Let me start with Ed Rendell's display of fealty last Saturday at Philly Sheraton. From Lynn Sweet's pool report on the Obama fundraiser:
"No hard news. Rendell made some characteristically colorful comments and Obama took a few jabs at John McCain.
The introducers were so pressed for time that the three took turns, each saying a word. "We. Are. All. For. Barack. Obama."
Rendell told the crowd that some Obama supporters brought him a big carton of Kool-Aid and told him to "drink up” when Obama became the nominee.
"I gave Sen. Clinton $1,500 in the primary so I thought just for old-time sake I'd give Sen. Obama $1,499," Rendell said, sparking scattered boos from the crowd.
The governor calmed them by saying "that was before I drank the Kool-Aid." He said that he has a check for $2,300 to give the Obama campaign.
"We're going to make sure this doesn't bounce," Obama said as he took the podium.
And from the Inky:
"We are here to win," Obama said. "I'm not interested in symbolism. I'm not interested in moral victories. . . . We don't have a choice but to win.
"The Clinton voters in Pennsylvania aren't there yet," Rendell told reporters, referring to support for Obama, "but they will be, in my judgment. But the political establishment, I think we're 100 percent behind Sen. Obama."
I'm not sure how comfortable Rendell was being booed, presumably by Obama supporters, but he's a pro. He can suck it up. I, however, am a voter, not part of the political establishment, may the God(ess)(e)(s) Of Your Choice, If Any, be thanked. From where I stand, Rendell has the matter framed correctly, and it remains to be seen if Rendell's judgment proves out, as far as the voters of PA (although apparently the voters of FL and MI can now consider themselves irrelevant in the general too. That's a relief!)
So, am I "there"? That depends. Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, so as the Democratic nominee, he'll get my vote in November (although six months is a long time in politics, especially this year, when nobody knows anything).
Let me also say that animal torture is pervasive in the Republican aristocracy, as is sexual abuse, and that the commonality between the two is the thrill that comes, to some, from abusing their power over the helpless. And then, of course, there's the Republican's enthusiastic endorsement of the torturing humans. Torturing animals, abusing children under your care, and torturing humans, even "bad guys," is just evil. And the Republican Party buys into it. That, to my mind, constitutes an absolute barrier to voting for McCain. So, in the sense that I'll vote the D, I'm "there."
Am I "there" as far as working with or in the Obama Movement? No, and here is why:
It's the Hillary Hate
.
On three separate occasions, I've encountered Hillary hate "on the ground," in real life. (That's quite different from threads, snark, dished out or taken, or even being thrown off Kos by the OFB.)
The first incident was at the caucuses in my own home town, where an Obama supporter, who I thought of as a friend, treated me to a lengthy blast of rage and contempt because I planned to vote for Hillary.
The second incident was when I was working an Obama supporter who was creating a memorial for my late mother, and had to shut down the Hillary hate once, politely, and unbelievably, a second time, more forcefully.
The third incident was when I went to the latest family funeral, where an Obama supporter cornered me against the deli plates and treated me to a diatribe about how Hillary hated the troops.
To pre-empt, because you know how emotional those Hillary supporters are: These conversations weren't light-weight disagreements: Full-out primate display was involved; the overly excited demeanor, the raised voice, the invasion of personal space, the red face. And, of course, the silence and the shunning when the episode was over. Need I remind anyone that hate is evil? (And, as if it needed saying, that hate isn't the same as asking for evidence, disagreement, snark, debate, or not voting for one particular candidate, or even -- gasp -- not treating your candidate with the Deference that you believe he deserves?)
