Mr. and Mrs. Madamab on our Sunset Sail 
Papiamento - A Delicious and Romantic Restaurant
The Beach
Iguanas!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Shhhhh....
be vewy vewy quiet. My husband is napping. Heheheheheheheheh!
So, SOME people seem to, like, want beach blogging and stuff! Well, normally I would have done more by now, but believe it or not, the weather has been sucky! It is so incredibly rare to have rain in Aruba that everyone on the island is in shock. Luckily, the last of the storm seems to have passed, and the rain this morning will probably be the last, for the next four months!
I have a newfangled Blackberry and have taken some fun photos, which I hope to [ahem] figure out how to download tomorrow! But I wanted to wait till I had some great beach shots first. We haven't even seen a lot of iguanas this year - they've been hiding from the rain! Jeez!
On the upside, we are winning at the casinos and eating some incredible food. Our hotel is very nice and the room opens right onto the beach. So it's all good...and tomorrow night, the Sunset Sail awaits, with champagne and delicious Dutch chocolates.
Sending you all lovely breezes and starlit nights!
So, SOME people seem to, like, want beach blogging and stuff! Well, normally I would have done more by now, but believe it or not, the weather has been sucky! It is so incredibly rare to have rain in Aruba that everyone on the island is in shock. Luckily, the last of the storm seems to have passed, and the rain this morning will probably be the last, for the next four months!
I have a newfangled Blackberry and have taken some fun photos, which I hope to [ahem] figure out how to download tomorrow! But I wanted to wait till I had some great beach shots first. We haven't even seen a lot of iguanas this year - they've been hiding from the rain! Jeez!
On the upside, we are winning at the casinos and eating some incredible food. Our hotel is very nice and the room opens right onto the beach. So it's all good...and tomorrow night, the Sunset Sail awaits, with champagne and delicious Dutch chocolates.
Sending you all lovely breezes and starlit nights!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
White Woman Going Missing in Aruba!
Don't worry, I'm coming back...but tomorrow morning, hubby and I are flying to our favorite slice of Paradise. If you don't know why we love it so much, here are some pics of our trip last year.
I will be blogging, but not as often. I will be too blissed out by the Aruban breezes, the white sands, the indigo waters and the incredible food and drink.
What more could a gal ask for?
I will be blogging, but not as often. I will be too blissed out by the Aruban breezes, the white sands, the indigo waters and the incredible food and drink.
What more could a gal ask for?
Saturday, June 21, 2008
What the FISA???!!!! One Act of Betrayal, Starring Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.
I don't know if we'll ever REALLY know why the House Democrats, after holding fast since February with barely a mention of "ZOMG National Security!!!111!!!!," decided that now was the time to give our lame-duck Deciderer everything he wants on telecom immunity. But if I were a fly on the wall in Nancy Pelosi's living room, I imagine I might hear a little something like this:
THE SCENE: Speaker Nancy Pelosi's living room. It is tastefully appointed in soft pastels. She is seated on her sofa, wearing silk PJ's and watching The Colbert Report. The Princess phone rings and she mutes her TV.
NANCY: [picking up phone] Hello?
STENY: Nancy? Steny.
NANCY [a la Seinfeld]: Hello, Steny.
STENY: Listen, Nancy babe, we need to talk about telecom immunity.
NANCY: Again? Jesus, Steny, haven't we been over this? Telecom immunity is off the table. The American people don't want it. Even Fox News says Bush's numbers are in the tank. You know all this. So stop yanking my chain. Good night -
STENY [interrupting]: Just a minute, Nance. [Pelosi rolls her eyes] Didn't you hear the latest from Kucinich? He's rather annoyed that Conyers has been sitting on his impeachment resolution for so long.
NANCY: [hissing] KUCINICH! Damn that little hobbit!
STENY: He's saying that if we don't start impeachment proceedings within 30 days, he'll bring it up again - with more articles added. And, Conyers is starting to weaken. We all know how much he wants to impeach Bush. I swear he dreams about it at night!
NANCY: Why won't Dennis get with the program? If we impeach now, we could lose our majority in Congress. Then, if McCain wins, we're back to square one!
STENY: I feel you, Nancy. Now, you know that the warrantless wiretapping program is one of the strongest reasons for impeachment. As it stands now, the program is illegal and un-Constitutional. If we don't retroactively make it legal in some way, then that idiot from Ohio could actually make his case!
NANCY: Damnit! Why can't he wait till AFTER Bush leaves office like we all agreed?!
STENY: Ahhhh, he's worried about some stupid checks and balances thing. He is such an idealistic schmuck.
NANCY: [getting up and pacing] Okay. I see where you're coming from now. I guess we can do this ridiculous thing if it will stop Dennis. But what about the Senate? They will have to re-vote. Do you think anyone will filibuster?
STENY: Don't you worry about the Senate, babe. I've got it all sewn up. Rocky and I guarantee it's a done deal.
NANCY: But what about Obama? Didn't he promise that he would support a filibuster? What if he decides to do it himself?
[pause]
STENY AND NANCY [laughing]: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
[STENY stops laughing first.]
STENY: As if Senator "Present" would do something like that! No, someone will probably stand up and blather for a while - maybe Dodd or Feingold or one of those guys. But without support, the filibuster will die and we'll be golden.
NANCY: Well, what if Hillary comes back from vacation and supports it?
STENY: Hell no! Jay already talked to her. If she tries to showboat on this, there will be a lot of pissed-off Senators talking to the media. She won't make any trouble. She's tired of Congressional knives in her back.
NANCY: All right, Steny. You win. We'll vote on the bill tomorrow.
STENY: I knew you'd see things my way, Nancy. See you tomorrow!
[they hang up]
NANCY [sitting back down on the couch and rubbing her
temples wearily]: Sometimes I really, really hate my job.
[stage goes dark]
THE SCENE: Speaker Nancy Pelosi's living room. It is tastefully appointed in soft pastels. She is seated on her sofa, wearing silk PJ's and watching The Colbert Report. The Princess phone rings and she mutes her TV.
NANCY: [picking up phone] Hello?
STENY: Nancy? Steny.
NANCY [a la Seinfeld]: Hello, Steny.
STENY: Listen, Nancy babe, we need to talk about telecom immunity.
NANCY: Again? Jesus, Steny, haven't we been over this? Telecom immunity is off the table. The American people don't want it. Even Fox News says Bush's numbers are in the tank. You know all this. So stop yanking my chain. Good night -
STENY [interrupting]: Just a minute, Nance. [Pelosi rolls her eyes] Didn't you hear the latest from Kucinich? He's rather annoyed that Conyers has been sitting on his impeachment resolution for so long.
NANCY: [hissing] KUCINICH! Damn that little hobbit!
STENY: He's saying that if we don't start impeachment proceedings within 30 days, he'll bring it up again - with more articles added. And, Conyers is starting to weaken. We all know how much he wants to impeach Bush. I swear he dreams about it at night!
NANCY: Why won't Dennis get with the program? If we impeach now, we could lose our majority in Congress. Then, if McCain wins, we're back to square one!
STENY: I feel you, Nancy. Now, you know that the warrantless wiretapping program is one of the strongest reasons for impeachment. As it stands now, the program is illegal and un-Constitutional. If we don't retroactively make it legal in some way, then that idiot from Ohio could actually make his case!
NANCY: Damnit! Why can't he wait till AFTER Bush leaves office like we all agreed?!
STENY: Ahhhh, he's worried about some stupid checks and balances thing. He is such an idealistic schmuck.
NANCY: [getting up and pacing] Okay. I see where you're coming from now. I guess we can do this ridiculous thing if it will stop Dennis. But what about the Senate? They will have to re-vote. Do you think anyone will filibuster?
STENY: Don't you worry about the Senate, babe. I've got it all sewn up. Rocky and I guarantee it's a done deal.
NANCY: But what about Obama? Didn't he promise that he would support a filibuster? What if he decides to do it himself?
[pause]
STENY AND NANCY [laughing]: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
[STENY stops laughing first.]
STENY: As if Senator "Present" would do something like that! No, someone will probably stand up and blather for a while - maybe Dodd or Feingold or one of those guys. But without support, the filibuster will die and we'll be golden.
NANCY: Well, what if Hillary comes back from vacation and supports it?
STENY: Hell no! Jay already talked to her. If she tries to showboat on this, there will be a lot of pissed-off Senators talking to the media. She won't make any trouble. She's tired of Congressional knives in her back.
NANCY: All right, Steny. You win. We'll vote on the bill tomorrow.
STENY: I knew you'd see things my way, Nancy. See you tomorrow!
[they hang up]
NANCY [sitting back down on the couch and rubbing her
temples wearily]: Sometimes I really, really hate my job.
[stage goes dark]
Friday, June 20, 2008
Promises, Promises: Why PUMAs Don't Trust Barack Obama
One of the things I often hear when I say I won't vote for Barack Obama is:
"But-but-but he and Hillary are identical on the issues!"
This mistaken belief, I feel, is one of the reasons people who ARE voting for Obama feel comfortable doing so. Maybe they didn't get their first choice - or maybe they did - but either way, Clinton and Obama are both Democrats, right? And they both say the same things on most issues, right?
Right?
Well, here's the rub. Hillary Clinton is credible when she says things like, "I believe in health care for every American." Barack Obama, sadly, is not.
Several factors inform my faith in the promises of Hillary Clinton, but the main one is that she has a record of doing what she claims she would do as President.
For example, on health care, Senator Clinton is unassailable. She tried to push Universal Health Care through the Congress in 1993, but being "only" a First Lady, did not have the clout to hack through the jungle of Blue Dog Democrats and hundreds of millions of dollars of "Harry and Louise" swiftboating from the insurance industry. Even when HillaryCare failed, she still made lemonade from lemons, and was instrumental in getting SCHIP through Congress. Millions of children owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Clinton for that program.
As for Barack Obama, well...his plan is fundamentally weaker than Hillary's. However, it's still better than what we have now. Sure, he doesn't have a record of accomplishment like Hillary, but it's POSSIBLE he could get it done, right?
Right?
Here is the epicenter of the problem. Throughout the primary season, Barack Obama has lied so often that a veritable fog of cynicism surrounds his every pronouncement. And for Jeebus' sake, don't bring up Tuzla to me. Just listen to the IMPORTANT things Obama has lied about.
