Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

It depends on the question of what's most important, doesn't it?

[This seems to be getting reasoned responses -- the best are the ones that answer all the questions. So I'll sticky it.--lambert]

That is, my vote -- which I haven't decided to give to anyone, though I'm leaning Green, since I'm in a solidly Blue state -- depends on a lot of factors, and how I weigh them. One thing: It's simply not true to say there are only "TWO" alternatives.

1. Is loyalty to the D most important to you? If yes, then vote for Obama. Period.

2. Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you? If yes, then you are probably concerned with process violations at the RBC and in the caucuses. If yes, then you could withhold your vote for the top of the ticket, or vote for McCain.

3. Do you believe that voting for the best candidate for President is most important, and that [McCain|Obama] is that candidate? Then vote for [McCain|Obama]**.

4. Is the Democratic platform* most important to you, and do you believe that Obama will be able/is willing to carry it out? If yes, then vote for Obama.

5. Do you believe that expressing your preference for Hillary Clinton is most important? If yes, then if your state permits that, write in her name.

6. Do you believe that building alternatives to the [D|R] Party is most important? If yes, vote for that alternative party.

7. Do you believe that Obama deserves a popular mandate? If yes, vote for Obama.

8. Do you believe that Obama will be more effective in implementing Shock Doctrine policies than McCain? If yes, then vote for McCain.

9. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, then vote for McCain.

10. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, vote McCain.

11. Do you believe that you should vote for Obama because Hillary asked on his behalf? If yes, vote for Obama.

Added:

12. Do you believe that HR 676 (single payer) is most important? If so, vote for Obama; we're more likely to be able to force him to sign it than McCain. [Hat tip DCBlogger]

13. Do you believe that long-term progressive goals are most important? If yes, calculate your strategic position and vote accordingly [Hat tip paul_lukasiak]

And so on.

My state is reliably blue, so my vote won't affect the outcome, accept insofar as I deny Obama the perception of a popular mandate (see #6). In fact, I might conclude that's a good thing (see #7), and I also want to punish my thoroughly corrupt D establishment, so I just might vote Green.

But it's a long time 'til the election. I could still change my mind!

NOTE * Our expression of policies, and this year apparently driven from the grass roots, though I don't recall that aspect got a lot of play at the Convention. Readers?

NOTE ** There really is no point arguing that McCain is a force for evil, Republicans suck, McCain is a Republican and sucks too, Roe Roe Roe Roe Roe, et cetera. Again, the preamble to the D platform:

A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division ...

Meaning that, according to the Ds and Obama, a McCain choice is just as legitimate as an Obama choice. Now, you may not believe that, but Obama and his party do.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

what's most important to me is getting my country back?

You know, with the fourth amendment, and habeas corpus, and one person one vote, and all those quaint old-fashioned "September 10" notions of which my head and heart remain full and fond?

Not to mention the separation of church and state, or fair funding for infrastructure that creates and maintains the common good, or even ending this damn senseless vanity war.

And yes, I live in Texas.

So my vote at the top of the ticket is apt to have all the impact of ... a AA-battery-powered necklace fan against a hurricane.

But this election isn't just about what I want the party leadership to know I think.

It's way more important than that.

And Hillary Clinton has done the one thing the Party/OFB has not: she's asked me to vote Democratic, support the candidate, in the general.

I'd be pretty damn two-faced to ignore that, wouldn't I?


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

... but as far as a reason to vote, I'm not sure why the person asking me matters. But maybe it does.

UPDATED Added, hope not tendentiously. Although I don't think getting the country back is on the menu of options, no matter what Hillary asks; FISA.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

They've made it crystal-clear that the issues and stances Hillary championed are not at all their priority.

I'd ask what she asked--why did you vote for her in the primaries? (if you did)

If it was the issues, then listening to her request--when the party hasn't and isn't-- doesn't really help, does it?

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

because if we can't get the country back ... what are we bothering for?


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

... though at least I can give my own corrupt D governor kick in the pants, and hopefully an R Senator.

UPDATE I do think we won't get our country back with anything that's on offer now.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

1. Is loyalty to the D most important to you?

NEVER. The Democrats used to be the party of racists. They may yet become one again. Bottom line is, party platforms change. My loyalty is to principles, not parties.

2. Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you?

Somewhat. Parties can do whatever they want, they are private organizations. I vote on basis of candidates and their qualifications, how they got selected is secondary to me.

3. Do you believe that voting for the best candidate for President is most important, and that [McCain|Obama] is that candidate? Then vote for [McCain|Obama]**.

Yes, and I feel McCain is that candidate.

3. Is the Democratic platform* most important to you, and do you believe that Obama will be able/is willing to carry it out? If yes, then vote for Obama.

I believe Obama is a cynical opportunist with no discernible principles other than pursuit of power for himself. Therefore it matters little what the platform says. I see no guarantee he'll work to advance it.

4. Do you believe that expressing your preference for Hillary Clinton is most important? If yes, then if your state permits that, write in her name.

My support for Hillary Clinton has been diminished by her embrace of Obama. She is demonstrating that party loyalty is paramount to her. That is not my preference, therefore I am no longer interested in writing her in.

5. Do you believe that building alternatives to the [D|R] Party is most important? If yes, vote for that party.

The US political system is hard-wired for two parties only. Third parties are good only for protest votes.

6. Do you believe that Obama deserves a popular mandate? If yes, vote for Obama.

No. I have no idea what Obama wants to do. Giving him a popular mandate would be a gross mistake.

7. Do you believe that Obama will be more effective in implementing Shock Doctrine tactics than McCain? If yes, then vote for McCain.

Very well put! Indeed, only a Democrat can successfully assail Social Security, Medicare, other such institutions. I am concerned that Obama might be that Democrat, given the dog-whistles he's sounded on Social Security crisis, things like that. McCain, by contrast, will leave them alone.

8. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, then vote for McCain.

Yes, that is a consideration for me, but not a very important one.

9. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, vote McCain.

Yes, that is very important to me.

