I think we've been smeared. Eh, so what. Every new movement has to figure out what it's about and what it's goals are. Ours came together remarkably quickly. We're not pissed anymore. We're determined to make the powers that be, powers that were.
I've met Darragh Murphy. Darragh Murphy is a friend of mine. You will not find a more genuine, concerned, rational person than Darragh.
Christina Cedano, on the other hand, is a kool-aid drinker- by the gallons.
After the convention, all these various groups are destined for a meeting, methinks. It is time to hammer out a new party for both women and men. The Democrats have made themselves ridiculous and unreliable. We need to start a new entity that focuses on what the Democrats were supposed to be about. Then, we start small. School board elections, township committees, mayors, county freeholders. Pretty soon, we will have a base of support to run for higher office.
It came together quickly this year and the internet makes it very easy to coordinate. We will soon be a force to be reckoned with.
Come together at The Confluence

It is time to hammer out a new party for both women and men. The Democrats have made themselves ridiculous and unreliable. We need to start a new entity that focuses on what the Democrats were supposed to be about.

For this.

I'm staying in the Democratic Party in the hope that Hillary gets the nomination.

But even if she gets the nomination we need changes. The Democratic Party cannot stay what it is -- the poor sister to the Republican Party.

If Hillary wins the nomination there's a good chance we could make due with what we've got (after a serious house-cleaning.) If she doesn't? We've got to start over.

I think it is Rovian buckshot.

And I am sorry the group did not include HR 676 and abortion. On the other hand, from a political point of view, we might not want HR 676 conflated with this movement right now.

Getting Matthews fired would be excellent.

the fact that we had to struggle and be granted that which should have been a right only made things worse. Although, it would have been really bad if they had forced her off the ballot. Don't understand why they don't understand that HRC represents half the Democratic party.

I've never voted for a Republican in my life.

-- And I don't plan to this year either.

I didn't mean to suggest that YOU smeared us. I'm saying that people like Cedano and others have done a pretty good job of dehumanizing us.
Actually, Lambert, I know you need to keep your objectivity but your heart belongs to PUMA.
And we're not giving it back. Bwahahahahahaaaaaah!!!
Come together at The Confluence

hopefully this becomes a sustained movement.

But at the present time, PUMA is a loose coalition for a reason. There is strength in numbers even if we do have some tinfoily outliers. They don't want to vote for Obama and they are giving oppo research a crack.
I too have been a little thrown by some of the members we have in the coalition but I know that they are vastly outnumbered by the ordinary average, hard-working, non-racist, hearts of Democrats voters.
Come together at The Confluence

Any kind of attention can be turned into a positive (sounds like something Reille Hunter would say, huh?). This kind of smear action calls everyone's attention to PUMA. That's what we want. Look at us, we're speaking to you.

The fact that the critics are concerned enough to find out the details of the PUMA convention, speaks volumes.

As a PUMA I can say I don't always relish the schtick that goes along with it but the intent is pure and well motivated. It's not about Hillary. It's not about Obama. It's about the democratic process and how it was bypassed in the democratic primaries. (speaking for myself only.)
I love this job!

I love this job!

And I'm happy that Roe isn't at the top of their list. The only reason we get beat up with Roe is because the Democrats have caved on virtually every other issue that would make women's lives better. It's the same with minorities and affirmative action. They've backed off every policy that would help make society more equal and have allowed both Roe and affirmative action to be narrowed to the point of near uselessness for many people, but hey if you don't vote for us in November you won't even have this one pathetic thing. Fuck that noise. Sadly, I think women will have to inflict pain on the Democrats to get any attention on their issues and that always risks making a Republican president, which is worse for women in the short run. But right now, we're on a long run to watching our rights erode as people who take credit for protecting them don't actually protect them and many have shown themselves to either hate women or be perfectly fine with people who hate women.

One of the best pieces of writing I've seen about how the Supreme Court argument reveals how bad Democrats have treated women and people of color comes from Adolph Reed, Jr., in The Black Agenda Report:

