved destroying Democratic leaders through scandal. Privately funded operations dovetailed with Congressional investigations and special prosecutors. Salacious details and unsupported allegations were promptly leaked to the media. Bill Clinton was a prominent target. Richard Mellon Scaife funded the “Arkansas Project” to find dirt on the Clintons.

“Whitewater” was the most mainstream of the investigations of Bill and Hillary’s old failed land deal. $60 million was spent by Kenneth Starr investigating that deal alone. Other “investigations” included the firing of the White House Travel Office employees, Vince Foster’s suicide, and the White House Christmas card list. Tabloid papers like the National Enquirer competed with mainstream media on stories about the Mena Airport, murder, rape, drug dealing and numerous lesser offenses, including allegations that Bill fathered a child with a black woman.

In the end, Bill Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate for lying about a blow-job, and settled out of court with Paula Jones. But the attacks also included the propagation of meme’s about the Clintons, including that they were “divisive,” “corrupt,” “power-hungry” and “ruthless.”

For PUMA’s, the most shocking thing about this primary campaign was the way those right-wing memes were recycled and used enthusiastically by Democrats against Hillary. Even worse was the adoption by the Obama campaign, the OFB and the media of the idea that Bill and Hillary were racists, or were at least using a racist campaign strategy. This naturally led to the meme that many if not all of Hillary’s supporters were racists.

If this false and despicable story were merely the work of the media it would be bad enough, but it was clearly being pushed by the Obama campaign. There is an old saying that “politics ain’t beanbag,” but this was beyond the pale. Of course, Obama himself didn’t publically push the meme, nor did he personally push any other smears. His campaign did the dirty work, allowing him to denounce such sleazy tactics (days later, after the damage was done.)

The RFK smear, alleging that Hillary was suggesting she stayed in the race in case of (or even hoping that) Obama was assassinated was icing on the cake after the racism allegations. To most PUMA’s, falsely accusing another Democrat of racism is unforgivable. But it isn’t just these smears that motivate the PUMA’s.

Conventional wisdom among the OFB and the media is that PUMA’s think Hillary lost due to sexism and misogyny. Again, they are wrong. PUMA’s understand that sexism and misogyny (as exemplified by the male pundits at MSNBC) were at most a contributing factor in the campaign. And Obama and his campaign didn’t really demonstrate sexism or misogyny as much as they did plain old contempt for both Bill and Hillary, as well as her supporters.

Let me tell you a secret: IT’S NOT ABOUT HILLARY.

It really isn’t. It’s about Barack Obama. We don’t think he is qualified to be President. We don’t like the tactics he used in this campaign. We don’t like the way he “won,” And we especially don’t like his supporters.

When you consider that we are almost all Democrats over the age of 30, then you must realize that we have experienced losing elections before. We are not merely sore losers. If Hillary had lost to another qualified candidate, we would be disappointed but we would still support the winner. But Barack Obama is not qualified to be President. He simply does not have the necessary experience. He is just now completing his fourth year in the US Senate. Prior to that he was a part-time legislator in Illinois.

His legislative accomplishments, both in the Senate and in Illinois, are unremarkable and there is evidence they were largely unearned. His voting record in Illinois is troubling for the number of times he voted “present” or mistakenly voted the wrong way.

Senator Obama has argued that in place of experience he has superior judgment. He offers as evidence a little noticed speech he gave against the war in Iraq back in 2002, but his statements and votes since then contradict the speech. His recent statements and policy flip-flops call into question his judgment, but not nearly as much as his association with people like William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Father Phleger and others.

His supporters argue that he is an inspiring public speaker, but he has been shown to have trouble speaking without a Teleprompter, and there are questions as to whose words he uses in his speeches.

As discussed above, PUMA’s are offended by the tactics used by Senator Obama in this campaign, particularly the race-baiting. This nation bears deep scars because of racism, and we are not yet fulled healed. Falsely accusing others of racism in order to win elections is an impermissible tactic, and doing so disqualifies the offender from holding office. Period.

PUMA’s are outraged at the way the Democratic National Committee and certain Democratic party leaders manipulated the rules in order to give the nomination to Senator Obama. The Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st was especially galling, because they took delegates away from Hillary and gave them to Senator Obama. Donna Brazile in particular will always be infamous to PUMA’s.