Now, I know that (of course) all Obama supporters are not like my now distant friend, my associate, or my (distant) relative. (Nor are all Obama supporters like OFB who, with the help of the sysadmins, purged me and many others from the Kos community.) However, I'm not a very social guy; that's why I'm online all the time! So for me, three real-life incidents are a lot.* And I can't be carrying my book of Lies About Hillary around all the time, so I can flip to the index, find the page about Vince Foster, and give the facts. The conclusion I draw from the evidence is that if I want to be part of the Democratic Party as configured by the Obama Movement, I'm going to to be confronting a lot of Hillary hate. But I don't want any part of that, or those who push it. Why would I? And whyever would I imagine that the Hillary hate would go away, or that it would not find new targets?
To pre-empt again: This isn't about whether Hillary endorsed Obama, whether Gore finally endorsed Obama, or whether some other political professional endorsed Obama: It's about the kind of political life I want to lead. Nor is this about my vote, since I plan to vote the D; it's about where I want to invest my time.
So, while the Obama Movement in the Democratic Party is indeed the lesser of two evils, for me, it's not lesser enough. I can't give it anything other than tepid support. A community norm of misogyny, the practice of personal conversion narratives, the kind of mentality that boos Rendell when he makes a joke (at a Unity meeting, for pity's sake), and a politics that involves vile and grotesque smears, taken all together, may not be dangerous when held by a large group that is out of power, but can become very dangerous when held by a group in power. So, rather than be left in the classic position of a Democrat with "no place left to go," I want an alternative: the "???" of my sig. Someplace to go because it's good, not because it's just the lesser evil.**
The place to go is obviously not the Republican Party.
Nor is the place to go the Obama Movement, for reasons stated.
The place to go would seem to be the wing of the Democratic Party that supported Hillary, if for no other reason than that I'm not likely to encounter the hate and the misogyny there. This wing seems to have two aspects: Let's call the first part negative, since the idea seems to be to play "hard to get" and get Obama to ask for their vote that way. I'm not smart enough to play that game, and besides, torturing animals isn't something to play hard to get about. (In addition, the truthiness required to advocate a McCain vote is too much for me.) So, while I respect the leverage argument, it's not the home for me. Finally, I don't entertain for a moment the idea that Hillary will fracture the party, let alone run on a third party ticket. She is, indeed, a centrist. So, though I'd like to be proven wrong -- leverage for policies and principles I believe in would be bad why? -- I don't think this negative aspect has enough potential in 2008.
However, within the negative shell--Party United My Ass can hardly be said to be a positive plaform--there is, I think, a positive seed. Let me quote Violet Socks at length:
What we needed, feminists said to each other, was leverage. How could we get leverage? How could we get the Democrats — old and new — to represent women’s interests? How could we create a situation where women’s votes weren’t assumed to be in the bag, but were a prize that Democrats would have to work for?
Voilà. Leverage is here.
It’s here because of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the shameful way she was treated — by the media, by the Obama camp, and, most damning of all, by the Democratic National Party. Even women who didn’t personally support the Clinton candidacy were nonetheless appalled by the Trashing of Hillary. It’s not that she lost; after all, losing is part of the game. It’s that she wasn’t beaten in a fair fight. She was treated like garbage, and she’s still being treated like garbage. (As of this writing, Howard Dean is refusing to let Hillary’s name be on the ballot for the first vote at the convention, a startling departure from the norm. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in this campaign and she earned more primary votes for President than any Democratic candidate in the history of this country. And the DNC won’t even let her name be on the ballot.) The huge swell of anger in the land is the righteous rage of millions of women — women who are armed and more than ready to punish the DNC. Over and over the message is being beamed straight to the powers-that-be on a laser light of pure anger: You don’t get to take our votes for granted anymore. No more.
It’s a glorious situation. It’s what we’ve needed for years. Finally, the Democrats have to work for our votes! Finally, we have leverage!
[We] are dead serious. We’re too old to be tricked or browbeaten or guilted. We’ve been riding the Democratic donkey faithfully for 35 years, and damn if that ass didn’t turn around and fuck us.