I'm increasingly convinced that the courts issue looms so large because the liberals have given away everything else. It feels ever more the property of Dem hacks who have to strain to find any basis for plausible product differentiation during election season. (A friend used to maintain that there's so little difference between the two parties in this bipartisan era that people determine their allegiances in the same ways they sort themselves into Ford and Chevy people. Now I think it's more like Buick v. Pontiac; they have the same structure and frame, same engine, and same chassis design - just different flourishes and labels.) It's a deal-maker only if you accept the premise that formal preservation of Roe v. Wade is the paramount issue, the sine qua non, of gender justice in the United States or that holding on to the shreds of a mangled, "mended" version of affirmative action is the same for blacks. Those two areas don't stand out so much when you add up everything the Dems have caved on that has more directly injurious effects on black people and women, often with more direct and persisting impact on reproductive freedom - or "choice" in the liberals' capitulationist parlance - and economic security than abortion rights, which are exercised, at best, episodically, and affirmative action, the meaningful scope of which is effectively reduced by retreats in other policy areas. For openers, just think of comparable worth, welfare reform, publicly supported child care, cuts in Federal urban aid, education, the War on Drugs, NAFTA, the ethnic cleansing program of HOPE VI, corporate health care, privatization, abetting union-busting, fetishizing deficit reduction, as only among the most obvious areas where they've rolled over. For most blacks and women, most of the time, abortion rights and affirmative action are at best more symbolic than practically meaningful, particularly in a context in which in all those other areas that affect their lives directly, the Dems have already given away the store. Trying to stoke hysteria around abortion rights and affirmative action looks more and more like a feeble attempt to deflect attention from that fact, and to convince people who don't stand to get much from a Dem victory that they should commit to them anyway - for the sake of those who do stand to benefit. I've finally realized what this move is all about: what makes the Dems every four years "better" is always something that the hacks and yuppies are likely to imagine getting if they win, and their disgusting moralizing about the imperative to vote for their "lesser evil" - which means "I may get what's important for me, but you have to recognize that what you need is naïve or impractical" -- is all about bullying the rest of us into believing we have an obligation to vote for what's good for them.

Don't get me wrong, reproductive freedom is key to women's liberation, but Roe is not the end all, be all of reproductive freedom. Birth control access, paid maternity leave, and paid sick leave and family leave (women tend to have more health issues and are more likely to care for young children) are all part of that choice. But hey so long as you can drive 6 hours to have an abortion, you have "choice." Of course, if your pharmacist hadn't refused to sell you emergency contraception, you might not need an abortion, but his religious freedom to oppress you is more important than your control over your own body.

And I'm not surprised Dean is just now waking up. Many in the liberal establishment are just clueless, including Dean. One of the dumbest things I've seen was a panel with that chick from the Nation, Kristen van Whatever, at Emily's List. It was the day that Dean finally -FINALLY - said something about the sexist media coverage, after Hillary had conceded of course - and when she referenced it as if this was some great thing, Dean's name got booed. She actually seemed surprised that by it and asked if it was about Florida and Michigan. It clearly was not. Finally, someone explained to her that it was because Dean had sat silent until the primary was over and then acted like he suddenly discovered the sexism. To her credit, Salon's Rebecca Traister knew exactly why women were angry with Dean and the party.

I think it's telling about where the Democrats are headed that almost every single VP selection name floated has been hostile to many women's issues or has a lousy record. Biden with Anita Hill. Kaine, Hagel, and several others are anti-choice. Even if none of these people end up the nominee, I think it's telling that they don't care how it looks to women that the VP short list sucks on women's issues. They'd rather suck up to Rick Warren.

I've been saying for some time, we're entering a period of great promise and great danger for women in this country. Or rather we've been in one but it took Clinton's candidacy and the reaction to it (especially from some we thought of as allies on the "left") to wake many of us up to the fact that not only does the fight go on, but that all of our opponents don't have an (R) after their name.

And so I've just about had it with pious lectures from Democrats about how much worse McCain will be. A women's political action group separate from both parties that cares only about issues seems absolutely crucial to me. As Melissa McEwan noted when Kaine was picked to give the response to the SOTU (then the issue was his gay baiting and support for Virginia's noxious amendment stripping gay couples of rights):

Some of the commenters at Pam’s place are arguing, “Gay rights isn’t the only issue.” True enough. But let me respond to that notion with this: Taxation without representation was an important enough issue for this country to declare its independence and fight a Revolutionary War. Equal rights was an important enough issue for this country to split into two and fight a Civil War. If you enjoy representation and equality as a result, you need to take a long look in the mirror and consider what it means that you’ll gladly give up someone else’s rights to the same without a fight.

And if that still doesn’t make you give a flying shit about this, then consider instead that in the Dems’ move rightward as they chase an elusive victory, they’re willing to throw gays to the wolves—and women’s right to choice is next on the chopping block. Already we’re seeing Dems who support disastrous legislation like parental notification laws or are openly pro-life, if not explicitly anti-choice. What’s next? Who’s next? What will be your turning point before you finally stand up and say enough as enough?

If you’ve ever wondered why moderate Republicans and genuine conservatives didn’t do more to stop their party from disintegrating into the sorry state of hateful anti-Americanism it has become, maybe it was just because they were willing to sacrifice too much to win, and realized only after it was too late at what a steep cost such a victory comes.

other than addressing the wrongs that transpired during the democratic primaries, including but limited to, caucus manipulation and the awarding of delegates. I speak for myself only.

I love this job!

I love this job!

should be saddled with my mind, it's brokey.

I love this job!