We are also upset at the nomination system. The patchwork of primaries and caucuses (and sometimes both) all with different rules was bad enough. But the DNC rules gave too much influence to caucuses in small “red” states. Add to that evidence that Obama supporters gamed the caucuses to skew the results, and the legitimacy of the outcome is at best questionable.

Which brings us to the Obama supporters. PUMA’s understand that many of Senator Obama’s supporters are good, decent progressive Democrats that share our values. We have no problem with those people. But there is a group of Obama supporters that are obnoxious, abusive and nasty.

These people are not progressives or liberals. The are fauxgressive libertarians. This group is overwhelming young, male, and infected with CDS. They not only drove Hillary supporters away from the “A” list blogs, they followed us to new sites and attacked us there. The things they say range from rude and condescending to abusive and threatening.

Some say we should not blame Senator Obama for the behavior of some of his supporters. That might be true, but there is an old saying that “you are judged by the company you keep.” Senator Obama did little or nothing to prevent or denounce their behavior, and in some instances he seemed to encourage it, like when he used the contemptuous “dirt off your shoulder” gesture referring to Hillary.

PUMA’s have taken a long and thorough look at Barack Obama. They have given careful consideration of all the issue and arguments made for and against his candidacy. And they have concluded that Senator Barack Obama is unfit to be President of the United States.

But he is now the “presumptive” Democratic nominee, so many people think we must support him. Rebecca Traister at Salon said:

“These angry people have nowhere else to go. So the safe expectation is that they will fall in line without much kicking and screaming. And that, ultimately, is why many of them are kicking and screaming. Yes, they’re going to vote for Obama. Of course they’ll vote for him. The truth is, they’ll probably love voting for him. But after what they feel has been done to them — the way in which they were written off, marginalized and resented, their hopes mocked and their history-making ambitions dismissed as retrograde identity politicking — damned if they’re going to be nice girls about it.”

Ms. Traister apparently didn’t bother to interview any PUMA’s before writing about them. If she had, she would have discovered that we do have options. We own our votes. They are ours, and we owe them to no one.

We will not give them to Barack Obama.

Some of us will vote for John McCain. I myself, will not. I live in California, which has been solidly blue in Presidential elections since at least 1992. If my state is “in play” next November, Senator Obama will have lost so many other states that the outcome here will not matter.

I either will not vote for any candidate for President, or I will write-in Hillary Clinton’s name. Or perhaps I will cast my ballot for a third-party candidate. I will vote down-ticket for other Democrats.

Some PUMA’s see their actions as a protest. I see it as a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. Allowing John McCain to win is bitter medicine, but necessary to purge certain elements from the party, or at least the party leadership. There is no place in the party for sexism, misogyny, race-baiting, or CDS.

Now the situation isn’t hopeless. There are alternatives. The Democratic convention isn’t until August. One alternative would be to nominate Hillary Clinton. Of course, that would anger the rabid Obama supporters, and despite their “get over it” rhetoric they would likely refuse to support Hillary.

But like I said, it isn’t about Hillary. Even though we believe her to be by far the best available candidate, there are other Democrats that PUMA’s would support. Al Gore probably tops that list, but Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Wesley Clarke are qualified for the job, as would be Madeline Albright or Dianne Feinstein. There are others as well.

One thing the Democratic party leaders and superdelegates should have no doubt about: We aren’t bluffing.

Party Unity My Ass!

Advertisements

43 Responses to It’s Not About Hillary

  1. HT says:

    I’ve lurked at Confluence since it began, and am sorry to type that I’ve never visited your site before today.
    Your post is articulate and to the point. Thank you.
    You’ve just gained a lurker.

  2. Laney says:

    I’m glad I was sent here to read this!!! You have written a terrific post. It seems to funny that they think we’re the dead beats, when in fact, we all seem to have the same feelings and reasons for rejecting the Democrats choosing of this guy…

  3. bostonboomer says:

    Wonderful post! You have elegantly summarized the PUMA position.

  4. kenoshaMarge says:

    Wonderfully expressed. Thank you.

  5. joaniebone says:

    Truly great summary! Thank you so much for this post.