How about Iraq?
"But-but-but he and Hillary are identical on the issues!"
This mistaken belief, I feel, is one of the reasons people who ARE voting for Obama feel comfortable doing so. Maybe they didn't get their first choice - or maybe they did - but either way, Clinton and Obama are both Democrats, right? And they both say the same things on most issues, right?
Right?
Well, here's the rub. Hillary Clinton is credible when she says things like, "I believe in health care for every American." Barack Obama, sadly, is not.
Several factors inform my faith in the promises of Hillary Clinton, but the main one is that she has a record of doing what she claims she would do as President.
For example, on health care, Senator Clinton is unassailable. She tried to push Universal Health Care through the Congress in 1993, but being "only" a First Lady, did not have the clout to hack through the jungle of Blue Dog Democrats and hundreds of millions of dollars of "Harry and Louise" swiftboating from the insurance industry. Even when HillaryCare failed, she still made lemonade from lemons, and was instrumental in getting SCHIP through Congress. Millions of children owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Clinton for that program.
As for Barack Obama, well...his plan is fundamentally weaker than Hillary's. However, it's still better than what we have now. Sure, he doesn't have a record of accomplishment like Hillary, but it's POSSIBLE he could get it done, right?
Right?
Here is the epicenter of the problem. Throughout the primary season, Barack Obama has lied so often that a veritable fog of cynicism surrounds his every pronouncement. And for Jeebus' sake, don't bring up Tuzla to me. Just listen to the IMPORTANT things Obama has lied about.
How about Iraq?
Obama has promised to get us completely out of Iraq in 16 months. Hillary's hawkishness on Iraq was one of the main reasons that many lefties supported Obama. In fact, he hammered her constantly on her poor judgment in voting for the AUMF, which he successfully equated with "authorizing the war in Iraq." (It did, but only if Bush met certain conditions, which he didn't meet at all. Didn't even come close.)
Unfortunately, Samantha Power, Obama's top national security advisor, made it clear that Obama had no intentions of sticking to his promises:
Unfortunately, Samantha Power, Obama's top national security advisor, made it clear that Obama had no intentions of sticking to his promises:
"What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.
The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"
"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"
"It’s a best-case scenario," she said again.
And now, McCain and Obama are basically indistinguishable on Iraq, or so says the Iraqi Foreign Minister in the Washington Post.
It would be "the height of ideology" to stick to a campaign promise that you used to win the anti-war left to your side? Seems to me that it is the height of cynicism to pretend you are something you're not.
If Senator Obama will pull back from his campaign position on Iraq, what else will he "change" his mind about?
Public financing, perhaps? Jerusalem? Iran? NAFTA?
How about FISA?
It would be "the height of ideology" to stick to a campaign promise that you used to win the anti-war left to your side? Seems to me that it is the height of cynicism to pretend you are something you're not.
If Senator Obama will pull back from his campaign position on Iraq, what else will he "change" his mind about?
Public financing, perhaps? Jerusalem? Iran? NAFTA?
How about FISA?
Back when the issue of telecom immunity came up in 2007, Chris Dodd stated he would filibuster it in the Senate. Barack Obama offered his support, along with other Presidential contenders Biden and Clinton. Now, the issue of telecom immunity is on the table again, for reasons no one outside of Nancy Pelosi's living room can adequately understand (although I have my thoughts - tune in tomorrow...). Barack Obama has coronated himself king of the Democratic, er, Obama for America Party. Where is his commitment to stopping telecom immunity now?
His latest statement shows that he supports the so-called "compromise":
His latest statement shows that he supports the so-called "compromise":
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people."
Translation: He will do nothing to back up his rhetoric. How utterly...unsurprising. Is this the change we can believe in - we can believe he will change his mind, any time he feels it is politically expedient?
Obama cannot even tell the truth about his own record. Oh, and remember that email that was going around saying that Obama had MORE legislative accomplishments than Senator Clinton? A complete and total fabrication.
Have I demonstrated sufficiently that Barack Obama has a massive credibility problem on the issues?
So no, please don't tell me that he and Hillary Clinton believe in the same things and would fight the same fights as President. The fact is, I don't have any idea what Barack Obama believes in. I have no sense of what his goals are. He would have to actually do something - pass a law, take a stand, make something happen in the Senate - in order to push aside that fog of cynicism even the eensiest little bit.
Otherwise, all I hear is "Promises, Promises" whenever he speaks. And that's not good enough to earn my vote.
P.U.M.A.!
Obama cannot even tell the truth about his own record. Oh, and remember that email that was going around saying that Obama had MORE legislative accomplishments than Senator Clinton? A complete and total fabrication.
Have I demonstrated sufficiently that Barack Obama has a massive credibility problem on the issues?
So no, please don't tell me that he and Hillary Clinton believe in the same things and would fight the same fights as President. The fact is, I don't have any idea what Barack Obama believes in. I have no sense of what his goals are. He would have to actually do something - pass a law, take a stand, make something happen in the Senate - in order to push aside that fog of cynicism even the eensiest little bit.
Otherwise, all I hear is "Promises, Promises" whenever he speaks. And that's not good enough to earn my vote.
P.U.M.A.!
(cross-posted at The Confluence)
Thursday, June 19, 2008
You Know You Are Absent-Minded When...
your commenters have to remind you about your own BlogaVersary!!! Thanks very much, Timmy B!
It's hard to believe I branched out and started bloviating here just one year ago today. Of course, I've always been a world-champeen provider of hot air, as my friends and relatives will tell ya. :-)
Thanks to everyone who reads this blog for sticking with me through a very, very tough primary season. We may not agree, but respect me, and I'll respect you.
Onward and upward!
It's hard to believe I branched out and started bloviating here just one year ago today. Of course, I've always been a world-champeen provider of hot air, as my friends and relatives will tell ya. :-)
Thanks to everyone who reads this blog for sticking with me through a very, very tough primary season. We may not agree, but respect me, and I'll respect you.
Onward and upward!
What's PUMA All About?
If you think we're all wacked-out Republicans in Democratic clothing, or don't understand how we can not Unify with Obama, read riverdaughter's post.
I don't have much to add to her eloquence, but I'd like to say that my personal realization that the Democratic Party (now known, apparently, as Obama for America) no longer cared about Democratic principles was when I read the "Bowers Manifesto" - a statement of "principles" written by Chris Bowers of MyDD. It was a proud admission that the the working class was no longer invited into the Democrats' Big Tent. It upset me so much that I wrote two posts about it: here and here.
That's where I'm coming from. We all become PUMAs in different ways.
It would be nice if the Obamans and the Party Leadership could respect and recognize that we have real grievances, rather than dismissing or insulting us. But then, if Obama and the Party Leadership had empathy and respect for their constituents, they wouldn't be who they are.
And I'd be happily pulling the lever for Obama in November.
I don't have much to add to her eloquence, but I'd like to say that my personal realization that the Democratic Party (now known, apparently, as Obama for America) no longer cared about Democratic principles was when I read the "Bowers Manifesto" - a statement of "principles" written by Chris Bowers of MyDD. It was a proud admission that the the working class was no longer invited into the Democrats' Big Tent. It upset me so much that I wrote two posts about it: here and here.
That's where I'm coming from. We all become PUMAs in different ways.
It would be nice if the Obamans and the Party Leadership could respect and recognize that we have real grievances, rather than dismissing or insulting us. But then, if Obama and the Party Leadership had empathy and respect for their constituents, they wouldn't be who they are.
And I'd be happily pulling the lever for Obama in November.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Why Democrats Vote, Part Deux
A little while ago, I posted some thoughts on why Democrats vote. The new FISA drama has made me think again about why right-wing frames (such as "Democrats are weak on National Security!!111!!!") work so well against liberals, and what we can do to change that current reality.
One of the most die-hard of these right-wing frames is that liberals "hate America." Why in the world would conservatives think that, we liberals wonder? We love America. We love America so much that we want her to have the best government possible. Can't these idiotic conservative buttheads understand the difference between hating America and hating America's government and policies?
Well, maybe they can't. And maybe...it's partially our fault, because we do things like this.
You see, we liberals don't choose our symbols wisely. If we are upset with the government, we should not burn a flag. The flag is not Democratic, Republican or Rosicrucian. It is simply a symbol of America itself. Why would we burn a symbol of America...if we don't hate America?
Now, who is the idiot - the one that draws simple conclusions from symbolic acts, or the one that doesn't understand what conclusions will be drawn from these very same acts?
No one understands the power of framing and symbols better than Hillary Clinton, who was re-elected in 2006 with 67% of the popular vote. Senator Clinton took a lot of flak from self-professed "progressives" because she co-sponsored a bill to make it illegal, in certain circumstances, to burn the flag.
Take a look, for example, at this rambling, factually-challenged screed from Markos Moulitsas in 2006. It condemns Hillary for her flag-burning bill, among other things. It's quite the rant. (Apparently Kos has been an unoriginal, power-hungry Hillary Hater for a lot longer than I thought. Who knew?)
In any case, Clinton got it from all sides. She was pandering to conservatives. She was wasting her time on stupid legislation. Etc. etc. etc.
Well, you know what? It worked. Because symbols are IMPORTANT. Why don't we get that?
We don't get that because we don't listen. We arrogantly assume that people who think liberals hate America are stupid, and unworthy of our time and attention. Yes, we do this even to registered Democrats! Hillary listened and she understood. Burning the flag is like burning the Constitution. You can make your point, but make it another way.
And here's another thing Democrats are dumb about: We don't respect our own voters. You will never, NEVER see Republicans publicly sneering at other Republicans and double-dog-daring them to vote for Democrats. In fact, McCain is now openly courting the PUMAs - pointing out how rude Obama's supporters are, meeting with 75 PUMA members privately and reassuring them that he is not the scary neo-con freak he appears to be. And let me emphasize that most PUMAs are - or used to be - registered Democrats.
So why, why, WHY hasn't Barack Obama done the same thing? Why doesn't he acknowledge the very real concerns that we PUMAs have about him? Why doesn't he reassure us that he is not the petty, arrogant, immature, religio-con thug that he appears to be?