10. Do you believe that you should vote for Obama because Hillary asked on his behalf? If yes, vote for Obama.

No. She's endorsed Obama even though she knows he is not qualified for the job. Frankly, that endorsement might have come under some duress and pressure (rather likely, given the strident calls on her to deliver her supporters to him). Sorry, I am not a package to be delivered.

Thanks you for posting this questionnaire, by the way.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Can anybody figure why that McCain pick would cause me to look sort of positively at someone I had absolutely refused to vote for (Obama)?

Because by any measure, she's horrible horrible horrible on core issues such as oil development, god, abortions, and gays. I once swore that I'd only go for Obama if McCain picked Huckabee (a genuinely likable personality, with his own god streak a mile wide) because the combo would be electoral dynamite.

But I slap myself on the wrist when I think in terms of "strategy" because there's so much going on I don't know. I don't REALLY know that a state is going red or blue. I don't REALLY know that the country will go red or blue.

But in those moments when I am assessing McCain's chances, just for kicks and giggles, Palin makes him stronger. I think that's one thing that is very very clear.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

First and foremost, they were Nader-enablers.

And in local politics in the Philly area, they seem out to do nothing but play spoilers on Democrats in local races. I don't get it. They strike me as bullies out to do something because they can but who refuse to actually do something to reduce the number of Republicans showing up for work at City Hall and in Harrisburg.

I know not all Ds are (small g) green, but I just can't support this systematic effort to tear down the Democratic Party.

Submitted by WRhouse on

Since the Dems have been in control of Philly's mayoral office since Rizzo in left in 1980, how do you fault the Green party for Repubs. in City Hall? And for that matter, why do you hold the Green party responsible for Democrats not winning in the Republican hinterlands

--------------------------------------------------
"Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
Carl Schurz - U.S. Senator 1/17/1872

carissa's picture
Submitted by carissa on

1. Is loyalty to the D most important to you? If yes, then vote for Obama. Period.

It used to be, until I realized that the D wasn't loyal to me.

2. Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you? If yes, then you are probably concerned with process violations at the RBC and in the caucuses. If yes, then you could withhold your vote for the top of the ticket, or vote for McCain.

Extremely important to me. The difference between the R and D primary season was like night and day. Biggest issue: Michigan and Florida. R's handled their misbehaving states without too much pain. What the Dems did is unforgiveable, and an obvious move to put the brakes on Clinton.

3. Do you believe that voting for the best candidate for President is most important, and that [McCain|Obama] is that candidate? Then vote for [McCain|Obama]**.

On experience and core convictions, even though I don't agree with him, I'd lean to McCain on this one.

4. Is the Democratic platform* most important to you, and do you believe that Obama will be able/is willing to carry it out? If yes, then vote for Obama.

What's to carry out? It's been so watered down that I hardly know what they want to do.

5. Do you believe that expressing your preference for Hillary Clinton is most important? If yes, then if your state permits that, write in her name.

Not allowed in my state. Would that I could.

6. Do you believe that building alternatives to the [D|R] Party is most important? If yes, vote for that party.

No party is particularly attractive to me right now. The Greens have had how long to get their act together? Feh.

7. Do you believe that Obama deserves a popular mandate? If yes, vote for Obama.

Gawd, no.

8. Do you believe that Obama will be more effective in implementing Shock Doctrine policies than McCain? If yes, then vote for McCain.

So what you're saying is that either way, we're fucked, right? We get shock doctrine, regardless.

9. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, then vote for McCain.

Yes, this is hugely important. The Democratic leadership is rotten to the core, and the rot starts at the top. And it's not just because of the election, but the last eight years of complete and utter spinelessness.

10. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, vote McCain.

The most important reason. End of discussion.

11. Do you believe that you should vote for Obama because Hillary asked on his behalf? If yes, vote for Obama.

I love her. I respect her. But no. And why should it only be her doing the asking? Does HE ever plan on asking for my vote?

Submitted by ralphb on

Mike j, We agree on every single point. All 10 questions.

McCain's daughter Meghan has a cute campaign trail blog here. No contribute buttons, just an online diary with some good photos.

http://www.mccainblogette.com/

The crowds have improved like crazy since he picked Palin.

Submitted by lambert on

Are there bunnies? G-o-o-d ...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I think process should be Party invariant. The GOP cheats, we all are aware of that from 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, among other things. The RBC and caucuses are pretty strong evidences for me of Dems cheating. To me personally (and you don't have to agree or expect judgment from me, just as I don't judge carnivores), a vote for Obama is a vote to say that manipulating elections is now a legitimate way to "play". Ultimately, I find this worse than any thing McCain can reasonably get away with in four years.

What's that saying about "security" (not having McCain) at the expense of liberties (legit elections)? McCain doesn't look attractive on other civil liberties, but I can't in good conscience give up my right to have legitimate elections since I find that a more fundamental liberty. I would say the same if you exchange the players (Obama, Hillary, McCain/Palin) with each other. That's what Party Invariance entails. I couldn't vote for Hillary if she stole the election the way Obama did.

I could be wrong in my calculus, but that's what it is. Judge me, hate me, ridicule me. Doesn't matter. I'm a racist so being called stupid, naïve, etc. doesn't phase me anymore.

Only tyrants rig elections.

hells kitchen's picture
Submitted by hells kitchen on

We've reached this point because of years of moving the goal posts.

"This is a sneaky action. Is anybody looking? No? good."

And so it goes year after year. In 2000, I was so stunned that there was no organized response to the fraud in Florida. Where was the Democratic Party? Where was some group with an interest if fair elections.

OK, I thought, this won't happen again. In 2004, we'll be prepared. Nope.

In 2006 we elected a House and Senate victory. The tide has turned. Things will change. Nope.

As Reid and Pelosi repeatedly caved and made excuses, I started getting the sick feeling that they didn't want things to change. It was their turn to have all that power. And that seems to be a reasonable hyposthesis.

So we reach a spot where we have to take a stand but none of the choices are palatable.

carissa's picture
Submitted by carissa on

Judge me, hate me, ridicule me. Doesn’t matter.

Ditto. I am so beyond caring what anyone thinks any more.

Submitted by lambert on

It's the intertubes; they hiccup. Nothing we did.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I'd say 90% of the arguments about my vote since June have been because of assumptions about the premises I'm using (or must be compelled to use) to make my decision.