Yeppers, though see my qualification above for 2008. And now comes the hopeful part, the seed within the shell, that I really, really hope is true:
This new wave is different: a big grassroots uprising of women of all ages whose latent feminism has been awakened by this election. This group is big and messy and fairly diverse in its political orientation (from leftists like me to near-Republicans), much the way the Second Wave was in the 1970s. But these women are united in their anger and their exasperation and their determination that now is the time to draw the line. No more.
Questioned about the reality of this movement, a reader writes:
But yes, a lot of this is just emails and informal things. I belong to several different Hillary lists, so I get emails from all over the place. Announcements of new little groups, links to local news articles, all kinds of things. It’s quite remarkable to me what a deep current of anger is out there.
Now, I'm not on those lists, so I can't back up this reader's mail with evidence of my own. But it does seem to me that this grassroots movement could be happening, under the radar, invisibly, because that's exactly what happened to the invisble women of Hillary's campaign; their story was not covered (unlike Obama's social networking technology and youthful, "creative class" supporters). At the risk of causing troll infestations, here's a necessarily partial list.
A massive, grassroots movement? How interesting! Something all progressives should surely welcome? This is where I want to be. This is where interesting thing are happening. This is where I don't have to kow tow to Hillary haters or get pissed on and told it's raining or get truthy for the sake of "the team." Yay!
Now, if Violet's post is correct, the Obama Movement has an opportunity with me, and with voters like me, and with these voters. The Confluence just passed a million hits. That's pretty fast, from a standing start; it reminds of of how FDL shot up during Plame. How does a blog get numbers like that? By serving a pent-up need. Agree with Confluence or disagree, call them "fellow travellers" or not, the numbers show they're a force to be reckoned with. So, the Obama Movement can either throw those readers (and voters) under the bus, or they can work out a way to appeal to them.
My called shot -- and wouldn't it be great if I were wrong -- is that the Obama Movement will throw them under the bus, because the Obama Movement really does want to consolidate its takover of the the Democratic Party machinery by building a a different base, and that base is not Hillary's base, and therefore will not include me, or the grassroots movement.
So,Obama will get my vote, win in November, and -- my second called shot -- govern from the center-right***.
At that point, we're going to need to start shoving the Overton Window left.
So, we'd better start thinking about how to do that now, because then it will be too late. And a grass-roots, under the radar movement that has nothing to do with the Village would be a really good place to start, right?
NOTE * Socially, I'm "creative class," though older, though economically way at the end of the scale. Wherever Hillary's 17 millions are, they are under-represented in my cohort.
NOTE ** There really are lot of ways for Obama, and his supporters, to ask for my vote, and also to ask for the PUMA vote: He could actively oppose retroactive immunity for the telcos, straighten out his putatively universal health care policy (no, vague promises to work with Elizabeth Edwards do not count), confront misogyny, and on and on and on. This isn't bitterness. It's called democracy.
NOTE *** If the Dems, including our presumptive nominee, sell us out on FISA this week, that's going to really confirm me in the view that not only is the village a sack of pus waiting to burst, but that alternatives to it must be actively sought, starting now.
UPDATE My state is deep Blue, so I ended up writing in Hillary.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
on note ***
-- and if he doesn't do any of those things, what then? (he's not going to)
wow
no one has put it more succinctly
Start Your Engine
Pelosi wants a FISA bill before July 4th break
Now, where to go?
New party.*
Simple as that. A reboot.
But we must agree to the terms of said reboot and all go in eyes wide open. No waffles.
I say starting as far left as possible.
*Taking over the libertarian party would be a hoot. Worked for Obama.
As Someone At Talk Left Pointed Out
Leave it to the Dems to declare a fake deadline, then cave to meet the deadline, and then they all go on vacation.
I've said before, my problems with the party did not start with this primary. It's not about who the nominee is, it's about what the party has become.