I'll tell you why. Because Obama, like a lot of Party Leaders, blames the voters when they don't vote for him. The BitterCling remarks and the boring and oft-repeated cries of racism are just two examples of this phenomenon. Republicans never, never blame their voters for not voting for them. They do everything they can to get every possible vote - including counting votes that aren't even there, a la Ohio in 2004! (I'm not advocating for THAT, of course.)
If we Democrats don't get a clue, very soon, as to why Democrats vote, we will be on our way to Party extinction along with the Republics.
Maybe that's a good thing. Should Hillary not become the nominee, I hope that after the 2009 election of John McCain, she and Bill Clinton use their personal and political clout to push a third party into national prominence. My pick would be the liberal Working Families Party, which is based in New York (perfect for a New York Senator). Then, she could run again in 2012 without all the interference, hamstringing and backstabbing from the Democrats.
I'll bet she'd win in a landslide. Because Hillary understands...why Democrats vote.
(cross-posted at The Confluence)
One of the most die-hard of these right-wing frames is that liberals "hate America." Why in the world would conservatives think that, we liberals wonder? We love America. We love America so much that we want her to have the best government possible. Can't these idiotic conservative buttheads understand the difference between hating America and hating America's government and policies?
Well, maybe they can't. And maybe...it's partially our fault, because we do things like this.
You see, we liberals don't choose our symbols wisely. If we are upset with the government, we should not burn a flag. The flag is not Democratic, Republican or Rosicrucian. It is simply a symbol of America itself. Why would we burn a symbol of America...if we don't hate America?
Now, who is the idiot - the one that draws simple conclusions from symbolic acts, or the one that doesn't understand what conclusions will be drawn from these very same acts?
No one understands the power of framing and symbols better than Hillary Clinton, who was re-elected in 2006 with 67% of the popular vote. Senator Clinton took a lot of flak from self-professed "progressives" because she co-sponsored a bill to make it illegal, in certain circumstances, to burn the flag.
Take a look, for example, at this rambling, factually-challenged screed from Markos Moulitsas in 2006. It condemns Hillary for her flag-burning bill, among other things. It's quite the rant. (Apparently Kos has been an unoriginal, power-hungry Hillary Hater for a lot longer than I thought. Who knew?)
In any case, Clinton got it from all sides. She was pandering to conservatives. She was wasting her time on stupid legislation. Etc. etc. etc.
Well, you know what? It worked. Because symbols are IMPORTANT. Why don't we get that?
We don't get that because we don't listen. We arrogantly assume that people who think liberals hate America are stupid, and unworthy of our time and attention. Yes, we do this even to registered Democrats! Hillary listened and she understood. Burning the flag is like burning the Constitution. You can make your point, but make it another way.
And here's another thing Democrats are dumb about: We don't respect our own voters. You will never, NEVER see Republicans publicly sneering at other Republicans and double-dog-daring them to vote for Democrats. In fact, McCain is now openly courting the PUMAs - pointing out how rude Obama's supporters are, meeting with 75 PUMA members privately and reassuring them that he is not the scary neo-con freak he appears to be. And let me emphasize that most PUMAs are - or used to be - registered Democrats.
So why, why, WHY hasn't Barack Obama done the same thing? Why doesn't he acknowledge the very real concerns that we PUMAs have about him? Why doesn't he reassure us that he is not the petty, arrogant, immature, religio-con thug that he appears to be?
I'll tell you why. Because Obama, like a lot of Party Leaders, blames the voters when they don't vote for him. The BitterCling remarks and the boring and oft-repeated cries of racism are just two examples of this phenomenon. Republicans never, never blame their voters for not voting for them. They do everything they can to get every possible vote - including counting votes that aren't even there, a la Ohio in 2004! (I'm not advocating for THAT, of course.)
If we Democrats don't get a clue, very soon, as to why Democrats vote, we will be on our way to Party extinction along with the Republics.
Maybe that's a good thing. Should Hillary not become the nominee, I hope that after the 2009 election of John McCain, she and Bill Clinton use their personal and political clout to push a third party into national prominence. My pick would be the liberal Working Families Party, which is based in New York (perfect for a New York Senator). Then, she could run again in 2012 without all the interference, hamstringing and backstabbing from the Democrats.
I'll bet she'd win in a landslide. Because Hillary understands...why Democrats vote.
(cross-posted at The Confluence)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A Great Honor....
I have been guest-posted at The Confluence!
[blushes furiously]
If you haven't read my little play from May 15, I hope you will check it out at riverdaughter's wonderful site.
Enjoy!
[blushes furiously]
If you haven't read my little play from May 15, I hope you will check it out at riverdaughter's wonderful site.
Enjoy!
Tuesday News Day: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
First, the good.
Woooohooooo!
I know the wingnuts are going to try to stop it, but really, wingnuts, may I ask a question?
Why don't you pay attention to your own marriages and leave other peoples' alone?
Otherwise some people might think you, yourselves, are self-loathing gay people trying to prevent other, more self-aware types from having the happiness you can't allow yourselves to have.
Just sayin'.
Now...the bad. Iowa is flooded and in big trouble, and we are looking at possible levee breaks as well as more water shortages.
Okay, that's the bad. Now, for the ugly.
[original photo: New York Times]
Was this really necessary, on the same day that Al Gore finally endorsed Barack Obama?
Despite the story's spin, there is nothing "shrewd" about hiring Solis Doyle. She is the one largely held responsible for the "We'll win by Super Tuesday" strategy that had Senator Clinton front-loading her money and resources and gave Obama his advantage in red-state caucuses. Explain to me how hiring someone who was fired for incompetence is "seen as shrewd?" As for the Hispanic issue, I doubt Ms. Solis Doyle is any more adept at community outreach than she was at campaign management.
No, this is a pure, balls-out, Chicago-style middle finger from Obama to Clinton. And yes, I do believe it finally puts the nail in the coffin of the pipe dream that Hillary will be Obama's VP.
I have said for weeks now that Obama will not ask her. If he had any intentions of doing so, he would not have conducted his campaign in such a nasty and immature manner. This thuggish, pointless theft is just the icing on the cake.
Hillary Clinton's response?
Unless Hillary is the nominee, there will be no Party unity. Barack Obama will see to that.
P.U.M.A.!
Woooohooooo!
Same-sex couples in California get marriage licensesThis is just so, so wonderful. It is reprehensible that we still treat LGBT people as though there is something wrong with them. What is the legal basis for denying people who are attracted to the same sex civil rights? Why, none of course! It's just good, old-fashioned, institutionalized bigotry.
By LISA LEFF – 12 hours ago
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California has become the second state to allow same-sex marriages.
A landmark California Supreme Court ruling overturning bans on gay marriage went into effect at 5 p.m. Monday and clerks in at least five counties began handing out gender-neutral marriage licenses.
At San Francisco City Hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom was presiding at the wedding of lesbian rights activists Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84.
Same-sex couples were also tying the knot in Sonoma, Los Angeles, Yolo and Alameda counties.
Massachusetts is the only other state where gay marriage is legal.
I know the wingnuts are going to try to stop it, but really, wingnuts, may I ask a question?
Why don't you pay attention to your own marriages and leave other peoples' alone?
Otherwise some people might think you, yourselves, are self-loathing gay people trying to prevent other, more self-aware types from having the happiness you can't allow yourselves to have.
Just sayin'.
Now...the bad. Iowa is flooded and in big trouble, and we are looking at possible levee breaks as well as more water shortages.
Officials pleaded with Iowans to remain patient, and warned of serious health hazards even in areas were waters had largely receded: leaking sewage, mould and contaminated food and water.This is terrible enough, but as usual, the media is not connecting the dots. Those billions of dollars in damages do not just encompass houses, schools and hospitals, although losing them is awful. What is really scary is how much food has been lost - and how much continues to be lost.
"Please bear with us, we're doing the very best we can," mayor Kay Halloran said, according to the Cedar Rapids Gazette newspaper.
The state has mobilised 4,000 National Guardsmen, and the federal government has sent $3.6m in disaster aid.
In Cedar Rapids, flooding has caused $750m to $1bn in damage, governor Chet Culver said.
At the southern end of the state, the swollen Mississippi river is expected to crest today or tomorrow, promising days of further misery for people kept from their homes. In Burlington and Keokuk, crews worked to build up levees that could hold back the surging river.
The federal government predicts that 27 levees could potentially overflow along the Mississippi river if rains continue and a massive sandbagging effort fails to raise the level of the levees, the Associated Press.
Acres of soybeans lost: 2 millionWhat does that mean? More pain for the American wallet, already straining to afford gas that rises an average of 25 cents a week. (My theory on gas, by the way, is that BushCheney has an exact figure at which they will stop the oil prices from going up any further. My guess is $5/gallon. Certainly this state of affairs cannot continue, or the U.S. economy will simply collapse.)
Acres of corn lost: 1.3 million
Tillable acres of farmland under water: 16 percent of the state's 25 million acres.
Okay, that's the bad. Now, for the ugly.
[original photo: New York Times]
Was this really necessary, on the same day that Al Gore finally endorsed Barack Obama?
The Obama campaign announced today what had long been suspected: Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle was going to work for the Illinois Democrat. What came as a surprise was Solis Doyle's title, "chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate."Ya think?
The move was seen as shrewd but potentially controversial. Solis Doyle was let go by Clinton because of what was widely regarded as poor campaign and financial management. But she still is a prominent Hispanic figure with ties to the former first lady -- attributes that could endear Obama to a sought-after political constituency.
One thing the move does suggest, insiders believe, is that Hillary Clinton's chances of being tapped for the vice presidency are now slim to nil.
"This alone means that Hillary won't be the V.P. choice," wrote one.
Despite the story's spin, there is nothing "shrewd" about hiring Solis Doyle. She is the one largely held responsible for the "We'll win by Super Tuesday" strategy that had Senator Clinton front-loading her money and resources and gave Obama his advantage in red-state caucuses. Explain to me how hiring someone who was fired for incompetence is "seen as shrewd?" As for the Hispanic issue, I doubt Ms. Solis Doyle is any more adept at community outreach than she was at campaign management.
No, this is a pure, balls-out, Chicago-style middle finger from Obama to Clinton. And yes, I do believe it finally puts the nail in the coffin of the pipe dream that Hillary will be Obama's VP.