I'm actually 'Yes' on these:
2. democratic principles; 8. shock doctrine; 9. get rid of current Dem leadership; 10. purge misogyny.

Which means I should vote for McCain, but can't quite bring myself to. (although the daily behavior of the SCLM and the progressive blogs pushes me closer each minute). So I'm going with the NOT: Nothing on Top. Voting downticket only.

What a colossal fubar this election turned out to be.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

I'm completely confused. And I'm too old to be confused. Normally when I'm confused I like to go outside and listen to the insects and squirrels and wind in the trees. I did that yesterday, I'm not saying it helped....

A very disturbing quality of the modern age is that we have more information than ever before and more time to contemplate the information we receive, but also arguably at the same time less power than ever before over the outcome of our own lives.

That combination can lead to some really bizarre convictions/conclusions and I think it is important to realize the power of the dynamic in the equation. Someone brought up a while back experiments where monkeys were set up with a game where the outcome was not "fair". Where rewards were not equitably given based on the monkeys behavior. They went "ape-shit" (please excuse the pun). We are in a similar situation now I think. People work their hearts out and discover they got screwed, that they were screwed even before the game got played. The house always wins.

But there are some people who don't believe the house always wins, or more specifically they believe that they are smarter than the house. Right now I would call those people "Uncritical Obama and McCain Supporters". If you don't think that in this political game you are the mark, the rube, the patsy, then you probably also believe you can "beat the house". And that's cool, I personally don't believe it so I'm playing knowing full well no matter what, I won't win.

At TL they've been arguing whether Obama plays poker and/or McCain plays craps. Well, that's a stupid analogy, but it does reinforce what I'm saying. It doesn't matter the game, the house always wins.

What a happy note!

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

Submitted by hipparchia on

A very disturbing quality of the modern age is that we have more information than ever before and more time to contemplate the information we receive, but also arguably at the same time less power than ever before over the outcome of our own lives.

i'm not sure we have less power than before. i think it's more likely that the increased information is responsible for our knowing just how little power we've got.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

although the daily behavior of the SCLM and the progressive blogs pushes me closer each minute

Turn off as much as you can. The bad, bad behaviour of this year's "Democratic" hooligans should NOT chase you away or towards someone. This year, more than most, I think, you have to ignore that instinct to judge a candidate by who his "friends" are.

If you are worried about the nature of Obama's somewhat bigger and badder friends (GE/MSNBC), or the undue influence of poll reports, I don't know what to say except "tune out". Don't let them spoil you for the decision you ultimately have to make alone. Take any other route, and you'll be kicking yourself the morning after...

Submitted by lambert on

We learned that with Bush. So you can't just factor out the "friends."

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by cg.eye on

and if I'm left alone with the 'candidate' to judge, all I'm doing is measuring the effectiveness of his marketing.

Money determines policy.

For HRC, it was the advisors who turned on her and derided her that made her more desirable to me as president, near the end of her campaign. As she lost what few friends she had in the Village she gained in stature, because that indicated a possibility she could stand to do the right thing even though she'd make more enemies.

hells kitchen's picture
Submitted by hells kitchen on

1. Is loyalty to the D most important to you? If yes, then vote for Obama. Period.

A lifelong D from a family who were D's from FDR on, I feel like a refugee.

2. Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you? If yes, then you are probably concerned with process violations at the RBC and in the caucuses. If yes, then you could withhold your vote for the top of the ticket, or vote for McCain.

democracy is the first value. all other values flow from it.

3. Do you believe that voting for the best candidate for President is most important, and that [McCain|Obama] is that candidate? Then vote for [McCain|Obama]**.

I would believe in this if there were, in fact, a superior choice.

4. Is the Democratic platform* most important to you, and do you believe that Obama will be able/is willing to carry it out? If yes, then vote for Obama.

What does Obama stand for? At best, it seems to be Obama.

5. Do you believe that expressing your preference for Hillary Clinton is most important? If yes, then if your state permits that, write in her name.

I've thought about that. I don't know about NJ.

6. Do you believe that building alternatives to the [D|R] Party is most important? If yes, vote for that alternative party.

I believe in rebuilding/repairing the D party.

7. Do you believe that Obama deserves a popular mandate? If yes, vote for Obama.

The last thing in the world Obama needs is a mandate.

8. Do you believe that Obama will be more effective in implementing Shock Doctrine policies than McCain? If yes, then vote for McCain.

I think it's a draw

9. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, then vote for McCain.

See Answer below

10. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, vote McCain.

Accomplishing 9 and 10 are going to need more than voting for McCain.

The truth is, given a decent candidate, I would never even think of voting for McCain. Even if he is not as right-wing as the most conservative elements of the party, the i.o.u.s that he is going to amass will give the right wingers access to the halls of power that we have been cut off from for 8 years already. I can't pull that lever

11. Do you believe that you should vote for Obama because Hillary asked on his behalf? If yes, vote for Obama.

I own my vote.

This is a horrible election year.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Yeah, the Rs have the evil base, and the Ds the good one. And that's not random, that's not a matter of my taste and opinion, that's years of finely tuned, evil platforms and evil policies, etc.

What I think I was trying to say is that I feel people are getting too wound up and confused and influenced by hateful and stupid Obama supporters.

I guess I should not have tried to make it sound like I was offering neutral advice to D and R alike. I wasn't. I assume I'm addressing Democrats here - possibly angry at the OFB on the web and in the media - and while I believe personally that there are PLENTY of reasons to reject BO this Fall, you as a voter cannot let our new and annoying guests be your main reason. If you do, then, evil guys (possibly ratfuckers) will have deprived you your free will as expressed with literally the last and only voice you have left in 2008 as a Democrat - i.e., a secret ballot vote in November that's NOT going to be counted by one of Pelosi's secret committees.

Here's an alternative for angry people like me: vote Obama and impeach Pelosi. Just the sound of that makes me happy.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

First of all, they run for Phila. City Council positions, and City Council works in City Hall. *Twirl*

And for that matter, why do you hold the Green party responsible for Democrats not winning in the Republican hinterlands

Um, \/\/hat. Ever.