"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
and moving DNC to IL hurts the whole party--
anglachel-- "... One of the reasons to have an independent party operation, one that is not a wholly owned subsidiary of a particular candidate or faction, is its ability to deliver money and support to lower level, less sexy contests where the shift of a few seats might mean capturing a statehouse or taking over a city council of a large city. The interests of the party have to be wider than any particular candidate, and a diversity of voices prevents tunnel vision or a distorted view of the electoral landscape...." -- http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/06/r...
Hillaryans Info Updates
New York Magazine has a long and thoughtful article by John Heilemann about the end and future of Hillary Clinton’s political life: The Fall and Rise of Hillary Clinton: What she won by losing. Well worth a read, a complex story still evolving; plenty in there to both anger everyone and encourage everyone. Turn of phrase award: “a semiotician’s fantasia.”
Also, the organizing group "Million Women March Rise Hillary Rise" has changed its name to "18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise"
What a concept. Some will be pleased, some will not.
Hillary and her 18 million supporters aren’t sorted out just yet, one way or the other. I have no particular argument to make here, just found these items interesting in that regard.
Where A Lot of People Are, lambert
I think that's what your post captures, including where Hillary herself apparently is in terms of a grassroots movement. Via Tennessee Guerilla Woman, from Hillary's interview with New York Magazine:
I'll have some more on this in my Emily's List post (the first part of which will hopefully go up tonight), but I think a lot of women already working in the grassroots are quite hopeful about using this campaign to get women to commit or recommit to a feminist agenda, which in my opinion would be good for all Americans what with its focus on reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, healthcare, etc.
"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
Absolutely,
That is one thing that gives me hope here -- and different from our forebears of 30 or 40 years ago, we have real financial power now. We also have political power, and but we're at a moment where "use it or lose it" is the operative phrase. I vote for using it.
Strategically
this was not about feminism. It was about the Stevensonian wing of the Democratic Party expelling the Jackonian/Truman/Clinton wing from power. Stategically it was about power and Benjamins.
The misogyny was about putting to use a handy tool that was available, given who Senator Clinton is. Just a handy tactic, you use what you have available, so long as it works and you have no scruples.
Horselover Fat
"A lie told often enough becomes truth."
- V. I. Lenin
H F
but we only win with the fighting wing, not the
Stevenson wing--why don't they know that?
and it's the fighters that get the love and loyalty of us in the bases of the party--and who get results, not the abstract thoughtful ones who always lose.
Do We Know Exactly What Moved To Illinois?
I read references to it, but it seems like there's not a lot of detail anywhere. Now, that could be by design since, as Anglachel points out, moving a serious chunk of DNC operations to Chicago would be something they had to start preparing for a long time ago. I always got the feeling the DNC decided to go with Obama in February - they were still talking about him in May as if he was the same candidate he had been in February even though he wasn't. Perhaps (or perhaps not), this would be why.
But before I go ballistic over the move, I'd like to know exactly what was moved so I can see if it's worth going ballistic over. The DNC is rapidly tapping out my anger reserves. Gotta spend 'em wisely.
"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
I'll merely repeat this Shawshank Redemption quote
“Anything you put in my mouth you’re gonna lose.”
They have my vote. And that's all.
Your vote is all that matters to them
As soon as you promise to give them your vote, they don't give a damn about you. People should, at least, hold out and threaten to abstain unless Obama commits to a more progressive platform and culture.
If Obama remains the candidate he is and wins the GE, it'll legitimize everything he and the DNC have done. I, for one, cannot take part in that. My vote is not an automatic gift to whoever has the letter "D" next to their name. Party loyalists are the reason why Obama and the RBC did what they did. I mean, what does a "Democrat" have to do to have you (plural) decide to not vote for that person? If this nomination process is acceptable, then what isn't?
The tactics used and the bigotry casually exploited is not unusual coming from the right, but if the left also legitimizies it there will be no counter to this politically destructive behavior.
It's not an automatic gift
It's a necessary consequence of running against John McCain and Bush's Third Term.
Look at Obama's voting record in the Senate, look at McCain's, and look in the mirror and decide if you want to enable more of the latter.