  6. dcattorney says:

    Well put! I’m tired of the “they’ll get over it” line, as if as lifelong dems we are not familiar with losing.
    The PUMA position is attractive to me, although I am still considering voting for Obama. I guess it may come down to what happens at the convention, how we are treated by the party. I cannot say that it is my party anymore, after 30 years, because I just changed to Ind.

  7. Annie Em says:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/unity-not-so-mu.html?cid=120442376#comments

    I posted the following response to the above article about the problems between Clinton supporters and the Obama campaign:

    Strays? From the …herd? What we have witnessed and continue to witness in this primary is the complete degradation of the American voter. Clinton supporters have already been vilified in every way imaginable; in the case of FL and MI, they are considered half-voters by their own party. Obama will have to live (and lose) from the consequences of that strategy. I’m sure he’ll get over it.

    With the advent of of PUMA, we’ll get over it, too. PUMA members have the intelligence, the humanity, and the integrity to object to being “corralled”.

  8. Spiritof76 says:

    Thank you. Like HT I will become a lurker here. It is good to see the position stated so clearly. This should be sent to the DNC and all super delegates…this thoughtful, intelligent writing with no vitriol is what they need to hear.
    I would love to see a chart or list of all the PUMA or JustSayNoDeal supporters with the relevant information … age, voting record, education, etc. (no names). I think it would be eye opening.

  9. Natch Greyes says:

    Excellent post. If you haven’t read Governor Ed Rendell’s letter to PUMA I have it here:
    http://www.natchgreyes.blogspot.com

  10. Sheri says:

    Wow!!! I am a regular at The Confluence, so I know you! This is the most comprehensive post about “what we want” that I have seen!! My head is still shaking. Juswt this morning on GMA, they interviewed a Puma/Just Say No Deal Founder – and Kate Snow asked her “what do you want?” I wish you could have been there telling them all that you have written here.

    Thank You!!!!!!!

  11. Gary McGowan says:

    A masterful, eloquent and passionate essay summarizing the wrongs–the immoral actions–of those who were trusted to lead the Party and the republic back onto an honorable path for which so many of our ancestors and their families have sacrificed profoundly for.

    And pointing toward a reasonable resolution as well.

    Thank you.

  12. SM says:

    Thank you myiq2xu for this wonderful post! It’s another testament to our rage, dissent and staunch resolve to NOT unite under a false prophet.

    PUMA!!

  13. Laurie says:

    Love the foto of the HOUND-LOL

  14. CognitiveDissonance says:

    Beautiful post! You’ve very succinctly laid out our position for all to see. I agree with the above commenter that it should be sent to every SD and every news outlet. I would love to see it on the editorial page of some of the major newspapers.

  15. annabellep says:

    Fantastic post. Great job cataloging many of the valid reasons for the PUMA movement. I’ll be bookmarking this site.

  16. 12counts says:

    This is beautiful. It echoes in much more digestible language the essence of the MANIFESTO I wrote a few weeks back for the movement.

    Do you mind if I cross-post this on our website http://www.DONEdems.com?

  17. Christina says:

    Idiocy! It IS about Hillary- this organization wouldn’t have coalesced if it hadn’t been for Hillary. Now you pansies are trying to backtrack because Hillary openly, fully, and wonderfully supports the DEMOCRAT. Because she cares about Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the USA enough to know how important this election is.
    Now you all are trying to find ANOTHER reason to continue.
    You went from “party unity my ass” to “people united means action.” well, us REAL democrats united against the democratic nominee and we will take action to get him elected- we are people TOO.
    WE are the REAL PUMAs.

  18. FightLikeHill says:

    Very articulate and well-written. Thank you. I am a woman in my mid-30s who will not vote for an inexperienced and unqualified candidate, especially one who was “nominated” through undemocratic means. I am writing to superdelegates that there is still time to make the right choice for the party AND the country: Hillary Clinton.

  19. SophieL says:

    Excellent post–comprehensive and clear.

    Just one little fact nit: Madeleine Albright, although brilliant, wise, and holding an impressive resume, is not qualified to be president because she born in Czechoslovakia.