I have said for weeks now that Obama will not ask her. If he had any intentions of doing so, he would not have conducted his campaign in such a nasty and immature manner. This thuggish, pointless theft is just the icing on the cake.
Hillary Clinton's response?
“Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama. As Senator Clinton has said, we’re all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama as the next President of the United States," said spokesman Mo Elleithee.You tell me. Which one has the grace, the class and the maturity to be our President? The man who takes every opportunity to rub his opponent's face in her "loss"? Or the woman who does everything she can to try to heal the wounds her opponent caused her, her supporters and her Party?
Unless Hillary is the nominee, there will be no Party unity. Barack Obama will see to that.
P.U.M.A.!
Monday, June 16, 2008
You Keep Saying That Word, Unity. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
Having been on Howard Dean's mailing list for years, one or two requests to be removed clearly are not cutting it. I received the dreaded Obama mail solicitation this weekend, and the "ick" factor? Off the charts.
The return address was interesting: "Obama for America." What is "Obama for America" - a new game show? Seriously, shouldn't there be somewhere, something that admits that Barack Obama was elected as a Democrat, even though he hasn't campaigned like one? "Obama for America" sounds suspiciously like "Connecticut for Lieberman" to me. You know, that phony third party that Lieberman used in order to avoid his primary loss to Ned Lamont and run for Senate anyway? Lieberman was Obama's Senate mentor for a while; looks like Obama might have learned some very poor lessons from "Joementum."
The letter itself started with the whole phony Axelrovian story of Obama The Underdog. "We started with just two cans and a string connecting them." Uh, what we, Kemosabe? I have never been a part of your campaign. I am not one of your supporters. Therefore, I am assuming that this is the royal "We," a construction that, like most things about you these days, makes me very nervous. Finally, don't give me that "We beat the Big Scary Clinton Machine!!11!!!" crap. You and the DNC have been conspiring for a long time to make sure the nomination goes to you. Why else would Florida and Michigan have been punished the way they were, when the other "early" states were not punished at all? Why else would the takeover of the DNC have happened BEFORE you were officially nominated? We're onto you, pal. Don't try to okie-doke, bamboozle and hoodwink us, mmmmkay?
After that inauspicious beginning, I skipped to the part I had heard about on the Internets. I am supposed to send "Obama for America" money along with this pledge:
ICK!
Is this guy a political candidate, or Dr. Phil? Is the Obama "movement" a movement to effect specific changes, or just a bunch of people wanting to feel good about themselves? What are the goals of this movement?
Oh, here they are!
That's it? New Deal, anyone? Creating jobs through building infrastructure? The environmental crisis? Millions of people losing their homes?
[cricket cricket cricket]
No wonder Oprah was stumping for him. What a platitude-spewing empty suit Obama is.
I searched in vain for any plan whatsoever for me (not him) to effect these changes. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
So for all this blather about Unity, this "movement" is about one thing: Electing Barack Obama. There is no party - it's "Obama for America." There is no platform - it's vague nonsense about getting us out of Iraq (still slamming Hillary for "authorizing" the war, which the AUMF did not do, of course) and "finishing the job" in Afghanistan, about cutting taxes on the middle class, offering health care to "those who want it" and improving education. IAAO - It's All About Obama.
But what if you don't like Obama?
Who does Obama for America have in its grand movement, really? Wealthy liberals, African Americans (who came out 93% for John Kerry in 2004) and young voters?
Uh, isn't that the same coalition we always have in national elections? Where are the soccer moms, the blue-collar workers, the registered Democrats who so often vote Republican? Where are the voters in swing states that carry Democrats to such rare victories in Presidential elections?
Oh, yes. They voted for Hillary Clinton. And they're not coming to Obama. But don't worry - he doesn't need them to win. He'll win Virginia, North Carolina and some Western states...
Don't give up, Hillary. Take some time off, think for a while, and then come back strong. Fight for the nomination that would have been yours without this dirty back-room Chicago-style wheeling and dealing.
We need a President who sees us, and not just herself, when she looks in the mirror. If we truly want Unity, and not Submission, we will nominate the one who united the Democrats behind her: Hillary Clinton.
Until then: P.U.M.A.!
The return address was interesting: "Obama for America." What is "Obama for America" - a new game show? Seriously, shouldn't there be somewhere, something that admits that Barack Obama was elected as a Democrat, even though he hasn't campaigned like one? "Obama for America" sounds suspiciously like "Connecticut for Lieberman" to me. You know, that phony third party that Lieberman used in order to avoid his primary loss to Ned Lamont and run for Senate anyway? Lieberman was Obama's Senate mentor for a while; looks like Obama might have learned some very poor lessons from "Joementum."
The letter itself started with the whole phony Axelrovian story of Obama The Underdog. "We started with just two cans and a string connecting them." Uh, what we, Kemosabe? I have never been a part of your campaign. I am not one of your supporters. Therefore, I am assuming that this is the royal "We," a construction that, like most things about you these days, makes me very nervous. Finally, don't give me that "We beat the Big Scary Clinton Machine!!11!!!" crap. You and the DNC have been conspiring for a long time to make sure the nomination goes to you. Why else would Florida and Michigan have been punished the way they were, when the other "early" states were not punished at all? Why else would the takeover of the DNC have happened BEFORE you were officially nominated? We're onto you, pal. Don't try to okie-doke, bamboozle and hoodwink us, mmmmkay?
After that inauspicious beginning, I skipped to the part I had heard about on the Internets. I am supposed to send "Obama for America" money along with this pledge:
"Dear Barack, I agree! We are the ones we've been waiting for...we are the change we seek. You can count on me to support you and our movement for change all the way to the White House."
ICK!
Is this guy a political candidate, or Dr. Phil? Is the Obama "movement" a movement to effect specific changes, or just a bunch of people wanting to feel good about themselves? What are the goals of this movement?
Oh, here they are!
Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth. Change is a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it, and an education policy that gives every child a chance at success.
Change is ending a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized, and finishing a war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan that should never have been ignored.
That's it? New Deal, anyone? Creating jobs through building infrastructure? The environmental crisis? Millions of people losing their homes?
[cricket cricket cricket]
No wonder Oprah was stumping for him. What a platitude-spewing empty suit Obama is.
I searched in vain for any plan whatsoever for me (not him) to effect these changes. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
So for all this blather about Unity, this "movement" is about one thing: Electing Barack Obama. There is no party - it's "Obama for America." There is no platform - it's vague nonsense about getting us out of Iraq (still slamming Hillary for "authorizing" the war, which the AUMF did not do, of course) and "finishing the job" in Afghanistan, about cutting taxes on the middle class, offering health care to "those who want it" and improving education. IAAO - It's All About Obama.
But what if you don't like Obama?
Who does Obama for America have in its grand movement, really? Wealthy liberals, African Americans (who came out 93% for John Kerry in 2004) and young voters?
Uh, isn't that the same coalition we always have in national elections? Where are the soccer moms, the blue-collar workers, the registered Democrats who so often vote Republican? Where are the voters in swing states that carry Democrats to such rare victories in Presidential elections?
Oh, yes. They voted for Hillary Clinton. And they're not coming to Obama. But don't worry - he doesn't need them to win. He'll win Virginia, North Carolina and some Western states...
Don't give up, Hillary. Take some time off, think for a while, and then come back strong. Fight for the nomination that would have been yours without this dirty back-room Chicago-style wheeling and dealing.
We need a President who sees us, and not just herself, when she looks in the mirror. If we truly want Unity, and not Submission, we will nominate the one who united the Democrats behind her: Hillary Clinton.
Until then: P.U.M.A.!
Friday, June 13, 2008
L'Etat, C'est Obama
Say what now?
SAY WHAT NOW?
FYI...Barack Obama is not the nominee. He is the PRESUMPTIVE nominee in a race that is separated by 125 pledged delegates. Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to count himself, or herself, the nominee. Either candidate could still be nominated at the Convention.
Moreover, Obama's pledged delegates were only gained due to massive manipulation by the DNC. Had the DNC's actual rules been followed, the outcome of this race would have been quite different.
Yet knowing all of these facts, knowing he has cheated his way to the nomination with the collusion of the National Party, one-millionth of a second after Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign (and has not yet released her delegates), Obama is taking over the Democratic Party.
The Post tries to be reassuring about this coup d'etat, but it fails, quite miserably.
No, Tom, sweetie, what is "catching people off guard" is that it stinks. It smells to high heaven of Chicago Machine corruption.
There is no way that this could possibly happen so quickly without prior collusion and planning. It is simply not credible. Thus, it was planned BEFORE Obama stole, er, "won," the nomination. Which, as demonstrated above, he could not have stolen, er, won, without the intervention of the DNC.
I am so stunned and disheartened by this clear and obvious quid pro quo between Obama's organization and the Party elites. Let me say this right now: Obama will never, ever get my vote.
The Democratic Party has just sunk into the depths of Tammany Hall slime. We have become what we despised.
Happy Friday!
Moving quickly to take control of the Democratic Party, Sen. Barack Obama will shift much of the infrastructure of the Democratic National Committee from its Capitol Hill headquarters to his campaign offices in downtown Chicago, DNC officials said yesterday.
The party's political functions and some other operations will move to Obama's offices in the Loop. The DNC's get-out-the-vote operation will be integrated with Obama's massive voter mobilization efforts, as will the Democrats' increasingly sophisticated voter identification program. Communications, opposition research and much of its Internet operation will likely remain in Washington.
"We are now one team effort working together to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president of the United States," said DNC communications director Karen Finney. "Our goal is to quickly consolidate these efforts into one operation and effectively drive one national strategy."
SAY WHAT NOW?
FYI...Barack Obama is not the nominee. He is the PRESUMPTIVE nominee in a race that is separated by 125 pledged delegates. Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to count himself, or herself, the nominee. Either candidate could still be nominated at the Convention.
Moreover, Obama's pledged delegates were only gained due to massive manipulation by the DNC. Had the DNC's actual rules been followed, the outcome of this race would have been quite different.
Yet knowing all of these facts, knowing he has cheated his way to the nomination with the collusion of the National Party, one-millionth of a second after Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign (and has not yet released her delegates), Obama is taking over the Democratic Party.