The shit that Obama's pulled this campaign has been unconscionable. He should be the worst choice in any matchup. But not vs. Bush's Third Term, he isn't, as best I can tell.
Yes, he knows that and relies on it. But me being coy isn't going to change that. He had the entire primary, when people traditionally cozy up to their party's base, to ask for our votes. He didn't and he won't. Part of that is surely the calculus that he'll get our votes. With me, he's right. With you, not so much.
He's betting you'll cave. You're betting he'll shape up or that enabling McCain to win won't be so bad.
I'm simply not going to stop being an honest person. I support the only available opposition party to the Republicans. I also support the media critique that the blogosphere ditched when they scrambled for the available seats at kewl-kidz table. And I support telling my democratic (sort of) representatives when they're fucking up. I expect to be doing that a lot during the remainder of this campaign and during the Obama presidency, if there be one.
Stevenson wing?
More like the Republican wing of the Democratic party. Who likes Obama? Kos, Huffington, and a lot of former Republicans. Their party imploded so now they are coming over and destroying ours.
The Democrats are on their way to a landslide victory and I couldn't care less. I never thought I would feel that way.
lambert
lambert,
yours is a very thoughtful, personal essay. i have not previously seen you reveal this much of yourself and your feelings in the 3+- months i have commented her.
as for "leverage",
and
acceptance (in the "new" democratic party),
and
any hoped for diminution of mysogyny,
my conviction, and the basis of my political actions of which commenting here is a part, is that professional politicians respond to two things, and two things only,
1)money when needed
or
2) unambiguous threat of loss of personal power.
for me the issue of the moment is that if i fail to fight now, and, by doing so, allow the obama group to take over the party,
then i will have lost FOREVER any leverage i might have over the very ordinary politicians who, out of their need for money or desire to retain power,
have lifted the obama coterie to power over the democratic party.
i think anglachel understands this clearly.
none of my comments above diminish my appreciation for this essay on yours about a struggle to reconcile one's desire to work together as part of a community with the very unappealing possibility that there is now an urgent need to fight.
Hung up on an "Obama For Amerika" solicitation just now.
If I can't stop 'em from takin' over at least I can refuse to finance it for 'em. "Unavailable" on Caller ID is ALWAYS a bad sign, boys and girls.
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
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
Haw!
The Obama Campaign fundraisers won't identify themselves? Gee, I wonder why?
[x] 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
But that's everything.
They have all the youthful energy and free labor they need. And if they need more, he can just throw a few rallies on some college campuses. About the only thing they'd like from you at this point (clearly) is some checks.
Torture was cited in the original article, and to me, this whole exercise has been about domestic abuse (if not exactly torture): "Where the f()k are YOU gonna go?"
I've wondered for years what I (as GLBT) would do were I actually confronted with that nuclear question, and always secretly relieved that no Democrat has asked it. But now they have. And in a hundred significant ways, so I don't exactly feel selfish or identity-obsessed when I say "No".
For me, it's "No" now, or never. There's no pathway to "better" in the future or moving any windows in the future if people just think their votes are the least possible thing they can do.
i'm with Tony-- No.
we can and should have better candidates--not Dubya 2.0 or New Coke. I didn't vote for "the uniter" who was full of shit back in 2000--and won't vote Obama now.
I left the closet years and years ago and will not take a candidate offering absolutely nothing, and insulting me and mine and millions of others, and only willing to fight for power and not core issues.
I'm not getting younger, and want to live to see Universal Health Care and real progress on all fronts--rights included--getting onboard this train will not help me get there in any way.
has Obama said one word about CA marriages today?
i'm betting not.
They've never acted all that interested in my vote
And I don't expect them to start getting interested now.
Unity
is for Republicans.
I refuse to let them make a liar out of me. I will be a liar if I pretend I won't vote for the Dem, and I will be a liar if I start pulling my punches about a disappointing Dem just because I'm giving him my vote.
Me Neither, DCB
I was so incredibly excited about this election. While I had my early preferences for the nominee, I was sure that I'd be happy with any of them. I cannot believe how wrong I was (and I cannot believe that my excitement at Obama entering the race has turned to this).
"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
Very well said, and
Very well said, and articulates many of my own thoughts on the matter (though in a much more comprehensible fashion than what's been swirling around in my mind) with the exception being that Obama has already lost my vote. Now, it might be that I change my mind and end up voting for him -- I've already changed my mind this election season -- I was once certain that I would not only vote for, but also actively work for whomever the Democratic nominee turned out to be. It took quite a bit for me to decide that I couldn't vote for Obama, and it's now going to take quite a bit more to change my mind back.
The thing that I get hung up on is what Orion referenced; the only power I have left here is my vote -- it's the only thing that matters to either the DNC or Obama anymore -- and if I willingly surrender that power, just hand it over and get in line with the rest of the good little Democrats, then I am essentially signaling to them that they were right, my concerns need not be addressed.
And then when I see things like this, I am once again smacked in the face with the arrogance, disrespect and just plain meanness that is Obama. It does nothing to help me change my mind back.
rise, hillary, rise
this is my favorite "war-cry" from the clinton campaign effort.
it was written by poet and author maya angelou to express her admiration for hillary clinton.
i'm looking for the text now but in the meantime:
womensspace
perhaps some readers will recall a specific historical link between maya angelou and hillary clinton.
Here's a historical link between maya angelou and Bill clinton.
From Maya Angelou -- Wikipedia:
Not voting for McCain is all I can do
I'm not letting my dislike of a campaign or candidate "force" me to vote for a Republican. I've never done that and I'm not doing it now.
But I'm not an important vote. As a Democrat in Kansas, my Presidential vote has never, ever mattered. So I'll never have leverage.
I take it back. My dream was that if Hillary was the nominee I'd be renting an apartment a couple blocks away in Kansas City, Missouri for me and my family. But, I'm not doing that for Obama.
And since I've never done that before, I don't think it quite counts as leverage.
Lambert? This is one of your best posts ever (and I think my admiration for your writing isn't as much a secret as I claim) And the comments it inspired are as good as your post.
I've read through the whole thing 3 or 4 times. And I'm stunned.
rise, hillary, rise
you tube
I think it was Eddie Vedder who once observed
that he was a lot more interested in attending Lilith Faire than Lollapalooza because that is where all of the really subversive stuff was happening. And Lilith Faire, of course, never got the kind of attention that Lollapalooza did. Same thing here.
I'm working on a video right now and I've been fretting about this very issue. I want to poke fun at the borg-like aspect of Obama's suppport (suffice to say I"ve been told to go to his website one too many times). But it was important to me that it be illuminatory but not negative. You've really validated that choice for me with this post.
thank you for this. It's a near perfect summation of what so many of us are feeling. This is Anglachel-like in its insightfulness.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
rise, hillary, rise
poetry
maya angelou:
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may tread me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.
Davidson - that's my concern as well.
If Obama wins, this country will be left without an instrument for progressive action. It'll be like the former Soviet Union with two thoroughly corrupt parties competing for access to the public trough for their buddies, and screw everything else.
I mean, if Dems can't admit that misogynistic rhetoric out of their candidates isn't appropriate, what can they agree on?
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
There's one born every minute....
and voting for Obama because you don't like McCain proves it.
You complain about FISA. Well, just imagine if you, and VL, and other "staunch Democrats" had said "I'm withholding my vote for Obama unless he shows leadership on telecom immunity".
You might actually have gotten something for your vote.
But you gave it away, demanding nothing for it... other than the right to whine about Obama when he does something you don't like.
Lambert, in this instance, you are the 'fellow traveler'...
Obama isn't going to listen to us Bubba Democrats
We're not part of his strategy.
By Bubba Democrats, I mean
Baby Boomers, bickering partisan progressives, feminists, and everyone else he's thrown under the bus. And, of course, including blue collar swing state Dems.
Of course he won't...
because he doesn't have to. You give him your vote for nothing in return.
What kills me about people like you is that Obama is no different from McCain in terms of political experdiency -- McCain has been running for President for eight years, and had to 'go right' to get the GOP nomination.
Sometimes you have to stand up to a bully, even if it does mean you get the crap knocked out of you.... because after you've had the crap knocked out of you, and you are still defiant, others will recognize that the indignity lies not in being beaten up by a bully, but in capitulating to that bully.
We're dealing with two bullies
They're both beating the crap out of us. One's been doing it for longer.
Tim Robbins in Shawshank knew he couldn't stop himself from being raped, but he decided what line he could draw: “Anything you put in my mouth you’re gonna lose.”
Obama or someone quite possibly worse will become the next president. Neither one will get me to be a liar or to shut the fuck up. That's as much of a line as I can draw. The alternative is for me to either bullshit about my plans or aid and abet the bully I think is even worse.
It's the hate, and the mobbing
for me, as well, that are central to my inability to actively support Obama. You've put it very well.
But it's disturbing to see signs of mob effects taking hold among the Hillarians too. Not hate, not yet, but an uncritical seizing upon rumor, ZOMG Obama is moving the DNC to Chicago!!! When who among us obsessing over that actually knows anything about what "the DNC" is, what is moving to Chicago, where in Chicago it is moving to, or what previous candidates have done? There seems to be one rather sane comment over at Anglachel's on that, but I can't tell how this person knows what s/he knows, or says s/he knows. And so on. Because we don't want to calm down, for both good reasons and bad. Something dire happened, why should we calm down?
I feel as if in the absence of a practical outlet for all our energy we're spinning into the void, getting more emotional all the time. I fear losing my bloggy home-in-exile. Will the feral light in the eyes of the Hillary-haters be seen in my eyes too?
Time for me to do less blog reading and more HR676ing on the ground. I don't know how to contribute anything to the sanity of the Hillarysphere.
The Democrats: a roach motel for progressive energies
- VastLeft
All you need to know about the DNC move...
is that its unprecendented...
campaigns have always co-ordinated with the DNC, but DNC operations have never been moved to the HQ of a presidential nominee.
And it isn't just the DNC's efforts to elect a Democratic president that are being moved -- its pretty much the whole "50 state strategy" that is being absorbed into the Obamination. The focus of the 50 state strategy will no longer be "Party building" -- we just saw that in Florida, where LGB activists who supported Obama but also had their own agendas were thrown out of the Florida delegation in favor of Obama loyalists. That is NOT how you build a party -- it is how you solidify the power of a personality cult.
So explain it
to us uninitiated ones, or give a pointer to some facts. "All you need to know" doesn't convince me of anything except that you want me to believe it. I have a lot of respect for your work, because you've put out the facts for all to see.
(reads down the page)
Oh. Never mind.
Still would like a source, though. Thanks.
The Democrats: a roach motel for progressive energies
- VastLeft
hr 676ing
excellent move. thanks for the reminder.
Paul - I called the DNC this morning and asked about it.
What they said to me is that in recent decades, the nominee has always had his campaign based in DC. So, when everyone switched to working for the nominee, no one had to move.
I'm not sure what it is. We have no idea if they are staying after the election. We have no idea if a greater percentage of people are going to work under Obama's staff or not.
Of course, maybe it's just a flat out bad sign that Obama isn't basing his campaign in DC. I don't know. I don't know.
are we looking at some kind of realignment?
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Somebody lied to you
.... for instance, the first Clinton campaign had its HQ in Little Rock, and kept it there. Carter kept his campaign HQ in Atlanta, and Dukakis maintained his HQ in Boston.
In none of those cases did the DNC move any of its operations.