  20. Radiowalla says:

    Well, you really laid it out!
    My particular outrage is aimed at :

    (1) the DNC and the Democratic Party establishment who created a primary system that is both arcane and undemocratic. The cavalier way that votes were tossed around at the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting was the last straw for me. After a lifetime of slavish devotion to the Democratic Party, I registered as “Decline to State” and sent Howard Dean a fiery letter explaining why I will be no longer making donations. If and when the DNC revises the system so that caucuses are eliminated and every person has privacy of the vote, then I will reconsider.
    For the time being, however, I am truly relishing my freedom.

    (2) the netroots activists who ran roughshod over Clinton supporters throughout the primary season and who are following us around to further hound and disparage us. Just this week a person I remember from DailyKos called me a racist because I mentioned that Obama has a thin resume. The pattern of race-baiting that has characterized so much of the discourse on the blogs has been disgusting.

    (3) The sexism that was tolerated in the media. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Tucker Carlson, Mike Barnicle, Randi Rhodes, Maureen Dowd are only a few. And to think that I used to tape Olbermann every day. Well, I’ve gained a lot of free time now that I don’t go near MSNBC.

    (4) NARAL and the recipients of EMILY’S List support (McCaskill and Klobuchar) who turned around and campaigned against Hillary Clinton. I want my money back!

    I’m in awe of the PUMA movement and grateful that so many are speaking out. My own decision (for now at least) is that I will vote for Obama only because of my concern for the Supreme Court. But I don’t plan to endorse, to donate, or to campaign for him.

    ps. I remember you, goldberry, from the good old days on the Orange Monster. I left soon after you did.

  21. sassysenora says:

    Great post. Thanks.

    I think each PUMA has her or his own reasons for being a PUMA. For example, I completely disagree with this Obama and his campaign didn’t really demonstrate sexism or misogyny as much as they did plain old contempt for both Bill and Hillary, as well as her supporters.

    The amount of misogyny and sexism from BO himself and his campaign was appalling. I’ve never seen so much blatant misogyny from any candidate, much less a Democrat or a candidate for POTUS. There were many examples of misogyny in BO’s campaign. E.g., his campaign: the ads for Obama for the Nevada caucus that called Clinton a f**king wh*re, JJJr’s saying that Clinton was crying about her appearance; BO: dismissing Clinton’s foreign policy experience as nothing more than drinking tea at ambassadors’ homes, blaming her for all Bill Clinton’s policies while simultaneously dismissing her experience in governing, “wipe the dirt off my shoulder” gesture, calling her “that little woman”, “She’s got the kitchen sink flying, and the china flying, and the, you know, the buffet is coming at me,” “Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal”, “suddenly the claws come out”, “on edge”, “Who does she think she is, Annie Oakley?” (Note to those of you who dismiss the “periodically when she’s feeling down”, “on edge” and other jibes as paranoia: these are very common putdowns among professional men, including lawyers like Obama, toward professional women. You may pretend not to understand them or their inherently dismissive, discriminatory nature, but that says more about your insensitivity than it does about the denigrating nature of the remarks. )

    In terms of the impact on the primary (and, perhaps to a greater extent, superdelegates), I think the misogyny is on par with BO’s campaign saying or implying that the Clintons are racists. The sexist comments and framing put her “in her place” or implicitly belittled her ability to lead or make good decisions by playing on stereotypes that many people, even feminisists, unconsciously buy into. It also fed into the meme that Clinton deserved all the hatred and invective directed against her (because she was a WOMAN who hadn’t really done anything except marry a president and who did not deserve to be president).

    But the misogyny is not the primary reason I oppose Obama. You’ve described many of my reasons for disliking Obama and, what is more serious, feeling betrayed by the Democratic Party well. If the Democratic Party doesn’t wake up, I think they have more than the 2008 election to worry about. Many lifelong Dems, like me, feel like the party has left them and betrayed their fundamental principles. Unless they show us that we matter to them and that they will be democratic, we will not come back for a long time.

  22. Hugo says:

    Yes, but on balance, I say the dog gets it.

  23. madmonq says:

    Wow. Not a single contrary response.

  24. GrapeApe says:

    What is so painfully obvious is that when sexism and criticism is directed at Hillary, it’s good for Obama. When that’s directed at Michelle, it hurts him. There’s no doubt why Obama is only now stepping up and speaking out against it. I dislike him intensely for his hypocritical character.