If you've got a largely 2 party setup, your third party guy or gal is hoping to decrease the number of either party A or party B. In the city, they don't make a dent so much, but there are state races, and that's where elitist, latte-sipping liberals like myself get screwed again and again.

But hey, knock yourself out. You've got nothing to lose.

And have I mentioned, they enabled Nader??

Submitted by WRhouse on

and it cost him votes. The Dems and Donna B. didn't take Nader seriously enough to try and get those votes, running away from Bill was not a good strategy at that time. And yeah, I voted for Al that year and for Kerry when he ran. So please stop blaming Ralph for the Dems inability to run up voter totals already, and for not contesting Florida's Repb. vote stealing
-------------------------------------------------------
"Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
Carl Schurz - U.S. Senator 1/17/1872

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Yeah, that sounds better than it did 5 minutes ago.

I'd pledge a vote for Obama in exchange for Nancy Pelosi immediately resigning her house seat and sitting out the next 2 elections.

Diehard Obamaphiles keep asking me "What will it take? What will it take?" and I just figured it out.

Thanks, Corrente!!!

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Lambert, I'm confused as to your answers for the following questions:

2. Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you?

- How in the world would voting for McCain (or any Republican) display a loyalty to small-D democratic pinciples?

9. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important?

- See question in #2

10. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important?

- See question in #2 and #9

I guess you're seeing a pattern. Others have already said it over the last few months and weeks, but how does voting for McCain automatically equate to change in the Democratic Party? If losing was a positively transformative force for the Democrats, it should have been positively changed and affected ten times over, by now.

Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you? Hell, yeah, it is. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important? Ditto. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important? WTF?! Are you reading my mind?! Get out of my head. How more forcefully could I affirm?

If loyalty to democratic princples is most important, to you, how could you vote for, and even suggest as an option voting for, a Republican Party who've damn-near perfected the arts and sciences of spying, voter fraud/suppresion, war-mongering etc...

I can understand the McCain vote purely as a protest vote. But, I think it's misleading and irresponsible for progressives to lead on that voting for McCain somehow has a positive effect on ridding the Democratic Party of misogyny and those that allowed it. That's offering false hope, period.

So, I want us to be very careful when we talk about voting options for November, and to be realistic (as oppossed to misleading) about the positive outcomes of such options.

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

DamonMI:

how does voting for McCain automatically equate to change in the Democratic Party?

If losing was a positively transformative force for the Democrats, it should have been positively changed and affected ten times over, by now.

You only say that because you're cynical. You've been beaten down by politics as usual. Have hope!

(Honestly, man - I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but that exchange is pretty much a taste of our daily diet for far too many months now...)

There's another criterion - one which I discovered within myself a long time ago. Namely: I can't put my John Hancock on this shit sandwich. I simply can't.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I really didn't mean to be negative, but I'm simply exasperated. I'm tired with the folks who decided that the convention changed something, and so now they are obligated to "vote for the Democratic Party/platform" which is a roundabout way of justifying voting for Obama. But, I'm equally fed up with the pathological rationalization that voting for McCain is anything more than a protest vote. McCain/The Republican Party aren't the solution to the Democrat's cannibalization or getting the Democrat's to act Democratically, at least not to the degree I think some are selling it. I just think we need to be realistic about our unfortunate circumstance, and to realize that it's going to take A LOT more than a Democratic defeat in November to effect positive change within the party.

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

wiggles's picture
Submitted by wiggles on

I don't get number 10. That voting for McCain is the best way to root out misogyny among the Democrats.

Thinking aloud, I guess a McCain win would make a statement to the fact that the Republicans have actually defended their candidate from sexist attacks and that that - surprisingly enough - appeals to female voters, and that female voters aren't a one-issue special interest niche that will fall in line if you simply utter the magic words, "Roe v Wade."

And if Obama wins, the establishment and the Cheetos Brigade will see it as a big sign that misogyny works and is socially and morally acceptable.

Problem is, whenever Republicans win, the stupid Dems just scootch further to the right, thinking that's what voters want while the disillusioned left stays at home or writes in cartoon characters. If McCain wins, the Dems will become even bigger namby-pamby clergy suck-ups than they already have. And the Republicans will get even more psychotic about guns and abortion and oil wars.

Personally, I think a big uptick in votes for the Green party would do a better job of waking up the Dems and getting them to start thinking about representing their base again. McKinney and Clemente are both women (of color even) and women's rights are way at the top of the Greens' agenda. So I'll probably be going that way.

I'm also still considering writing in HRC, but that determination is fading, especially since she's begging me not to. There's an off off off chance that I might muster some thin shred of hope that Obama's finally picked up his clue phone if he reigns in his fan club's attacks on Palin and starts talking seriously about sexism. And monkeys might fly out of my butt, you never know.

That said, if another dude comes at me with the RoeRoeRoe! club I might vote for McCain out of pure spite. I'm not in a swing state, so I can do that.

Submitted by lambert on

... that the losers would get purged. It's a Trotsky-ite "worse is better" position, IMNSHO, but I've heard it expressed, and so I added it in.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

1. Is loyalty to the D most important to you?
not especially. i've been a registered d all my voting life, but that's only because there isn't an anarchy party.

2. Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you? If yes, then you are probably concerned with process violations at the RBC and in the caucuses.
actually, the principles of democracy, populism, and anarchy, all of which i've espoused at one time or another, and debated with all my dis/reputable friends who wish for one or another of these forms of non/government, are all antithetical to what i want, which is pretty much what the constitutional republic, complete with the new deal and great society reforms, has the potential to be: a way of providing equitably for all, protecting the weak from the powerful, making nobody into an outcast, and staying the heck out of everyone's personal business, and stepping in to help on the world stage only if asked, and only after much deliberation. probably means a write-in vote for kucinich.

3. Do you believe that voting for the best candidate for President is most important, and that [McCain|Obama] is that candidate?
can we all march to washington on jan 21, carrying dennis kucinich on our shoulders, and install him in the oval office?

4. Is the Democratic platform* most important to you, and do you believe that Obama will be able/is willing to carry it out?
teh democratic party platform is teh suxxor.

5. Do you believe that expressing your preference for Hillary Clinton is most important?
we need more women in government. if my state has a write-in line on the ballot, i may do this. or vote for cynthia mckinney, i know she's going to be on my ballot.

6. Do you believe that building alternatives to the [D|R] Party is most important?
organization is evil. i'd like to build alternatives to the party system itself. i still want hillary to run as an independent. i know, pie in the sky.

7. Do you believe that Obama deserves a popular mandate?
actually, i do believe the first glass-ceiling-breakers of all stripes, the first aa, the first woman, the first jew, the first wev, deserve popular mandates. outside of his taking a hard turn to the left between now and nov, this may be the reason i decide to vote for obama, but it's not cast in concrete that i'll do so.

8. Do you believe that Obama will be more effective in implementing Shock Doctrine policies than McCain?
the democrats, as far as i can see, are going to bring us a kinder gentler shock doctrine than the republicans would like, which is about all the difference i can discern between the two parties at present.

9. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important?
see 6 above.

10. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important?
voting for mccain would only combat this misogyny if you then write to the democratic party leaders, and write letters to the editor, and write on blogs, and otherwise trumpet to the high heavens, that you're casting your vote for the party that will cheerfully put women in positions of real power, and gee how unfortunate that this time it's the republican party doing that.

11. Do you believe that you should vote for Obama because Hillary asked on his behalf?
and in exchange for voting for obama, hillary will make it her life's mission to pass hr 676? in that case, yes, i would vote for whoever she tells me to vote for.

Submitted by cg.eye on

in the nation's future, without using surrogates, with the mantle of full candidate upon him... and he's, er, muffed it.

Talking about sexism isn't just "oh stop picking on the mom in a family crisis who's also a candidate"; it's also "how do we support working mothers who *can't* afford to have a parent to stay at home"? It's "how do we get those nummy pro-family pro-woman initiatives off the ground"? And, let's not forget "what will the Democratic-controlled Congress fucking *do* when we get back in session, to help the lives of women"?

You know -- *policies*

Submitted by cg.eye on

He could have talked about the Democratic agenda concerning women on Friday, as a *positive* way of countering Palin's announcement.

And, he could have gone deeper into those issues *while denouncing all sexist attacks on female candidates*, over this weekend.

See? Hillary wouldn't even have to had gotten out of bed, to help the Democratic Party rebond with its female base.

daily democrat's picture
Submitted by daily democrat on

1_Dem Party more important?
NO
2_democratic principles more important?
YES. In my "Can PB2 Revive the Left" reply on Hobson's post "Surprise?" I made a case for my view that the Dem Party is now on the right, though not so far right as the Rep Party. My decision to vote Dem this year (not an O supporter, mind you) is only to position the most-powerful-closer-to-the-left party as the ruling party, not a positive vote for the Dem Party as it is. If I change my mind for some reason, I'll vote Green, not Rep.
3_is voting for the best POTUS candidate important?
YES. Hillary was the best candidate, but I'm not going to vote for her now since she's no longer an official candidate and since she's asked us to vote strategically, for Obama.
4_is voting for the Dem platform more important?
NO, the Dems are now center right. I agree with Sarah (first comment, above) about what's really important to vote for (I'm from Texas too!).
5_is expressing your preference for HRC more important?
YES, but not by write-in vote. She's asked us to vote Dem, even though she's not on the ticket.
6_do you believe that building alternatives to the Dems-Reps is more important?
YES, but the alternative I propose is not another party, it is a grassroots movement (web-based) to influence political opinion.
7_Obama deserves a popular mandate?
NO, but I'm going to vote for the center right to prevent the far right from remaining in power.
8_believe that Obama will be more effective in implementing Shock Doctrine policies than McCain? ?
Don't want Shock Doctrine no matter which party is using it. Want my country back, like Sarah. And in addition to that, want to construct a viable new left that builds on basic American principles, doesn't overturn them.
9_getting rid of the current Dem leadership most important
YES, but not by voting for the leadership of a party even farther to the right. Vote the Dem Party today, meanwhile working hard to change it into a viable left party. Also work to influence political thinking in the Rep Party and the Green Party, the way the right has worked across party lines.
10_believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important?
YES, but not by voting McCain. By getting Hillary into power in the future, and by creating a viable left in the USA!
11_believe that you should vote for Obama because Hillary asked on his behalf?
YES, but not blindly yes. I believe she is asking us to cast our vote strategically for the Dem Party, and in this case I agree.

dr sardonicus's picture
Submitted by dr sardonicus on

1. Is loyalty to the D most important to you?
Not so much, but since pulling the donkey lever has always been the lesser of two evils, that carries some weight.

2. Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you?
Democratic principles are important, but democratic practice is more important, and there's never been much of that around.

3. Do you believe that voting for the best candidate for President is most important, and that [McCain|Obama] is that candidate?
Important enough. One point for Obama.

4. Is the Democratic platform* most important to you, and do you believe that Obama will be able/is willing to carry it out?
Modern political parties exist for two reasons: to raise money, and to make sure no outsiders threaten the Democratic/Republican symbiotic relationship. Platforms are irrelevant.

5. Do you believe that expressing your preference for Hillary Clinton is most important?
I have no preference for Hillary Clinton. She's part of the problem.

6. Do you believe that building alternatives to the [D|R] Party is most important?
Arguably most important of all. Score one point for the Greens.

7. Do you believe that Obama deserves a popular mandate?
If Obama deserves a mandate, we'll fix him up with Jeff Guckert.

8. Do you believe that Obama will be more effective in implementing Shock Doctrine policies than McCain?
The Shock Doctrine was around long before Naomi Klein gave it a name, and is now the official economic policy of the United States. We lost that one decades ago.

9. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important?
"Throw the bums out" is juvenile. If you kick out a Democrat, you get a Republican. If you kick out a Republican, you get a Democrat. If you challenge the dynamic, you get crucified. Ask Ralph Nader.

10. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important?
See #9. What's the point in replacing Democratic misogynists with Republican misogynists?

11. Do you believe that you should vote for Obama because Hillary asked on his behalf?
No, but I heard Jesus Christ also has asked...

One for Obama, one for the Greens.

I can do damn near anything I want with my vote; it won't matter. McCain leads in Tennessee handily, and it appears that Obama has no intentions to even contest the state. I may just write in myself.

...for the rest of us

Don't no don't now try to get yourself elected
If you do you had better cut your hair

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

I don't think it is reliably blue this year. I think it will swing McCain. For that matter, I think NJ will swing McCain as well.
There is one thing you can do that is affirmative for Democratic principles this fall and that is find a downticket Dem who is progressive and work your ass off for him/her. That is how we take our party back.
Screw the Dean Democrats.
Come together at The Confluence

Come together at The Confluence

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Hi Hipparchia,

Yeah, you make a good point about whether we just know more about how powerless we (all those "little" people) are.

I thought about that before I wrote. I think we actually ARE less powerful as individuals. Unionism? Down. Grass roots influence on parties? Down. Individual vs. corporate rights? Down. That last is the biggie. The legal structure of the US has been gamed by big money players to benefit big money players.

Here is a simple benchmark, what has happened to the distribution of wealth in the US over the last 100 years? 50 years? 10 years? 5 years? What has been the acceleration of data and information exchange over that time? They have both been exponential increases. That may not have any inter-relation, but it is interesting to think about.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

Submitted by hipparchia on

[consumer product safety? whazzat?]

you're probably right on all counts here. i was thinking back to upton sinclair's the jungle, we're arguably better off now than we were then, but certainly worse off than we were before ronnie ray-gun got hold of things.

as for data exchange, first thing we do is kill off fair isaac. completely. i'm not a fan of bush's looking into putin's soul or whatever he did, but i think we could solve a few problems if bankers had to rely entirely on their own judgment when deciding whether someone is loan-worthy or not. darwin awards for bank presidents, i could learn to love that one.

dws's picture
Submitted by dws on

1. Is loyalty to the D most important to you?

No. I would have said so prior to the primary, but I can't think so anymore.

2. Is loyalty to democratic principles most important to you? If yes, then you are probably concerned with process violations at the RBC and in the caucuses. If yes, then you could withhold your vote for the top of the ticket, or vote for McCain.

This is one of my top concerns, and I am considering the former option, but not the latter. I don't see how voting for McCain promotes democratic principles. I am looking for a way to communicate my disgust for the RBC/DNC and also avoid a McCain travesty/presidency.

3. Do you believe that voting for the best candidate for President is most important, and that [McCain|Obama] is that candidate? Then vote for [McCain|Obama]**.

Yes, and is there a none of the above?

4. Is the Democratic platform* most important to you, and do you believe that Obama will be able/is willing to carry it out? If yes, then vote for Obama.

The platform is mainly irrelevant to governance, imho, so this doesn't get me too hot and bothered.

5. Do you believe that expressing your preference for Hillary Clinton is most important? If yes, then if your state permits that, write in her name.

It's not about HRC for me, although she was (is?) my favorite candidate by a country mile.

6. Do you believe that building alternatives to the [D|R] Party is most important? If yes, vote for that alternative party.

This is where I'm stuck. I want alternatives, but I am not especially enamored of any of the ones currently available to me on the ballot.

7. Do you believe that Obama deserves a popular mandate? If yes, vote for Obama.

"Deserves"? I'm afraid I don't understand the privilege implied in this question. Does any candidate "deserve" something? If he wins a mandate, then I guess he deserves it. But he doesn't have any a prior right to one, which is how I read this question.

8. Do you believe that Obama will be more effective in implementing Shock Doctrine policies than McCain? If yes, then vote for McCain.

Not wholly sold on the Shock Doctrine line of thinking, so I'll abstain.

9. Do you believe that getting rid of the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, then vote for McCain.

Ah, a world without Donna Brazile. Smiles, bluebirds, and sunshine. But at the cost of the rise of Mordor, er, I mean McCain? Maybe not.

10. Do you believe that purging misogynists from the current Democratic leadership is most important? If yes, vote McCain.

I don't believe a McCain victory will achieve this hypothetical purge. I'm not sure what will, but an Obama loss will (I think) fuel the misogynists in their Hillary blaming.

11. Do you believe that you should vote for Obama because Hillary asked on his behalf? If yes, vote for Obama.

No, this is silly. To paraphrase my mother, I wouldn't jump off a bridge if HRC asked me to, either. My vote is my own, and I have no objection to having Hillary (or anyone else) ask me to cast it in a particular way, but I will make my own decisions, thanks.

Now ... back to the weighing of the options....

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I have ceased to care about anything other than HR 676. I am not saying that Global Warming, the Iraq war, economy or other issues are not important. It is just for myself, I am concentrating on single payer to the exclusion of all other issues, and have become much happier since I ceased to care about the Presidential.

I am voting for Obama. Obama does not support HR 676, in fact he will work to give us a trojan horse solution that will subsidize health insurance parasites at the expense of patients. But I think we can overwhelm him. If we send a single payer bill to Obama's desk he will sign it.

If McCain gets in it will be very difficult to overide his all but certain veto. The best we could hope for with McCain is to stop any attempt at a federal solution which blocks states from instituting their own single payer solution.

As for the rest of it, I have ceased to care, not because I don't think the other things matter, but the because single payer out weighs every other consideration for your humble servant.

but that's just me.

Submitted by lambert on

Thanks!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

NPOV on the 'single payer' question. You present Obama as the person that advocates of single payer would naturally support...but the answer is not that obvious. (i.e. if there is sufficient grassroots support to overcome Obama's "moderate" (i.e. insurance company backed) plan, I don't think its a given that McCain would veto such a proposal.

Submitted by lambert on

... with the stylistics of the questionaire.

And after I figure out who the "you" is that's doing the presenting, we can go to work on the logic.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...when the advocates of single payer sold the cause down the river in exchange for a meaningless change in the language of the party platform.

By doing so, single payer advocates lost their best chance to educate the public on the merits of single payer systems -- and in order to achieve the kind of grassroots support for HR 676 in the face of Obama's bogus plan, public education is an absolute necessity.

Obama takes single payer off the table, McCain keeps it on the table.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

12. which candidate's election would better serve the interests of achieving progressive goals, Obama or McCain?

This to me is a key question, because Obama is not a progressive but his policies will be presented as those of a "liberal Democrat." This is likely to marginalize progressive ideas for a very long time, moving that Overton window even further to the right than it is now.

And given the serious problems that Bush will leave his successor, and Obama's disasterous combination of hubris and lack of experience with/understanding of these problems, the odds of Obama being succeeded by a Republican far more reactionary than McCain is high -- as are the odds of a loss of congres to the GOP.

Given the fact that McCain's impulses are far less dogmatic than his record over the last eight years would suggest, and that McCain would be dealing with a Democratic congress, the risk of "Bush's Third Term" is rather remote -- and thus McCain is a much better choice for progressives who take the long view.

Submitted by lambert on

... to NPOV.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Weighting as reasons for my measly choice, on a scale of 1(least) to 5(most), I come up with the following:

Rated 1: Considerations 1, 6, 7, 8
Rated 2: Considerations 5
Rated 3: Considerations 11
Rated 4: Considerations 2, 4, 12
Rated 5: Considerations 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15

I'll add two more:

14.) Do you believe even a "bad" Democrat will put in place better operating rules and regulations in the Federal Govt. than a "good" Republican. If yes, vote Obama.
15.) Do you believe McCain is crazy enough to do what he can to risk a new cold war with Russia, let alone a proxy shooting war, and will generally escalate military tensions in the world through his executive actions rather than de-escalate them? If yes, vote Obama.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Do you believe even a “bad” Democrat will UNDO the horrible operating rules and regulations in the Federal Govt. than a “good” Republican. If yes, vote Obama.

(i don't believe he will--he's fine with most of them, as he's already stated--from FISA to Faith-based funding to teaching abstinence, etc...and ppl like Sunstein and others who advise him are all "free traders" and fine with the "unitary executive" too)

daily democrat's picture
Submitted by daily democrat on

12_Do you believe that HR 676 (single payer) is most important?_

I won't say it's most important, but will say it is extremely important.

Though I am American, I live in the UK at present, and I see how much better having a real health care system actually is. Over here, moving jobs (voluntarily or not) is not a traumatic will-I-get- health-insurance moment. If you get sick, in or out of work, you will be taken care of, whether you have money or not. There are limitations, of course, and these are serious ones like getting an expensive drug, getting an operation on time, etc. but NOTHING like the limitations in the USA, a country without a healthcare system.

The UK healthcare system also relates to increased "free speech" at work. Here, people aren't afraid to speak out at work because they're afraid of losing their health insurance...though they are still afraid of speaking out because they'll lose their income.

13_Do you believe that long-term progressive goals are most important?

YES YES YES. Thanks Paul! But I won't vote for McCain in hope of achieving these goals.

Paul argues that Obama isn't a progressive... agreed. Paul also argues that O's policies will be presented as those of a liberal Dem...agreed. But I don't agree that presenting O as liberal will marginalize progressive ideas. I'd like to hear P_L explain why he thinks it would.

I, for one, don't think that Obamalot is going to disappear if it isn't elected. Gore didn't, and neither did Kerry, though neither of them carried their followers with them in the way that O might, if not elected. And that's why I don't think electing McCain will cause the problem of dealing with fauxgressives (Dems on the center right, from my point of view) to disappear.

Paul also suggests a future reaction against Obama if he is elected, yet fails, through hubris and inexperience, to make inroads into the enormous problems the Reps created. I think he's right on this one, but that risk would steer my vote to McCain only if there weren't a similar danger that McCain too might be succeeded by "even more reactionary" Republican. Faux left and real right both run the risk of leading even further right, so I prefer to face the risks of 2012 later, while dealing with the Dems now.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

For those of us in solid red or blue states, the answers to many of these questions are moot. As one who lives in one of the bluest of blue states, I'm glad I don't have to struggle through the honest answers to those questions and vote accordingly because I don't think I really could.

So for me, the question is simpler, how best to register my protest with my vote. In my state, I can write in whoever the heck I want as long as it's not a fictional character like Mickey Mouse.

I really, really, really don't want to vote for McCain, refuse to vote for Obama (that "mandate" question is a real killer, Lambert) and absent an organized write-in campaign, a handful of write-ins don't even rate an asterisk in the vote totals.

Which leaves me with-- Cynthia McKinney and the Greens. I don't much like the Greens and I don't like McKinney as a pol or on a personal level, but I haven't found much to object to in her stated policy positions.

More important to me, she's African-American. I really, really, really don't want my non-vote for Obama being dismissed by jerk-off pundits and Dem. Party pooh-bahs as the result of bitter-cling racial prejudice, and voting for McKinney is the only way I can see to forestall that line.

But Lambert's questions are very important, nevertheless, in my personal emotional need to have something to root for. I still haven't sorted that out, but after so many, many years of determinedly trooping down to the voting booth in November to vote for inadequate Dem. presidential candidates, I was close to my limit, and the outpouring of vileness from the Dem. side in this campaign season has tipped me over the edge.

I think I'm with Paul, although the prospect literally makes my stomach turn as I think about it. No, losing this election will not guarantee a better breed of Dems next time around, but there's at least a slim hope, and an Obama win crushes that hope entirely for the rest of my lifetime.

And I thought I was depressed when the SC declared Bush the winner in 2000...

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Which leaves me with— Cynthia McKinney and the Greens

Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was on Colbert and said that they were on the ballot in 48 states, and fighting in court for the last 2 (WV and.... OK??).

I appreciate the signal a McKinney vote sends, and I am mulling it over myself. I also think voting in hopes of keeping our civil liberties, in the face of FISA, is also a good look for Fall. (I have problems with both Greens and Libs, but heaven knows the perfect vote is not presenting itself to me this year....)

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

I have a bit of inside knowledge about McCain and *know* that he is planning to break the mold when it comes to the last 8 years of Republican rule. He's still a Republican and his worldview is fundamentally different from mine. But it appears to be fundamentally different from the Bushies as well.
Obama is a cipher. It is entirely plausible that Obama will move to the right because he has to appease the blue dogs and Wall Street types who put him in power. Also, Obama's Democratic principles seem to fit on a sliding scale. I have no faith that he will hold the line on any issue, including social security. And I think it is in the area of social security that we have to look for our Instance of the Fingerpost. If Obama is elected and his backers want him to tinker with it, the Dems might just go along with it. It would be one party rule all over again and could be carefully disguised as being an adjustment or futuristic or some such crap. The blowback for them might be minimal because they have a reputation for protecting SS even while they may be undermining it.
But if there is tension between the executive and legislative branch, then the Democrats look like the good guys if they oppose any changes to SS. It improves their chances for actually winning the WH back if they appear to be the champion of the little guy.
So, while I may not vote for McCain, I am not opposed to LIHOP. Indeed, having McCain in the WH is safest for preogressives for a wide variety of reasons.
Come together at The Confluence

Come together at The Confluence

Submitted by lambert on

They don't share knowledge with little people. They use them as instruments.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

I simply could not ever vote for Bob Barr, although he's had a few epiphanies since then and sometimes sounds almost reasonable.

The McKinney signal is important to me, and as you say, the perfect vote ain't on offer.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

sounds reasonable is evidence of how very fucked we are.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I have a bit of inside knowledge about McCain and *know* that he is planning to break the mold when it comes to the last 8 years of Republican rule.

McCain has been a right winger all his sorry career. He supported all of Bush's miserable policies, and wants to bomb Iran. He let James Dobson choose his Veep for cryin' out loud. McCain is a really nasty guy, a really really nasty guy.

I can understand being so angry with Obama that you won't vote for him, I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But please don't come to Corrente bleating about how McCain is really a moderate, because he ain't and never has been.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

is the tell isn't it? How do you get Dobson, et al, excited about McCain, select one of if not the most radical right extremists ever to be on a national ticket for the VP slot. Not that very many people have been talking about that what with all the slut shaming to do on her daughter. Sarah Palin is a smarter, more dangerous version of Dan Quayle, IMO. Quayle was supposed to be the right-wing's future, which is why Bush Sr.* named him to solidify his base, but Quayle didn't have anything to back it up. We'll see if Palin holds up under the spotlight glare, but I suspect she will and will come across as one tough Alaskan mother at the convention and a segment of the public will eat it up. Not me, but then I'm not supposed to.

* Now Bush Sr. did arguably govern more from the center in retrospect, but I suspect it's the retrospect part that makes it look more centrist. But McCain was never really a centrist, he's had a few issues where he's shined up his "maverick" image (campaign finance, immigration), but on most issues he's standard issue GOP. And given that he caved on torture, the one thing that would seem to be highly personal to him, I can't believe he'll ever stand up to the right on any future issue. We saw what McCain did when his principles came into conflict with the GOP cabal, he changed his principles.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

How do you get Dobson, et al, excited about McCain, select one of if not the most radical right extremists ever to be on a national ticket for the VP slot.

Its obvious that Dobson was withholding his support until McCain picked someone who was anti-choice.

And while Palin is a social conservative, she is also a genuine "small honest government" conservative who has shown a willingness to take on the old boys network, and the corrupting influence of corporate America, in her own state.
And Palin has shown tremendous respect for constitutional government -- I think that Palin is the kind of person who respects the constitution, and doesn't see court appointments as a means by which to change the meaning of the constitution.

Social conservatives are excited about Palin not because she's "radical right" -- rather its because she is a practically idealized spokesperson for social conservative views.

Palin is 'dangerous' not because she's so bad, but because she's so good.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

McCain was a co-sponsor of the war crimesMilitary Commision Act.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

When McCain takes over, it won't be business as usual for some industries. He has already told these industries in advance to expect major changes. Definitely not in the Bush mold.
Don't let your fealty to Obama prevent you from being skeptical.
Come together at The Confluence

Come together at The Confluence

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

The evangelicals are very happy with Palin. They like her freshness, her down to earth approach. They feel they can relate to her. McCain did good with his base. If it's phreaking Democrats out, it hardly matters. The evangelicals even like the way she is handling Bristol's issue. They feel she is a loving parent and they are want to support her.
I got it straight from the horse's mouth- my mom, who is as strict a moralist as you can find. Palin is her girl and she is very pleased. The rest of the family is happy too. I, being the heathen in the family, can only observe. They are totally onboard with McCain now.
Come together at The Confluence

Come together at The Confluence

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

They don't share info with little people. They share them with bigwigs. Then the bigwigs pass this info to the little people. This particular industry feared McCain and Clinton. Obama never made them lose a minute's sleep.
Come together at The Confluence

Come together at The Confluence

Submitted by lambert on

that they pass on; it's all instrumental. Sure, I can see the corps battling it out to pick the appropriate Presidential proxy, but....

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

wiggles's picture
Submitted by wiggles on

I don't know if you were addressing me, but you clarified some points I didn't get to.

Yes, Obama's had ample opportunity to speak to female voters and address the misogyny problem. And part of the misogyny problem is his own neglect of policy. His troglodytic statements on mental health exceptions. His deafening silence on the HHS rules and on "conscious clauses." Ledbetter. Female supreme court appointments.
And aside from the obvious reproductive freedoms and equal pay statements that are always trotted out every campaign and then shoved into a drawer until the next campaign, display some empathy for the day-to-day challenges women are faced with. Hell, even this Palin stuff presents an opportunity for him to say something real about working moms and expectations on women and how bigotry and double-standards affect women's ability to advance in society, especially when they have kids. Obama's youngest is - what - six? He could present the obvious question why no one asks what kind of father he must be for running for President with a small child at home.
If he's really the enlightened progressive (ha!) and brilliant orator he's made out to be, he could even find an opportunity to talk about the failures of abstinence education while slapping his surrogates down from their slut-shaming of Bristol Palin.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Whether they give you money is inversely proportionate to your actual need for money. If you need it, they won't give it to you, if you don't need it, they are falling over backward to give it to you.

It's almost like they have a plan or something....

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.