The Post tries to be reassuring about this coup d'etat, but it fails, quite miserably.
The move is not unprecedented. Some DNC operations were moved to Nashville in 2000, and a migration similar in scope to this year's took place in 1992, when Bill Clinton moved much of the party to Little Rock. Obama moved one of his top aides, Paul Tewes, to the DNC on Wednesday. Last Friday, Tewes, Obama and DNC Chairman Howard Dean held a conference call with state Democratic leaders to map out the shake-up.
"What's unusual is the speed," said Tom McMahon, DNC executive director. "That's what's catching people off guard."
No, Tom, sweetie, what is "catching people off guard" is that it stinks. It smells to high heaven of Chicago Machine corruption.
There is no way that this could possibly happen so quickly without prior collusion and planning. It is simply not credible. Thus, it was planned BEFORE Obama stole, er, "won," the nomination. Which, as demonstrated above, he could not have stolen, er, won, without the intervention of the DNC.
I am so stunned and disheartened by this clear and obvious quid pro quo between Obama's organization and the Party elites. Let me say this right now: Obama will never, ever get my vote.
The Democratic Party has just sunk into the depths of Tammany Hall slime. We have become what we despised.
Happy Friday!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Jimmy Carter's Greatest Hits
For those of us who were old enough to be aware of what was happening during the Jimmy Carter years, we remember how difficult they were in many respects. OPEC tightened the screws and forced a gas crisis. Jimmy Carter appeared on TV wearing a sweater and told Americans to turn down their thermostats. A speed limit of 55 miles an hour was imposed throughout the United States. We had to wait in long lines to fill our tanks, and could only go to the gas stations on certain days depending on the first letter of our last names. And yes, there was the dreaded: Stagflation (which technically began in 1973, during the Nixon/Ford years).
Worried murmurs about stagflation are beginning to be heard throughout the country. The latest numbers on unemployment have it at 5.5%, a jump of .5% in one month. Even supply-side ideologues are starting to realize that it is difficult for consumers to consume when they don't have jobs, can't afford to fill up a gas tank ($4.29 a gallon here in New York), have lost their homes, and can't borrow money. Golly!
So that's the "stag" part of stagflation. What about the "flation?"
When Raygun was elected, he simply had the Federal Reserve lower interest rates to counter the stagflation recession, and gave everyone a shiny new credit card, including the Federal Government; thereby postponing sound economic policy until Bill Clinton arrived and raised taxes on the wealthy, regulated the banks, and instated "pay as you go" over the vociferous protests of Republican Congresscritters.
But remember, it took him eight years to do so.
No matter who is elected President in November, I believe that the next four years could rival, or surpass, the worst of Jimmy Carter's greatest hits. It will take a long time to drag the country back from the abyss. We will have to do a lot of things all at once: a New Deal-style program of job creation and infrastructure building and repair; investment in, and promotion of, green energy technologies; bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan (cutting taxes during wartime has been a huge contributor to our economic downturn); an overhaul of the banking and credit systems; and raising taxes on the wealthy to Clintonian levels (at least). All of this will have to be started within the first few months of the President's first term.
Who do we think has the energy, the know-how, the strength of will, and the plan to get all of this done?
That question should be at the top of everyone's list this November. I know who my choice is, and I hope that the best candidate gets nominated and elected...whomever she is.
Worried murmurs about stagflation are beginning to be heard throughout the country. The latest numbers on unemployment have it at 5.5%, a jump of .5% in one month. Even supply-side ideologues are starting to realize that it is difficult for consumers to consume when they don't have jobs, can't afford to fill up a gas tank ($4.29 a gallon here in New York), have lost their homes, and can't borrow money. Golly!
So that's the "stag" part of stagflation. What about the "flation?"
Cost of livingThe financial bigwigs are nervous. They know that interest rates cannot stay where they are - the only reason they are so low is to stave off recession during an election year. (Unfortunately, the recession is here anyway. They didn't count on the ARM crisis exacerbating the effects of the exorbitant oil price hikes.) After the elections are over, the first thing the Fed will do is to raise interest rates exponentially to counter the effects of the recession. This will, of course, cause consumer borrowing to come to a screeching halt. Your house may be worth only 65% of what it was before, but take heart! Anyone wanting to purchase it will have to pay 25% interest on their mortgage. Yippee! No, I'm not exaggerating - this is how the back of stagflation was broken the first time this record was played.
In recent months, the US Federal Reserve has been slashing interest rates in an attempt to stoke growth.
But analysts believe the rising cost of living, rather than interest rates, should be the US central bank's chief concern now.
"If you want to avoid a protracted recession, you have to make sure inflation doesn't get out of control," said Gilles Moec, an analyst at Bank of America.
"Otherwise, you're going to have a loss of purchasing power meaning consumer spending is going to slow down even more."
An effective method of addressing stagflation once it occurs is equally elusive. During the 1970s, stagflation persisted in the U.S. despite the government's best efforts to contain it. The trend was finally broken when the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates to the point where borrowing was impossible for many segments of the economy, and the country fell into a deep recession.We are in a hell of a mess. Who can get us out of it?
When Raygun was elected, he simply had the Federal Reserve lower interest rates to counter the stagflation recession, and gave everyone a shiny new credit card, including the Federal Government; thereby postponing sound economic policy until Bill Clinton arrived and raised taxes on the wealthy, regulated the banks, and instated "pay as you go" over the vociferous protests of Republican Congresscritters.
But remember, it took him eight years to do so.
No matter who is elected President in November, I believe that the next four years could rival, or surpass, the worst of Jimmy Carter's greatest hits. It will take a long time to drag the country back from the abyss. We will have to do a lot of things all at once: a New Deal-style program of job creation and infrastructure building and repair; investment in, and promotion of, green energy technologies; bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan (cutting taxes during wartime has been a huge contributor to our economic downturn); an overhaul of the banking and credit systems; and raising taxes on the wealthy to Clintonian levels (at least). All of this will have to be started within the first few months of the President's first term.
Who do we think has the energy, the know-how, the strength of will, and the plan to get all of this done?
That question should be at the top of everyone's list this November. I know who my choice is, and I hope that the best candidate gets nominated and elected...whomever she is.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Finding His Religion (and Using it for Votes)
If you were Barack Obama, and you had close, long-time and (to put it kindly) problematic associations with fringe religious figures like Wright, Meeks and Pfleger, wouldn't you kinda sorta downplay your religiosity?
Apparently not.
Heh heh. I love the myopic view of the United States from Psaki. "From Chicago and from outside Chicago." (Reminds me of those jokes about how New Yorkers see America.) And notice how there are no Jewish or Muslim leaders included? Yeah, me too.
It appears that Obama's General Election strategy is to try to peel off some of the evangelical and Christian Conservative votes from McCain. Senator McCain will have trouble with them, since he is not a born-again Christian like George Bush, and I believe at one point in his life he actually believed women should be able to control their own bodies. (GASP!) The Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody is so excited about this, he gushes like a tween meeting Hannah Montana:
Oh, whatever. So Senator Obama is pandering to the evangelicals a little. The wall between church and state will be built back up under Obama. Nothing to worry about. Right?
I am getting very, very worried. Every single thing about Obama's campaign is a parallel of George W. Bush's campaign! Obama has cheated and used sexism and race-baiting in order to become the presumptive nominee. (In 2000, Bush's campaign used a push poll in South Carolina to knock out McCain by asking the voters if they "knew" McCain had a black baby out of wedlock.) He uses religion as a recruiting tool. He speaks in slogans and code and has a cult-like following. He campaigns as a "compassionate conservative," throwing away millions of core Democratic voters with both hands, while fervently reaching out to core Republican voters like evangelical conservative Christians.
I would like for someone, anyone, to explain to me what Democratic value Barack Obama actually stands for. And "just words" won't do. I'm talking about something on which he has actually taken a stand and affirmed with his vote.
[cricket cricket cricket]
So, as it stands right now, I've got a choice between two conservative wannabes in November. McCain is trying to convince evangelicals that he's a real right-winger...and so is Obama.
France is looking better and better all the time.
Apparently not.
A spokesperson said the meeting of some 30 people will include leaders from several denominations including Evangelical, Catholic and Protestant members of the faith community. Among those taking part are Bishop Phillip Cousin, the Rev. Stephen Thurston and Dr. T. Dewitt Smith.
"Reaching out to the faith community is a priority for Barack Obama and will be a priority under an Obama Administration. This is one of several meetings he will have over the coming months with religious leaders," Jen Psaki told reporters on the campaign plane.
"He's done it before. He'll do it again. Some of those in attendance are supporters," Psaki said. "It's a combination of people who are from Chicago and from outside Chicago."
Heh heh. I love the myopic view of the United States from Psaki. "From Chicago and from outside Chicago." (Reminds me of those jokes about how New Yorkers see America.) And notice how there are no Jewish or Muslim leaders included? Yeah, me too.
It appears that Obama's General Election strategy is to try to peel off some of the evangelical and Christian Conservative votes from McCain. Senator McCain will have trouble with them, since he is not a born-again Christian like George Bush, and I believe at one point in his life he actually believed women should be able to control their own bodies. (GASP!) The Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody is so excited about this, he gushes like a tween meeting Hannah Montana:
As we first reported on The Brody File, Obama is meeting with influential mega-pastor TD Jakes and pro-life Catholic constitutional law professor Doug Kmiec... That's a big deal. A really big deal. The fact that these two conservative men are meeting with Obama may be a signal that Obama's campaign is ready to break down the traditional wall of separation between conservatives and liberals when it comes to religious talk.
[snip]
Folks, this is an important development. It shows that the game has changed. Old rules don't apply. We're in uncharted territory. John McCain's religious outreach team has to now step to the plate and work hard for faith voters. It's not automatic.
Oh, whatever. So Senator Obama is pandering to the evangelicals a little. The wall between church and state will be built back up under Obama. Nothing to worry about. Right?
The Brody File has learned that in the next two weeks Barack Obama's campaign will unveil a major new program to attract younger Evangelicals and Catholics to their campaign.
It's called the "Joshua Generation Project." The name is based on the biblical story of how Joshua's generation led the Israelites into the Promised Land.