    I can’t vote for anyone who is connected to this newly revised Democratic Party. That means Obama, and all the Superdelegates who supported him. Hillary won the popular vote, and had the primary been run fairly from the beginning, she would also have won the pledged delegates.

    I firmly believe that few of our elected officials watched the primaries and do not know what the PUMAs are talking about. They need to understand that our national elections are a topic that ignore at their peril. Just because they found working with Obama in the Senate, and believing he is nice enough was a flimsy reason for supporting him for the office of president. These people have already had 8 years under a man who looked experienced compared to Obama. Their judgment is worthy of solid review and consideration for removal from the offices they hold when they next come up for re-election.

    I saw the head of Emily’s list on TV yesterday with a PUMA. She sat there shaking her head as though the PUMAs were idiots. I’m sure they are dealing with a dramatic reduction in donations, too. It’s the best thing we can do. NO donations to downticket DEMS who supported Obama, no donations to the DNC/DCCC/DSCC, and no donations to any organization where we aren’t positive who the money is going to (no PACs, no Emily’s list, etc).

    Money bought Obama this nomination, so that’s where we hurt them the most.

  25. Dawn28 says:

    Well I think the best thing for me to say is simply THANK YOU!
    Now I hope the DNC and Ed Rendell get a copy of this as you hit the nail on the head!

  26. […] It’s Not About Hillary: Fantastic post by myiq2xu over at Klownhaus. There were so many offensive events during the primary season, it’s sometimes hard to keep them straight. I know I’ve been harping in the rigged aspect of it, but myiq2xu brings up another salient point about race, CDS, and the morality of rewarding anyone for such behavior. This one is definitely worth your time, but read it when you have a god half hour or more, because it is long and thought-provoking. […]

  27. […] who are experiencing this for the first time. It’s frustrating, isn’t it? Read this lovely post by myiq2xu, a mixed-chromosome PUMA. There’s a subtext in that essay, an unspoken air of frustration […]

  28. […] who are experiencing this for the first time. It’s frustrating, isn’t it? Read this fine post by myiq2xu, a mixed-chromosome PUMA. There’s a subtext in that essay, an unspoken air of frustration […]

  29. Lori says:

    Is that a National Lampoon cover I see? Buy this issue or the dog dies?

    Thank you for this post – it’s gratifying to see our plight and plaint laid out so succinctly.

  30. ugsome says:

    Thank you. Well done. I have never been so disappointed in so-called liberal men. This election season has led me to realize that they are hypocritical backstabbers when it comes to women.

  31. myiq2xu says:

    Ugsome:

    The backstabbers aren’t liberal or progressive, they are “fauxgressive.”

  32. alice says:

    Very well put — I have forwarded this essay to several people. A big source of my discontent: media (little more than supermarket tabloids now, really) favoritism — big money media, consolidated to narrow opinion, picked the candidate. That’s a deal breaker for me, not least of all because it suggests how life under Obama rule would play out. Also, no accountability, for the media tabloids or for Obama Inc.

  33. vbonnaire says:

    fantastique! nice to meet a fellow geographically is so many ways…

    you know who we are? the most leading edge progressives (it was born here)
    absolute tail end baby boom slipsliding into punk rock and the last thing we are is live in a grim tract house & shop at stores that like to target to us…in fact, we hate that s**t, no?

    we might be artists, writers, have had multiple careers, bigtime educations, read a lot! know poets, like to write, never would own fake fireplaces, travel a lot, value independence, still feel like children, look VERY young! are young at heart, have friends of all persuasions, ummm—what else?

    that “other” set is so locked into being straight & narrow & boring, no?
    it’s the same conformity of the 50’s…or in the case of the you know whos kennedyesque (but will never be in spirit) fauxrealism, fauxgressive, slumlordesque, cheat & lie esque monstrous establishment we all can’t stand, hence backlash!

    xxoo!
    klownhaus!
    great piece, can I ping? I want to! making the rounds today…

    we are just too damn indy for that set, god.
    what kind of music do they listen to anyway?

    like you, same kennedy time, my mothers tears at that on black and white TV, grew up Dem — never Reagan, but this year, Repub! it’s McCain! strictly because he is such a damn rebel on the inside–in a way–he is exactamundo like us!

    otherwise I’d be a Green but they never win!
    actually they are so aggressive because they are so damn trapped, probably in dumb jobs, taking prozac, bored & les miserables (having so little sense of humor as they do)

    !