I have been so DEEPLY disappointed in the traditional, uh - so-called, women's groups this primary season. I'm not sure what they are standing for anymore. Certainly not anything that will make my life better or even anything that might make my daughter's life better when she grows up.

I think many of us have experienced our own pockets of sexism and misogeny during our lives, but somehow convinced ourselves that it was just THAT person or situation. This primary ripped those blinders away. To do nothing but fall in line? What can we possibly "hope" to "change" with that approach?

I wouldn't care if Rove was the ringleader of PUMA - it would still be the right battle. I suppose that is easy to say since I was there when the baby PUMA was born.

but real life is very busy right now (with good things thankfully, but life changes take time and energy even when they're good ones).

Despite the epic length of my last comment, it didn't address all the issues I wanted to. In case I don't get a chance to put it all together in a post, I would like to add a couple of thoughts about PUMAs, the New Agenda, and the nature of grassroots movements.

I think it's too early to judge whether the New Agenda is a grassroots movement or not. Just because the women involved have money and connections, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't grassroots. It appears that they are being driven to organize not by political parties or other corporate entities, but because as individuals they are upset and want to take action. That's grassroots is it not? Whether it stays that way, is another matter.

I have no idea whether the New Agenda or the PUMAs or any of these groups will grow into anything, so what I'm cheering is the fact that women (and some men) who were upset with the primary process are working towards figuring out how best to express that anger and change things. I'm particularly heartened to see women discussing how to organize and exercise political power. Not everyone will agree on the best way, especially this year, but I'm looking past the election and many of these women appear to be as well. How do you get both political parties to do more for women? Sure, the GOP is naturally hostile, but that doesn't mean that some gains can't be made or the damage lessened. We cannot simply rely on the Democrats as a party (as opposed to individual Dems) to provide some huge pushback can we?*

There will be some ratfucking in these new groups, but that's inevitable. Political parties always try to take advantage of the perceived weakness of their opponent. Why do you think Obama is sucking up to Warren? Because the CW is that McCain isn't strong with the evangelicals (I suspect the CW here is as wrong as it usually is, but the Dems love listening to it). The main thing that's heartening to me is that women are trying to do something. Whether it turns into anything or not, who knows, but I admire and respect the attempt.

And I do think this kind of loose affiliations is the best right now as people feel their way through this thing - trying to figure out who are their natural allies and what tactics they can agree on. Different folks will advocate different things and I suspect, as a result, different organizations or affiliations will shake out as a result (and during that shake out, I suspect a lot of the ratfuckers will be identified and fall by the wayside).

* If you do expect it, let me remind you that the Dems have shown no restraint in actively touting sexist assholes many of whom are hostile to reproductive freedom as potentially wonderful picks for VP, see e.g., Biden, Hagel, Kaine, while dissing Hillary Clinton. This is not some happy accident. It's a sign of which voters the Democratic Party cares about making happy.

so much commenty goodness --especially BD's big comment (definitely post-worthy!)-- that I so much to say that I can't say anything!

He's just the easiest to point to because he's on his way to being head of the party and, even if he somehow manages to lose in November, there will be another one behind him because that's what the party wants. He's the symbol for the larger problem, that's all.

BTW, if Obama falters, then I think Mark Warner will be up next. He's the next "rising star" and the keynote speaker this year.

He put up a post "Making Pay Equity a Campaign Issue" and I responded that:

"This campaign is about personalities, not issues.

If we wanted a campaign about issues, we would nominate Hillary.

If we wanted to win, we would nominate Hillary.

His response:

If you want to make it a campaign about issues start talking about issues and stop talking about the past.

I feel soooooo much better now that I've gotten over it. Thanks Chris!

/snark

------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan

I never expected a photo with me in it to show up on a news site (save, perhaps, as part of an obituary). And, lo, what should I see, but an op-ed on AOL News using an image taken at the Democratic Platform Committee Meeting and originally posted on No Quarter. It's not exactly responsible journalism there, failing to caption and credit the photo. Ergo, allow me to do what the hack at AOL failed to: "Supporters of Hillary Clinton stand together at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh before the Democratic Platform Committee convenes. Photo by ProudMilitaryMom."

Speaking only for myself, I can say that I am not a republican - merely a thoroughly disgusted Democrat.

Whatever happened to the E.R.A.?

Since there are other elements of the Constitution that are obviously being currently disregarded, an amendment may seem only symbolic.

But it would be a positive symbol.

Then the guys can say "okay, lady, you got your rights, NOW what do you want?"

Then we can show them the rest of the agenda.

I mean, really, there are regular proposals to amend the constitution to ban flag burning, define marriage as heterosexual and other b.s.

Why has no one re-introduced the ERA?

Although it's supposedly in the draft of this year's (I haven't seen the draft so I don't know). Of course, at this point it's pretty meaningless since no one ever mentions it or campaigns for it. Yet another thing the Democrats gave up in order to be "pragmatic."