A source close to the Obama campaign tells The Brody File the following:
"The Joshua Generation project will be the Obama campaign's outreach to young people of faith. There's unprecedented energy and excitement for Obama among young evangelicals and Catholics. The Joshua Generation project will tap into that excitement and provide young people of faith opportunities to stand up for their values and move the campaign forward."
I am getting very, very worried. Every single thing about Obama's campaign is a parallel of George W. Bush's campaign! Obama has cheated and used sexism and race-baiting in order to become the presumptive nominee. (In 2000, Bush's campaign used a push poll in South Carolina to knock out McCain by asking the voters if they "knew" McCain had a black baby out of wedlock.) He uses religion as a recruiting tool. He speaks in slogans and code and has a cult-like following. He campaigns as a "compassionate conservative," throwing away millions of core Democratic voters with both hands, while fervently reaching out to core Republican voters like evangelical conservative Christians.
I would like for someone, anyone, to explain to me what Democratic value Barack Obama actually stands for. And "just words" won't do. I'm talking about something on which he has actually taken a stand and affirmed with his vote.
[cricket cricket cricket]
So, as it stands right now, I've got a choice between two conservative wannabes in November. McCain is trying to convince evangelicals that he's a real right-winger...and so is Obama.
France is looking better and better all the time.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
From the Department of No Shit Department...
comes this article on how Barack Obama may have trouble winning over Hillary's voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio. (Ya think?) I'm not a big fan of "some dude on the street says" journalism, but I believe this particular article is interesting because of what it does and doesn't say.
For example, Pennsylvanians are racists, don'tcha know.
Although the writer admits that gauging voter sentiment on race is "notoriously difficult," he has no problem entitling the piece "Racial attitudes pose challenge for Obama," now, does he?
The Obama camp agrees, of course, that people who would vote for Clinton, but not him, are racists. Why not? It's the option that allows Obama to take the least responsibility for his own alienating actions and radical associations.
Uh, Mr. Akers? It's not code.
What it is, is the repetition of a narrative: Barack Obama is anti-American.
As I noted a long time ago, this narrative has been partially crafted by the right-wing scream machine (remember the viral email from the RNC about how Obama was a secret Muslim?), but unfortunately, it has been reinforced quite strongly by the actions of Obama himself. He doesn't wear a flag pin, and, instead of saying "Oops! I forgot it today, thanks for reminding me!", made up some ridiculous holier-than-thou excuse for not wearing it. The Jeremiah Wright mess, as I also predicted a long time ago, made a big impression on white working-class people.
No kidding! That's because it's not credible. Not even bitter racist hillbillies like Pennsylvania voters are fooled by Obama's myriad flip-flops on Reverend Wright.
Unfortunately for Senator Obama, the challenges he faces winning over voters like these - I call them Clinton Dems - are great, and getting larger every day. As the GaffeTastic Express careens through the summer, I predict that the gloves will come off the McCainStream Media, and that more and more unflattering stories about Obama, and his chances in the General Election, will come out.
Is it too little, too late?
We'll see. August is a long way away, and as we know, Obama and Hillary are separated by only 125 pledged delegates at this point. No one is the official nominee until AFTER the Convention. If you are a Clinton supporter and don't think Obama can beat McCain, you can sign my petition (which I am sending to Howard Dean every week until the Convention), or check out the other activism opportunities over at The Confluence.
Fasten your seat belts - it's going to be a bumpy ride.
For example, Pennsylvanians are racists, don'tcha know.
Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House - or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.
There's just one problem.
"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."
Susick said her personal objection to Obama is his inexperience, not his color. "It has nothing to do with race," she said.
If Susick is right about Pennsylvania voters, it presents a major hurdle for the presumed Democratic nominee. Democrats have carried Pennsylvania in the last four presidential contests, and Obama would have to offset a loss of its 21 electoral votes by taking Republican-leaning states from John McCain.
Although the writer admits that gauging voter sentiment on race is "notoriously difficult," he has no problem entitling the piece "Racial attitudes pose challenge for Obama," now, does he?
The Obama camp agrees, of course, that people who would vote for Clinton, but not him, are racists. Why not? It's the option that allows Obama to take the least responsibility for his own alienating actions and radical associations.
"He just doesn't appeal to me, and not because of race, definitely," she said in an interview in which race had not been mentioned.
Such comments are all too familiar to Richard Akers, who phoned dozens of prospective Pennsylvania voters as an Obama campaign volunteer in April. Democrats often explained their opposition to Obama with "excuses that were not rational or valid, as I saw it," said the retired bank director from Johnstown, another hotbed of Clinton support.
"To me, it was almost a code," Akers said. "'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"
Uh, Mr. Akers? It's not code.
What it is, is the repetition of a narrative: Barack Obama is anti-American.
As I noted a long time ago, this narrative has been partially crafted by the right-wing scream machine (remember the viral email from the RNC about how Obama was a secret Muslim?), but unfortunately, it has been reinforced quite strongly by the actions of Obama himself. He doesn't wear a flag pin, and, instead of saying "Oops! I forgot it today, thanks for reminding me!", made up some ridiculous holier-than-thou excuse for not wearing it. The Jeremiah Wright mess, as I also predicted a long time ago, made a big impression on white working-class people.
But even some likely voters who are largely sympathetic to him are troubled by his ties, now broken, to a former pastor who cursed the United States and accused the government of possible conspiracies against blacks.
Kate Tanning, a Pittsburgh antiques dealer who was lunching with friends in Bedford, rejected Obama's claim that he did not know of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's most bombastic statements even though Obama attended Wright's Chicago church for 20 years.
"That's the one thing about him I can't believe," she said.
No kidding! That's because it's not credible. Not even bitter racist hillbillies like Pennsylvania voters are fooled by Obama's myriad flip-flops on Reverend Wright.
Unfortunately for Senator Obama, the challenges he faces winning over voters like these - I call them Clinton Dems - are great, and getting larger every day. As the GaffeTastic Express careens through the summer, I predict that the gloves will come off the McCainStream Media, and that more and more unflattering stories about Obama, and his chances in the General Election, will come out.
Is it too little, too late?
We'll see. August is a long way away, and as we know, Obama and Hillary are separated by only 125 pledged delegates at this point. No one is the official nominee until AFTER the Convention. If you are a Clinton supporter and don't think Obama can beat McCain, you can sign my petition (which I am sending to Howard Dean every week until the Convention), or check out the other activism opportunities over at The Confluence.
Fasten your seat belts - it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Hillary's Speech on Saturday...
read the account of an eyewitness here. (If you haven't visited Hecate's blog before, please do. She is an amazing woman with a lot of interesting things to say.)
The speech is incredibly poignant and heartbreaking. I can't comment on it right now because I'm still too upset that, although Senator Clinton was behind by barely 100 pledged delegates, she was forced out of the race before the Convention. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of our country.
Let us hope that the next time a woman runs for President, we will be more honest about the challenges she faces.
I will talk more about sexism in general in the coming days. Let me just say this: I wish I had the faith in Senator Obama that Hillary Clinton appears to have.
I tend to believe my own ears and eyes more than I believe speeches by a politician, however, no matter who she is.
Obama's got a LOT of work to do to earn my vote. Let's see what happens.
The speech is incredibly poignant and heartbreaking. I can't comment on it right now because I'm still too upset that, although Senator Clinton was behind by barely 100 pledged delegates, she was forced out of the race before the Convention. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of our country.
Let us hope that the next time a woman runs for President, we will be more honest about the challenges she faces.
I will talk more about sexism in general in the coming days. Let me just say this: I wish I had the faith in Senator Obama that Hillary Clinton appears to have.
I tend to believe my own ears and eyes more than I believe speeches by a politician, however, no matter who she is.
Obama's got a LOT of work to do to earn my vote. Let's see what happens.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Today, I Let Others Speak for Me.
The problem with Obama and the new Democratic party is that it doesn’t stand for real Democrats. It is yet another strange amalgamation of voters whose self interest was pandered to. In many ways, it is no different than the Republican party of gilded capitalists, religious crazies and neocons. This new Democratic party is made up of young people, libertarians and pretentious status conscious liberals. There is a nasty streak of cynicism in it as well, as if it’s just so outre to consider helping the poor or abiding by any core Democratic principles. The new Democratic party is just too cool for that. They can write some lengthy, detached policy paper about it and pay some lip service but really, the American demographic has evolved and those people on the brink of insolvency, well, they are the Neanderthals that didn’t make the cut. Moving on.
Word, sistah girl. P.U.M.A.!
Paul Krugman at the New York Times points out the hysteria of HDS that infected the media and made it possible for Obama and his minions to demonize Hillary to the point of madness:
Paul Krugman at the New York Times points out the hysteria of HDS that infected the media and made it possible for Obama and his minions to demonize Hillary to the point of madness:
Read the first paragraph of this, then read this, and you’ll have the essence of what happened in the Democratic primary campaign.
The comments to this post are interesting. I wrote a brief, complimentary one, and it was "moderated" out. Most of them are derogatory to Mr. Krugman or dismissive of the fact that without the media's enabling of Obama's smears and character assassination, he never would have even finished the primaries.
In any case, this is what is on my mind this morning. I will no longer be a part of the Obama Party. Its goals are not mine. And, I am sickened by the HDS and misogyny that has been perpetrated by Obama and Axelrove and the Obama cult bloggers against the woman who could be the best President since FDR.
And as for you disingenuous Obama supporters who supposedly want Hillary for VP? Please. We know the score. You simply want to blame Obama's inevitable loss on her. Guess what? It's nagahapin. Obama is too immature and arrogant to offer, and Hillary is too smart to accept. Sorry, New Plutocrats, you are going to have to live with the fact that without Hillary to kick around, Obama has nothing to offer. Obama is unelectable. Start preparing yourselves now.
In any case, this is what is on my mind this morning. I will no longer be a part of the Obama Party. Its goals are not mine. And, I am sickened by the HDS and misogyny that has been perpetrated by Obama and Axelrove and the Obama cult bloggers against the woman who could be the best President since FDR.
And as for you disingenuous Obama supporters who supposedly want Hillary for VP? Please. We know the score. You simply want to blame Obama's inevitable loss on her. Guess what? It's nagahapin. Obama is too immature and arrogant to offer, and Hillary is too smart to accept. Sorry, New Plutocrats, you are going to have to live with the fact that without Hillary to kick around, Obama has nothing to offer. Obama is unelectable. Start preparing yourselves now.
I am hearing now that Hillary is going to do what I and many others think would be best on Saturday - suspend, but do not concede, and do not release her delegates. The door should remain open until the Convention. However, I am fine with whatever she decides. She has achieved more than any woman in U.S. history has ever achieved.
She can do whatever she damn well pleases.
Party Unity, My Ass.
Party Unity, My Ass.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Statement from Hillary Clinton
I got this in my Inbox this morning. It's from Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton has smashed through so many glass ceilings, but the one over the nomination was made of diamond. The Party appears to have decided long ago that there was no way Hillary would ever be the nominee, and I am sure they signaled to her that she had no chance whatsoever of winning a floor fight at the Convention. Being as close as she was, there was every historical precedent for her to try to fight it out - Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy come to mind, for example; each of these men had far fewer delegates than she did when they refused to concede.
Yet despite having more holes in her back than a colander, Hillary, unlike Obama, sees the divisions in the Party and wants to take steps to heal those divisions. She is a die-hard, loyal Democrat, through and through. Nothing can change that for her.
My prediction is that she will not be able to do so, since the divisions are caused by Senator Obama, and not Hillary herself. Certainly my respect and admiration for her, and belief that she would be our next FDR, will not automatically transfer to Obama.
For example, I am almost certain that he, in his mad pursuit of some fictional, Broderian idea of Unity, will pick a Republican for his VP. He is utterly indifferent to the howls of outrage that will emanate from core Democrats should he pursue this course. Why should he care? It's not like he really wants to win the White House anyway. It's all about the power and cashola of controlling the Democratic Party machinery.
But I have a question for Senator Obama.
What Democratic Party?
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Clinton has smashed through so many glass ceilings, but the one over the nomination was made of diamond. The Party appears to have decided long ago that there was no way Hillary would ever be the nominee, and I am sure they signaled to her that she had no chance whatsoever of winning a floor fight at the Convention. Being as close as she was, there was every historical precedent for her to try to fight it out - Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy come to mind, for example; each of these men had far fewer delegates than she did when they refused to concede.
Yet despite having more holes in her back than a colander, Hillary, unlike Obama, sees the divisions in the Party and wants to take steps to heal those divisions. She is a die-hard, loyal Democrat, through and through. Nothing can change that for her.
My prediction is that she will not be able to do so, since the divisions are caused by Senator Obama, and not Hillary herself. Certainly my respect and admiration for her, and belief that she would be our next FDR, will not automatically transfer to Obama.
For example, I am almost certain that he, in his mad pursuit of some fictional, Broderian idea of Unity, will pick a Republican for his VP. He is utterly indifferent to the howls of outrage that will emanate from core Democrats should he pursue this course. Why should he care? It's not like he really wants to win the White House anyway. It's all about the power and cashola of controlling the Democratic Party machinery.
But I have a question for Senator Obama.
What Democratic Party?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
By The Numbers: Montana and South Dakota
Well, folks, they're finally over! Hillary won South Dakota by 10%, and Obama won Montana by 16%.
Now what?
Because the main number from last night was:
2118.
Senator Barack Obama has finally reached, and passed, that "magic number" delegate threshhold, which under normal circumstances, would allow him to claim the presumptive nominee status.
So why did Hillary Clinton not concede last night, much to the consternation and amazement of the clueless pundits who had been loudly proclaiming she would do so all day - and much to the elation of her loyal supporters (like ME!!)? What does she know that the CNN/MSNObama bots don't [pretend not to] know? And why did Barack Obama say, "I will be the nominee," instead of "I am the nominee" in his speech last night?
Well, here's the thing: SuperDelegates can change their minds right up until the Convention. (For that matter, so can pledged delegates - but the SuperDelegates are the ones that we're looking at right now.)
If either candidate had enough pledged and elected delegates to get to that magic number, the nomination contest would be over. However, Obama's total, like Hillary's, is made up of both pledged AND SuperDelegates. If you count his pledged/elected delegate total (by CNN's count), he only has 1762; Hillary has 1637.
That's right - Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates by only 125.
What's even crazier is this: Remember the Texas pri-caucus? Hillary won the primary, but not the caucus, and Texas allots its delegates according to both the primary and caucus results? Well, the Texas delegate count is still not final. So, if you take into account the terrible decision from Saturday, which hobbled Clinton while giving Obama an extra push, Obama's lead is even more questionable.
The closeness of this election gives Hillary extra leverage. She could do many things at this point - she could concede at the end of the week, if it looks like the SuperDelegates are all abandoning ship; she could suspend her campaign, which allows her to take some time off and let Obama and McCain take the spotlight; or, she could check with supporters and SuperDelegates and see if her case is making any headway with them, and if it is, take it to the Convention.
I personally am hoping she does whatever feels best for her - but I tend to think she should suspend. Let McCain and Obama duke it out for a few months, and then we'll see if Obama has what it takes to beat McCaca. If not, a deal could be reached at the Convention and the SuperDelegates could nominate Hillary.
Of course, she could take it to the Convention just on MI and FL alone, and she has been hinting that she would do so since January. So who knows?
For those who think Obama will offer Hillary the VP slot, I think you should all put down the Kool-Aid. The entire point of the Obama "movement" is to throw the Clintons out of power. Why would he, and the Party Leaders who are backing him, agree to keep her and Bill in the spotlight?
Besides, the Obamas have made it quite clear they have no intentions of doing so. They simply hate Hillary and Bill - they're racist monsters, you know. Their laughable statement from yesterday:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Let me see, the guy with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Meeks, Farrakhan and Pfleger (and who knows who and what else) hovering over him, the guy with just a year in the public spotlight, the guy who has been doing oppo research on the Clintons for that entire same year...THAT GUY is saying that the Clintons aren't vetted?
What a colossal, overweening, arrogant schmuck. Am I excited yet that the Democrats are pushing him down our throats?
No, I'm not.
I'm choking.
Bless you, Senator Clinton, and thank you for your historic efforts. Do as you like, but I'm not giving up until you do. You speak for me and everyone who believes in the FDR version of the Democratic Party.
Whatever happens now, I know that you will always be there, fighting for the working class. Sometimes we don't deserve you, but we've got you.
Now what?
Because the main number from last night was:
2118.
Senator Barack Obama has finally reached, and passed, that "magic number" delegate threshhold, which under normal circumstances, would allow him to claim the presumptive nominee status.
So why did Hillary Clinton not concede last night, much to the consternation and amazement of the clueless pundits who had been loudly proclaiming she would do so all day - and much to the elation of her loyal supporters (like ME!!)? What does she know that the CNN/MSNObama bots don't [pretend not to] know? And why did Barack Obama say, "I will be the nominee," instead of "I am the nominee" in his speech last night?
Well, here's the thing: SuperDelegates can change their minds right up until the Convention. (For that matter, so can pledged delegates - but the SuperDelegates are the ones that we're looking at right now.)
If either candidate had enough pledged and elected delegates to get to that magic number, the nomination contest would be over. However, Obama's total, like Hillary's, is made up of both pledged AND SuperDelegates. If you count his pledged/elected delegate total (by CNN's count), he only has 1762; Hillary has 1637.
That's right - Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates by only 125.
What's even crazier is this: Remember the Texas pri-caucus? Hillary won the primary, but not the caucus, and Texas allots its delegates according to both the primary and caucus results? Well, the Texas delegate count is still not final. So, if you take into account the terrible decision from Saturday, which hobbled Clinton while giving Obama an extra push, Obama's lead is even more questionable.
The closeness of this election gives Hillary extra leverage. She could do many things at this point - she could concede at the end of the week, if it looks like the SuperDelegates are all abandoning ship; she could suspend her campaign, which allows her to take some time off and let Obama and McCain take the spotlight; or, she could check with supporters and SuperDelegates and see if her case is making any headway with them, and if it is, take it to the Convention.
I personally am hoping she does whatever feels best for her - but I tend to think she should suspend. Let McCain and Obama duke it out for a few months, and then we'll see if Obama has what it takes to beat McCaca. If not, a deal could be reached at the Convention and the SuperDelegates could nominate Hillary.
Of course, she could take it to the Convention just on MI and FL alone, and she has been hinting that she would do so since January. So who knows?
For those who think Obama will offer Hillary the VP slot, I think you should all put down the Kool-Aid. The entire point of the Obama "movement" is to throw the Clintons out of power. Why would he, and the Party Leaders who are backing him, agree to keep her and Bill in the spotlight?
Besides, the Obamas have made it quite clear they have no intentions of doing so. They simply hate Hillary and Bill - they're racist monsters, you know. Their laughable statement from yesterday:
CNN is reporting Hillary has told New York lawmakers that she is open to the VP slot.
Now here's the funny part: Suzanne Malveaux reports that the Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Let me see, the guy with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Meeks, Farrakhan and Pfleger (and who knows who and what else) hovering over him, the guy with just a year in the public spotlight, the guy who has been doing oppo research on the Clintons for that entire same year...THAT GUY is saying that the Clintons aren't vetted?
What a colossal, overweening, arrogant schmuck. Am I excited yet that the Democrats are pushing him down our throats?
No, I'm not.
I'm choking.
Bless you, Senator Clinton, and thank you for your historic efforts. Do as you like, but I'm not giving up until you do. You speak for me and everyone who believes in the FDR version of the Democratic Party.
Whatever happens now, I know that you will always be there, fighting for the working class. Sometimes we don't deserve you, but we've got you.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The Final Primaries Are Today.
As we know, Hillary trounced Obama in Puerto Rico over the weekend. Many Obama bloggers instantly tried to diminish the 68%-32% margin of victory by sneering that Puerto Ricans have no votes in November.
They don't get out much, do they?
Here's a clue for them: On page 3 of the exit polls, the voters were asked if they had relatives in New York, and/or in the United States, and/or if they had lived here recently. A huge percentage had positive responses to these questions. 79% said they had relatives in New York, for example.
But I guess Latino voters aren't important in the New Plutocratic Obama Coalition.
In any case, Montana and South Dakota vote today. For some reason, we have not been able to get a lot of estimates on how they'll vote. Perhaps it's because the estimate from Puerto Rico was that Hillary would win by 13%! But tomorrow, I'll do By the Numbers for those two states.
As to what happens after the primaries end, the only thing I know for sure is that Hillary herself has said she is going to the SuperDelegates to make her case as the nominee. The case is based on electability and popular vote totals rather than delegates, as she is unlikely to catch up to Obama's delegate count.
Senator Clinton claims she has won the popular vote. As for electability, it's obvious from poll results that she is much stronger. However, if polls aren't your thing, take a look at Jeralyn Merritt's summary of an excellent study by Peniel Cronin comparing caucuses to primaries.
One other note - the rules that allowed Obama to win so many delegates from red caucus states were put into place in 2006. Things that make you go hmmmmm....
What will happen tonight? Will Obama claim victory - for the 375,000th time? Will Hillary turn it around and claim victory herself? Will she concede or suspend her campaign? What will the SuperDelegates do?
Tune in tomorrow for yet another episode of: As the Democrats Turn!
They don't get out much, do they?
Here's a clue for them: On page 3 of the exit polls, the voters were asked if they had relatives in New York, and/or in the United States, and/or if they had lived here recently. A huge percentage had positive responses to these questions. 79% said they had relatives in New York, for example.
But I guess Latino voters aren't important in the New Plutocratic Obama Coalition.
In any case, Montana and South Dakota vote today. For some reason, we have not been able to get a lot of estimates on how they'll vote. Perhaps it's because the estimate from Puerto Rico was that Hillary would win by 13%! But tomorrow, I'll do By the Numbers for those two states.
As to what happens after the primaries end, the only thing I know for sure is that Hillary herself has said she is going to the SuperDelegates to make her case as the nominee. The case is based on electability and popular vote totals rather than delegates, as she is unlikely to catch up to Obama's delegate count.
Senator Clinton claims she has won the popular vote. As for electability, it's obvious from poll results that she is much stronger. However, if polls aren't your thing, take a look at Jeralyn Merritt's summary of an excellent study by Peniel Cronin comparing caucuses to primaries.
Bottom line: Clinton’s lead is from 34.5 million voters (97%) in Primaries. Obama’s lead is from 1.1 million voters (3%) in caucuses. [More...]
Out of the 50 state elections so far, Clinton has won 20 primaries and Obama has won 17. In comparison, Obama has dominated the Caucus contests by winning 12 of 13, plus the Texas caucus. 42% of his wins are caucus states.
...After 50 election contests to date, Obama leads Clinton by 113 pledged delegates. 97.4% of the difference – 110 delegates – is directly attributable to lopsided victories in caucus contests.
One other note - the rules that allowed Obama to win so many delegates from red caucus states were put into place in 2006. Things that make you go hmmmmm....
What will happen tonight? Will Obama claim victory - for the 375,000th time? Will Hillary turn it around and claim victory herself? Will she concede or suspend her campaign? What will the SuperDelegates do?
Tune in tomorrow for yet another episode of: As the Democrats Turn!
Monday, June 2, 2008
PUMA - Party Unity, My Ass!
Over at the Confluence, a new group has formed: PUMA.
Apparently PUMA members are a tad upset that the DNC has granted itself magical powers to give votes and delegates to a candidate whose name was not on the ballot. This was the last straw for the PUMA folks. Furthermore, they are tired of being berated and blackmailed and taunted and told, "Where else can you go? Shut up and vote Obama!"
As for me, I believe that Obama and his supporters do not understand simple English words.
For example, the word "unity." When you are promoting "unity," that means you are promoting coming together to fight towards a common goal.
But what is that common goal? An historic loss to McCain in November? The ascendancy of an illegitimate candidate, who has rigged the nomination with the aid of the DNC and questionable caucus results in red states? The admission that sexism and misogyny are Democratic values, and that Democrats really DON'T believe in counting my vote?
These are not, I repeat, NOT, my goals for the Democratic Party. And I believe that most core Democrats would be horrified by anyone asking them to support these goals.
Therefore, "unity" is not what Obamans mean when they cajole, condescend, or abuse in order to try to force you to abandon your beliefs and vote Obama no matter what. No, what they are referring to is "submission."
Well, if there's one thing I've learned from the Democratic Party from 2006 to today, it's that submission doesn't make bullies (like Bush) back down. No, all it does is empower them.
I have no intentions of empowering the New Plutocratic Party in its desire to purge itself of All Things Clinton. As The Bowers Manifesto proved, they have no clear goals for what happens after the work of The Holy One is done, Praised Be His Name.
They can do their dirty work without my support, because I am a proud and forever Old FDR Democrat.
Or, as I call myself now, a member of the PUMA Party.
Here are the action plans:
Now that's a political organization I can be proud of.
Apparently PUMA members are a tad upset that the DNC has granted itself magical powers to give votes and delegates to a candidate whose name was not on the ballot. This was the last straw for the PUMA folks. Furthermore, they are tired of being berated and blackmailed and taunted and told, "Where else can you go? Shut up and vote Obama!"
As for me, I believe that Obama and his supporters do not understand simple English words.
For example, the word "unity." When you are promoting "unity," that means you are promoting coming together to fight towards a common goal.
But what is that common goal? An historic loss to McCain in November? The ascendancy of an illegitimate candidate, who has rigged the nomination with the aid of the DNC and questionable caucus results in red states? The admission that sexism and misogyny are Democratic values, and that Democrats really DON'T believe in counting my vote?
These are not, I repeat, NOT, my goals for the Democratic Party. And I believe that most core Democrats would be horrified by anyone asking them to support these goals.
Therefore, "unity" is not what Obamans mean when they cajole, condescend, or abuse in order to try to force you to abandon your beliefs and vote Obama no matter what. No, what they are referring to is "submission."
Well, if there's one thing I've learned from the Democratic Party from 2006 to today, it's that submission doesn't make bullies (like Bush) back down. No, all it does is empower them.
I have no intentions of empowering the New Plutocratic Party in its desire to purge itself of All Things Clinton. As The Bowers Manifesto proved, they have no clear goals for what happens after the work of The Holy One is done, Praised Be His Name.
They can do their dirty work without my support, because I am a proud and forever Old FDR Democrat.
Or, as I call myself now, a member of the PUMA Party.
Here are the action plans:
The action plan for PUMAs is:
1.) Dissociate yourself from the party. Tell them you will not be a party to its self destructive behavior.
2.) Reflect on your values. Read the credo at the top of this site and create at better one. Keep the language general and inclusive. Concentrate on universal truths and beliefs. Avoid wordsmithing.
3.) Stick together. We are powerful as a unit if we do not fall victim to the psychological warfare that is about to be directed at us. Turn off the media. Avoid conversations with trolls. Stand firm and do not yield.
4.) Remember that there is a better alternative. Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate for the party and the nation. She has a lot of support out there. The nation will rally around her if we let them know we are not giving in. We must not let her concede one inch. Stand firm. Send her your good thoughts. Send her money. Do not give up.
5.) Spread the word.
Now that's a political organization I can be proud of.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
What a Disgrace.
I wish I could say I were shocked that the DNC behaved the way it did yesterday, but at this point, I feel its only purpose is to hand the nomination to Barack Obama, as was decided months ago.
What it did was this:
Florida will have its full delegation seated - but with half a vote each.
Michigan will have its full delegation seated - but with half a vote each.
Sounds somewhat reasonable, right? After all, MI and FL violated the sacred Rules of the sacred DNC.
Except...so did Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire. Did you notice any penalties meted out to them?
Me neither.
And it gets worse.
In Michigan, the DNC decided to take delegates AWAY from Hillary and award them to Obama.
That's right - the DNC thinks it is just fine and dandy to take away delegates awarded to her by the people, and hand them over to a person who was not even on the ballot, by his own choice.
Could this be any more un-democratic?
Hillary thinks not.
Indeed. Yes, this utter travesty can, and probably will, go to the Convention, when the Credentials Committee will convene. (This remedy is within the sacred Rules of the Sacred DNC, by the way.) In August, the SuperDelegates will have one last chance to save this Party from total self-destruction.
As for the DNC, I sure hope Obama really is Jesus and Elvis rolled up into one celestial Being, because if so, maybe he's worth making a public stance that voters, and principles, don't matter to the Democratic Party.
Is the Party so idiotic as to place a false sense of Unity over legitimacy?
Apparently so.
Good luck with that, guys. Oh, and I hope you enjoy the latest surprise videotape coming from TUCC on Monday. It's not a preacher this time, but Michelle Obama herself.
Will her husband throw her under the bus along with so many others- his grandmother, his church, two of the pastors he has known for many years and who were part of his campaign..?
Tune in tomorrow for another episode of...As the Democrats Turn!
What it did was this:
Florida will have its full delegation seated - but with half a vote each.
Michigan will have its full delegation seated - but with half a vote each.
Sounds somewhat reasonable, right? After all, MI and FL violated the sacred Rules of the sacred DNC.
Except...so did Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire. Did you notice any penalties meted out to them?
Me neither.
And it gets worse.
In Michigan, the DNC decided to take delegates AWAY from Hillary and award them to Obama.
That's right - the DNC thinks it is just fine and dandy to take away delegates awarded to her by the people, and hand them over to a person who was not even on the ballot, by his own choice.
Could this be any more un-democratic?
Hillary thinks not.
Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement:
...We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.
The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
Indeed. Yes, this utter travesty can, and probably will, go to the Convention, when the Credentials Committee will convene. (This remedy is within the sacred Rules of the Sacred DNC, by the way.) In August, the SuperDelegates will have one last chance to save this Party from total self-destruction.
As for the DNC, I sure hope Obama really is Jesus and Elvis rolled up into one celestial Being, because if so, maybe he's worth making a public stance that voters, and principles, don't matter to the Democratic Party.
Is the Party so idiotic as to place a false sense of Unity over legitimacy?
Apparently so.
Good luck with that, guys. Oh, and I hope you enjoy the latest surprise videotape coming from TUCC on Monday. It's not a preacher this time, but Michelle Obama herself.
Will her husband throw her under the bus along with so many others- his grandmother, his church, two of the pastors he has known for many years and who were part of his campaign..?
Tune in tomorrow for another episode of...As the Democrats Turn!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)