  34. […] this out! (on trying to target-market to us!)  Then, for a PERFECT, lucid, take, check out how Klownhaus feels! One look at that graphic?  Don’t think so…. for one thing, we’ve had black […]

  35. Rosalind says:

    Wow! Beautifully said, beautifully written.

  36. Annie Oakley says:

    Awesome post. Glad I found your site, (directed from reclusiveleftist) but please, I am begging you, let the dog go!

  37. Val says:

    Ummm, sorry madmonq, but I don’t think Christina #17 was complimentary…
    Excellent essay nonetheless, however!

  38. Eriezindian says:

    Excellent!! Says just what I think, only very eloquently. Puma in Western Pa

  39. Steven Mather says:

    Well done and much appreciated.

  40. Fran says:

    Idealists. Yes. That is what we are.

    Fighting for the soul of the Democratic party. The issue is really what democracy is.

  41. sakel says:

    You stated that the Obama campaign and Obama Himself did not exhibit any sexism or misogyny! Yet you acknowledge that he treated Sen. Hillary Clinton like “dirt” to be dusted off his shoulders. He also ‘scraped’ her off his shoes like excrement. But all this pales to his JayZ-rapper wannabe performance on the N.C. stage the day after his pathetically inept performance at the ABC Pa. Debate. Did you watch the YuTube’s mega-hit starring Obama:

    “Obama Gives HIllary the Finger”? – If you did watch it you’d see the Chicago neophyte “flip-offing” HIllary, thus showing his “respect” (the only type this smug arrogant Chancey Gardener is capable of!) to his fellow female Senator! Ask your teenage pundits to interpret this. BHO paused, smirked, and waited for his audience to ‘clue in’ to his ignominious, disgustingly misogynist and immature gestures! This is the real Change he’ll bring about.

    Barack said “her claws are coming out” and “periodically, she gets feeling down, moody and starts launching her attacks!”….There is a plethora of such inexcusably sexist examples.

    Surely, you cannot say confidently that Obama and his campaign minions have not used successfully Sexism as a Weapon of Choice, together with the media misogynist frat-boys, to push this Xeroxed Candidate to a fraudulent ‘finish line’ of superdels!

    Thanks for a wonderful post that one cannot argue with. Except for this statement exonerating this cool sexist rapper-wannabe from a guilty plea for barely camouflaged misogyny!

  42. click212 says:

    As much as I agree with your points, your decision to not vote for McCain (okay, bite the bullet, hold your nose) is probably giving Obama the Presidency and therefore everything you are trying to accomplish will be like a fart in a hale storm.

    I have been an independent most of my adult life, mostly voting Democratic. I’ve voted Republican on local issues, yet always for a Democratic president. Not since Teddy Roosevelt have the Republicans come up with a sane candidate. You really succinctly and accurately painted the political scenario in this election. I thank you.

    I am way over thirty and was a young adult during the JFK, MLK, RFK and yes Malcolm X assassinations, the impact those events had on my generation ignited the anti-war movement and the subsequent liberation struggles, women’s, radical underground, Stonewall etc. I’ve voted for Nadar, Green Peace, abstained, been there done that. The only way your vote counts as a weapon against fascism is to play your enemies against each other.

    Four years of John McCain, with the do nothing Democratic Houses is just buying time, a major gridlock. Playing into the SCOTUS is foolish when it won’t matter once the very principles of democracy have already been trampled, “disappeared.”

    The similarities between Bush and Obama in terms of experience, background and affiliation although on opposite sides of a mirror are uglier than the painting in the closet of Dorian Gray. What people who follow Obama do not understand is that, the means never, but never justify the end. Words matter only when their intent are parallel with their execution.

    Obama is the other side of the Bush coin. People like them succeed because people like us do nothing. Not voting is nothing. Your vote is more than a tool for democracy it is a weapon against despots. Use it well! One step at a time. Democracy is always a hard battle fought.

    Thank you.

%d bloggers like this: