| October 13, 2008 |
Whatever you believe as a Democrat or Liberal, we need to not elect John McCain as a nation.
Check out this link to make a last-minute June donation to the DNC and derail the RNC next November.
Seriously. Now.
If early 1800s represented an Era of Good Feelings, our times should go down in history as the Era of Bad Feelings. Nowhere has that been better exemplified than in the current nastiness pervading the Democratic Party. Although Barack Obama has for all extensive purposes won the nomination, the forces of Hillary Clinton claim she deserves to be the candidate and that they would rather vote for someone else or not vote at all than vote for Obama. (more…)
I think that pretty much sums up the situation at hand, folks.
This is my open letter to Senator Obama’s campaign staff and supporters, asking you to stop the madness and follow Obama’s mantra to “unify the party” and end “politics as usual”.
Republicans have tried to make political gains from the fact that we Democrats support the troops but do not support the Commander-In-Chief. Well, I support Barack Obama but, at the moment, I don’t support his “troops” - his campaign staffers and supporters, especially some of my friends in the blogosphere and the commenters in their blogs.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, you have been making, and continue to make, the same mistake Republicans made throughout the 90’s with Bill Clinton. You are treating Hillary as if she’s some random public personality with no connection to friends and supporters who may be deeply offended by your outrageous insults and accusations. Much like we all treat Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan as a disconnected public personality, you criticize Hillary for her words, her clothing, her hair, her makeup, her family and more without any thought or caring as to how it affects her supporters, who make up nearly half of the primary voters, voters Obama will need to get elected. Some of you are the source of language like “monster”, “fucking whore”, “racist bitch”, and the C-word. Go to our Blogosphere page and select any headline that’s obviously anti-Clinton and you’ll find comments that include these outrageous insults, and some that cannot be repeated in this blog. And the endless debate about who dissed who first… will that help Obama’s movement?
Some of you have acknowledged Hillary’s supporters and admit there is “work to be done” to bring them over to the Obama camp; the white working-class and elderly women voters who have had a long-standing relationship with the Clintons. But many of you in the blogosphere and on cable news have decided to extend the insults to those supporters with language like “old, racist whores” and “Hillary’s getting the racist vote”. Rather than making an attempt to bring them into the Obama movement, you seem to have decided to prematurely reject them and destroy any possibility of merging the Clinton and Obama supporters, effectively handing their votes to McCain or throwing them away.
I live in Arizona where a large portion of the voters are elderly. Of those I speak with or read about, many in that age group do not vote for the party, they vote for the person. And they identify to people in their own age group, like the Clintons and McCain. I’ve heard many of you in Obama’s camp say that Hillary’s supporters will surely vote for Obama because it’s all about Iraq and Obama is their only possible choice. We’re talking about a generation that sacrificed financially, bought war bonds, and rationed through the Second World War. There were 1,076,245 US dead and wounded and 30,314 missing, so it was likely that they knew someone who was a casualty of that war. In contrast, the number of US dead and wounded in the Iraq War is around 44,321 - a terrible loss, but in a country of 300 million, much less likely they have a personal connection to the person lost. And Bush has asked for no financial sacrifice for this war, pushing the cost to future generations. So is the Iraq War really their main concern? Is it really all that likely that they will vote for a man whose campaign staffers and supporters are the source of outrageous insults, who arrogantly state they will have no choice but to vote for Obama?
A more likely scenario is that the Clinton vote will be split, with a portion going to Obama, a portion to McCain, some to Nader, and many who will just stay home. In fact, Obama’s nomination has completely changed the balance of power - he can no longer win without Hillary’s supporters. With so much on the line for our nation and the world, does it make sense to reject Hillary’s supporters out of an ongoing anger and defense of your candidate? Or does it make more sense to stop the endless insults, charges of racism, and 90’s-like Clinton-bashing, and make the effort to reconcile with Hillary’s supporters and persuade them to get behind the Obama movement?
My appeal to you is to make the effort. Start with the blogs supportive of Hillary or a supporter you know personally - an acknowledgement that the insults went too far and an invitation to join the Obama movement could make a real difference. Continue with the blogs or supporters you know personally that are against Hillary and persuade them to make an effort, as well. The stakes are too high not to make the effort.