...and Al Gore moved his campaign HQ from DC to Tennessee...(and the DNC didn't follow)
VastLeft - congress is raising record sums for their campaigns
based on the abuses of the Bush administration. Bush has been the best thing that has ever happened to Democratic congressional representatives. A lot of people have gotten filthy rich running campaigns opposing Bush. How much did Kerry have left over?
Congress will not stop imperial presidencies as long as it makes their reelection easier.
Obama is a conservative. He isn't going to be any further left than McCain regardless of what his voting record is. he votes how he must to maintain office. Remember, the only thing that dissuaded him from voting for Roberts was the threat it presented to his presidential ambitions. Now, please, tell me why you think obama would be one iota better than McCain once elected?
I doubt you'd be voting for someone who ran an overtly racist campaign. I have no idea why or how you think Obama is one shade better than McCain. Show me one thing he has ever lead on that indicates his core values.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
x
Basement angel, you've just said a mouthful. In what kind of crazy disfunctional political world are we living in when its the Republican who isn't the racist?
Paul. Wow. The Lies seem effortless
They do it so easily, that totally fooled me.
I can't stand this.
HR 676
Time for me to do less blog reading and more HR676ing on the ground.
please come back occassionaly to post about your experiences
"The Personal is Political"
That phrase was far more than a 1960s feminist rallying cry; it was the governing thesis that drove the success of the 20th century feminist movement. Sexism differs from other bigotries because it is rooted in our most intimate relationships; it is fought there more than in the media, streets, and courtrooms. Feminists won when society finally realized that the personal nature of their battle made it no less profound.
A sweeping, dangerous ignorance of this crucial lesson in America's civil rights history is apparent in the widespread trivializing of Clinton supporters' concerns as "just hurt feelings." Young people are being cheated by our progressive leaders and journalists who know better and have cynically shirked their responsibility to pass on this wisdom. Sadly, it is the young who will ultimately pay the price.
Even more disturbing is the neoDemocrats' willful use of right-wing tools, including not just sexism but classism, cynical exclusionary politics, appeals to faith rather than reason, use of propaganda, dishonest personal attacks, deliberate mischaracterization of opponents' motives, centralized power, trampling of church-state separation, contempt for voters, and obscene amounts of money. The harm this may do to long-term progressive goals is frightening. To have come so far only to surrender so much ground is horrifying.
Those well-intentioned who seek to prevent this fate by blocking the neoDemocrats from winning in November are playing a hand that seems to me too risky and for which I'm not suited. I'm not capable of sacrificing openness and transparency in my personal politics. Effective or not, there simply is no other path for me. I understand the "Just Say No Deal" folks, but they'll have to understand folks like me as well.
Lambert, you've put my feelings on all this into words better than anyone I've ever read.
BDBlue, on initially being excited by Obama... me, too. I was ecstatic that, with our candidates, we had seemingly achieved the liberal promise. I still can't believe just how far I've plunged from that optimism.
Now we must swiftboat McCain to win?!
We have met the enemy and it is us.
Huffington Post is headlining today an investigative piece by Jeffrey Klein, "McCain's Secret, Questionable Record."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-kl...
This is a terrible mistake.
No, no, no, no.
Just in case anyone was concerned that the Republicans weren't sufficiently united behind McCain, this will handily fix that.
I'm not saying you're wrong...
There will be blowback for doing it, but let's not equivalate.
The biggest problem with the Swiftboating was that it was a lie (and one that the media never tired of propagating).
Investigating a Republican is unacceptable, even if the facts are correct.
Perhaps a better label for this is "Swiftboat-smelling"
The "lie" distinction is valid, and we don't know yet what the truth is. I do expect, given that Klein is more reputable by far than Chris LaCivita, the difference will be that the piece turns out to be factually accurate, unlike the attack on Kerry, but with an unnecessarily sensationalist, smearing spin. I think it will smell to most voters so much like swiftboating that the distinction will be nearly irrelevant.