Katha Pollitt of The Nation on the benefits of Hillary’s historic campaign (sorry, but if you’re looking for yet another Hillary-bashing post, you won’t find it here):
Some think Clinton’s loss, and the psychodrama surrounding it, will set women back. I think they’re wrong. Love her or loathe her, the big story here is Americans saw a woman who was a serious, popular, major-party candidate. Clinton showed herself to be tough, tireless, supersmart and definitely ready to lead on that famous Day One. She raised a ton of money and won 17.5 million votes from men and women. She was exciting, too: she and Obama galvanized voters for six long months–in some early contests, each of them racked up more votes than all the Republican candidates combined. Once the bitterness of the present moment has faded, that’s what people will remember. Because she normalized the concept of a woman running for President, she made it easier for women to run for every office, including the White House. That is one reason women and men of every party and candidate preference, and every ethnicity too, owe Hillary Clinton a standing ovation, even if they can’t stand her.
There’s another reason to be grateful to her. Clinton’s run has put to rest the myth that we are living in a postfeminist wonderland in which all that stands in women’s path is women themselves. Like a magnet–was it the pantsuit?–Clinton drew out the nation’s misogyny in all its jeering glory and put it where we could all get a good look at it. “Iron my shirt” hecklers. Wearers of Bros Over Hos T-shirts and buyers of Hillary nutcrackers. Fans of the Citizens United Not Timid website (check the acronym). Vats of sexist nastiness splattered across the Comments section of hundreds of blogs and websites. It’s as if every obscene phone caller and every exhibitionist in America decided to become an amateur political pundit.
The media has waited with baited breath - and a volume of verbiage the world has rarely seen outside of coverage of Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears’ crotches - for Hillary to do her concession bit and for the two to hug and cry together. But they’re not giving that to us - at least, not yet. And either way, it’s OK.
I don’t want this to be a presidency driven solely by sound bytes and carefully crafted media images. I don’t expect two people who’ve fought so hard for their own campaigns (or the myriad thousands who’ve labored for them) to sudden love each other and make nice.
I don’t want Hillary Clinton named VP (and I think any announcement there will come much closer to the convention, if not at the convention itself in late August in Denver) simply because she was “the other candidate.” If there’s a better person for the Obama Democratic ticket, then I want that person considered. We’re not into legacies here, unless it’s the legacy for ALL of America, and not for a relatively privileged few (named Bush or Clinton or Kennedy, et al).
But what we need most of all is for the American people to unite in an understanding that the way ahead is tough regardless of how we go: that we may have to accept a period of increased hardship to try to get this nation - and the world that watches it - back on track. We’re already hurting; we can probably survive a little more.
And unlike the Bush-McCain technique, we need to take care of America’s working and middle classes through good education, job training, health care, and so much more. The Bush-McCain technique is to give and give to the wealthiest, and the rest have to wait til it trickles down the inner leg of the fatcat Republican peeing gold.
When I awoke this morning, I felt different. It took me an hour or two to figure out why: we don’t have to talk about Democratic Primary races anymore because they ended yesterday.
While I found this primary season more interesting than any other in my lifetime, the drama wasn’t so much in what the candidates said or did, and certainly not in the debates (which I find useless when you’ve got 8-10 people vying for questions from a potential 300 million member audience).
No, the big change - the refreshing air - is not just that we’ll be Bush-less (we hope) come January 20th next, but that we went through a primary season where a woman and a black man got all the attention. I never expected to be half way through my life before this happened, so I’ll focus on how wonderful it is now that it’s here.
And it’s not any woman, not any black man. While Obama found privilege, it certainly wasn’t awarded to him by society. He - and his wife, and I think Michelle Obama is great - worked damn hard for all they have.
And while it’s easy to dis Hillary (it seems), she’s been part of a wave of people who came of age in the 60s and 70s who, while making their own way, have contributed MUCH to the overall quality of life in this country and beyond.
So rather than feel just relief at no primary discussion today, I’ve got to appreciate that while the Republicans handed us the same old fat old white man (McCain), the Dems delivered at least some of the change we desperately need.
Hillary Clinton may not be conceding yet, but as predicted, Barack Obama - based on delegate counts - has just announted “I will be the nominee.”
I hate to bring up such a sad subject at such a tough time but, considering times don’t appear headed for wild wonderfulness any year soon and the subject’s too important to ignore, here goes:
With the hospitalizations of two of the Senate longest reigning Democrats, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who will be our new lions? Do we have any in the making?
Vermont’s newest Senator, long-time Socialist House Rep, Bernie Sanders is already proving to be a fire brand. But he arrived in the upper house a bit late. Wellstone is dead. Corzine, who showed promise, went to be governor of New Jersey. We’ll have to see if Hillary and Barack remain in the Senate after this year (some speculation has Hillary being handed the governorship of New York on a platter, but I’d love to see what resigned-gov Eliot Spitzer’s replacement, David Patterson as the state’s first leader of color, will do).
Have any contenders we should watch for?
Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation’s first female president.
The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.
Most campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.
I like both Democratic candidates, and would vote for either in November. I guess that’s why I feel a sadness that this struggle is coming to an end for one. But my sadness is probably premature. There is a great deal of politicking to be done before the end of August.
According to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown Monday night, Hillary Clinton is giving every signal of suspending her campaign today, as the final two Democratic primaries play out.
However, it should also be noted that a suspended campaign can be resurrected, right up to and including at Convention time in late August.
“John McCain’s in the news. Earlier today, John McCain released 1,200 pages of his medical records. Or, as his doctor calls it, Chapter One.” –Conan O’Brien
“I guess McCain is scheduled to meet with three possible vice presidential nominees this weekend at his home. The candidates are very excited to go. They say the only downside — they hate it when he keeps pushing that bowl of ribbon candy on them. ‘Try the butterscotch.’” –Jay Leno
“Well, actually, on the news, they stress that these vice presidential meetings were only preliminary. And before any final decision is made, they say that McCain will sit down with his senior advisers. His senior advisers? The guy is 71. What, are they from the Millard Fillmore administration?” –Jay Leno
“And McCain released 1,200 pages of medical documents this week, to prove that he is healthy. 1,200 pages to prove he’s healthy? Man. Man, how many does Dick Cheney have? My God!” –Jay Leno
(more…)
Well, this is the weekend the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Convention meets to hammer out what’s happening with delegates and super delegates, Florida and Michigan primary votes and what to do with them, et al.
Both DNC chair Howard Dean and many other ranking Dems have said they expect the race to be over soon after June 3rd, the date of the last scheduled donkey primary; that a commitment from superDs on who they’ll cast ballots for is wanted soon thereafter.
Yet others are beginning to suggest this is a race that may continue all summer through to the Dem National Convention in Colorado, the first time the convention’s been a real political potboiler since at least 1972. And I’m not sure Dems would be hurt badly by a later decision either: as long as the DNC continues its smart ads that target John McCain rather than a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama, I doubt there’s a danger. We’ve seen an exodus AWAY from the Republican and even the uncommitted voters coming into this presidential election cycle; I strongly resist the notion that something will magically drive these candidates back to Mad Dog McCain. You?
Is it just me or is this issue being blown out of all possible proportion?
As Time and some other media outlets note, Hillary has referenced the June candidate selection before using her husband’s ‘92 selection as candidate and the Bobby Kennedy candidacy that went on until he was shot in June 1968 as markers. This seems to be the same thing she was doing in answering this question.
But, my God, last night people were calling her race effectively over, with no hopes of the VP slot, for making the same reference… one even Bobby Kennedy’s son insisted should not be construed as offensive.
Another reason to be ashamed of my gender.
According to Politico from a CNN report, key people within Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination to run against Republican John McCain in November’s presidential election are now talking to fellow Dem opponent Barack Obama’s key folks about Clinton becoming the VP candidate on the ticket.
On one hand, this surprises me; nothing about Hillary’s rhetoric this week suggested to me she was ready to end her race until every possible avenue had been explored. On the other hand, it would make sense that if Hillary feels she can’t come from behind to get the candidacy, she’d be willing to consider the #2 post (though few VPs have played such a busy role as Bush’s Dick Cheney).
This avenue would give Hillary something (though there are still rumors she might be a leading contender to replace the recently-quit NY governor Eliot Spitzer). But would it give Obama enough to agree? I’m not sure.
How about you? What’s your take?
Have you noticed?
Despite how obvious it was that the Pentagon and the Bush Administration, in their most recent assessment of Bush’s big escalation of war in early 2007, were lying about how “peachy” the situation in Iraq is, all the Republican talking heads on TV now note that the surge worked, that this is indisputable fact, and that the only people who would claim Iraq isn’t going well are hateful, God-ridiculing Democrats.
They’ll claim this even when we see GI deaths going up again, larger and larger suicide bombings, on days when “insurgents” nearly blew up the First Lady of Iraq and days when they just sit back and watch “the American saviors” unintentionally kill a slew of civilians due to “bad intelligence.”
The worst part of all this, however, is that some of the relatively non-partisan news anchors and reporters don’t challenge the GOPers when they make this outrageous claim. A Republican strategist will let loose with the pronouncement of how wonderful Iraq is and, even if the headlines just reported another big bombing, the anchor sits without uttering a single question or asking the basis for such a preposterous claim.
The so-called left wing doesn’t have to make charges that the mainstream media is taking it very easy on Republican presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, compared with his Democratic Party challengers, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Lefties don’t have to because so many of the show anchors/news hosts flat out SAY that’s what they’re doing, along with the suggestion that they MIGHT - and only MIGHT, mind you - ask McCain slightly tougher questions come September or October.
I’ve heard MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann talk of it, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and several others there, and I won’t even bother to mention Fox, whose policy is to gut every Dem they find.
Gee, I wonder what the press will talk about then post-Dem candidate selection and pre-perhaps asking McCain tough questions in the fall. Maybe we can discuss Cindy McCain’s “family recipes” all stolen verbatim from The Food Network. That’s been about the level of “investigative journalism” being shown this year.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have reported the new GI Bill, after passing in the House on 5/15, has passed in the Senate today 75-22.
This is amazing and wonderful and encouraging.
However, if you look at the list of how everyone voted, we’ve got a YEA from Hillary, a YEA for Barack, and from decorated war veteran and presidential candidate John McCain, a man who may have actually benefited from this level of troop support once he got home? Not Voting.
How many more hypocritical, awful signs do we need from this man to prove to the mass majority once and for all that he is not fit to be president? Isn’t a willingness to send men and women into battle and keep them there for years and years and - when they come home - not give them the support they deserve enough?
While this has frequently been a much-referenced topic with Hillary Rodham Clinton, she’s been working overtime since Tuesday’s primaries in Oregon (where she lost) and Kentucky (where she won big) to renew her demands for the popular vote/delegate seating to happen in the states of Florida and Michigan, where because the states chose to hold primaries ahead of the official February 5th (1st Super Tuesday), Democratic primary voters there did not get counted.
Now, Clinton knew the rules that required the 2/5/08 start date for Dem Party primaries (and in Florida, was enacted by a mostly Republican state house), and agreed not to campaign in those states where, for example in Michigan, Hillary was the only Dem candidate on the ballot.
As I’ve written before and no doubt will write again, as much as I hate votes not being counted, and ahead of the decision from the DNC Rules Committee expected next week on whether these votes can count, I just don’t see how you can seat these two states’ votes when other Democratic candidates followed the rules and were not available on the ballot. This isn’t anti-Hillary; it’s about general fairness. If Barack Obama’s name was the only one to appear on the ballots in these two states and he was now making the same claims as HRC, my reaction would be identical.
What’s your take?
Just as predicted for Tuesday’s Democratic primaries in Kentucky and Oregon:
* Hillary Clinton took Kentucky by a commanding lead (65% to 30%)
* Barack Obama won Oregon which, while not anywhere near as dramatic as HRC’s win in Kentucky, was still pretty damned significant (58% to 42%)
* The pundits all bitched and moaned that Hillary hasn’t dropped out of the race yet, which they tell us a dozen times an hour every hour
Here’s the breakdown from CNN.