No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her.
- Susan B. Anthony
No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. - US Supreme Court
A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in.
Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.
"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.
The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel. It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.
The LA Times suggests the row with Rev. Wright might be Hillary's fault.
It seems a Hillary supporter was definitely involved the event organization. That means they have a legitimate excuse to use the word "nefarious" to describe the inherent deceitfulness of Clintons:
It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.
There's something sort of infuriating - and sort of comical - about them trying to make Rev. Wright somehow be something...Hillary should be ashamed of?
Looking at today's politics page, though, I suppose they think they are generous to even mention Hillary's existence. I count over a dozen Obama headlines and a few brief mentions to the two of them - Obama and Hillary - down at the bottom of the page.
They do, however, provide full coverage of any/all donors and superdelegates who defect to Obama. Which is still better than the NY Times, apparently. Am I missing it, or did they forget to include pro-Hillary bloggers in among the "liberal" (pro-Obama) and conservative bloggers, in their coverage of what is being said "out there"?
Right now it looks pretty bad for Obama - he can't win the general. Some have said his career might be over. I don't think his career is sunk, if he is willing to take a major humiliation so that he can have a "rise again" moment. Then he could repent, denounce any philosophies that need denouncing, and could start building again.
What is more troubling is that he doesn't seem to want to build. This would not be happening if he had researched, learning about the voters, offering us what we want. I don't think we really need to learn more of his own bio, his single mother and all that (as if we didn't all know about that "typical white" granny who raised him). Once more we have that liberal mentality, Brad Pitt on ice skates, when really the rest of us want it to be all about us. How come he can't seem to say one articulate thing about what he's going to do to address our immediate crisis - that is, economic insecurity?
Put this together with how little real good he did in Chicago and how little real good he has done in Congress and it's hard to escape the conclusion that Obama doesn't seem to like to work hard, and maybe he doesn't even know how to do what I mean when I speak of working hard:
how to identify and solve problems
how to receive input and deal with feedback
how to accept responsibility or take the initiative
how to fight - taking a stand and all the risks that go with it
how to persevere instead of quitting when things seem impossible (is he really "bored" already?)
All of these things seem to be problems that are not just his, but are problems I associate with liberals past and present. And the more "liberal", the more true this seems to be.
There's a lesson in this. And it isn't how evil or mean can be the Right. We all know both sides have their unhinged elements capable of writing pathetic emails, or issuing mostly ridiculous threats. The lesson is represented by the decision both Marcotte and McEwan willfully made - to play the victims and lose, as opposed to coming out on top....
At some point you have to fight for what you want. If you're just going to roll over like you're Nancy Pelosi faced with the probability of (gasp) conflict - well, might as well stay home from the start.
To be a Republican at its extremes is to accept no excuses (which is nice if you happen to be born rich). Anything is possible if you just choose to make it so. Inspiration frequently involves motifs such as the person who falls - to be crippled physically or mentally or spiritually or socially - rising up to do great and miraculous things anyway.
Of course the big problem with this is the failure to recognize limits. Some things genuinely aren't possible. The 'no excuses, no blaming, no whining' approach frequently turns to dumping it on the victim, as if to say "oh well doing that was never my responsibility anyway". Meanwhile W. is still trying to bluff off failures as successes by ignoring or sometimes even just rewriting reality.
Democrats, though, live at the other end of this extreme. Nothing is their fault. They encourage blame and victimization. Look at Jeremiah Wright.
...Those conspiracy theories are the ones thatsupport the holder's view that he or she is the victim of circumstances, forces, and people that aremuch more powerful than they, are inimical to them, and are beyond their control. Those beliefs lead to passivity and anger, and away from self reflection and responsibility.
Why should a young black man who is struggling in school put in the hard work required to learn when it is all for naught? If the "white man" is only going to keep him down, what is the point?
...Once a person has embraced victimhood, which includes the belief that their problems are essentially not of their own making, they are lost. The typically short sighted and cynical empowerment movement is designed to reinforce victimhood and extort reparationsof one kind or another from those who have the money and the disinclination to fight back. The victim "wins" by getting what he deserves from the "man". This leaves the victim forever at the mercy of others,unable to change in ways which could enable them to live more productive and successful lives, and basing their entire sense of self on their grievances. A community that accepts such a designation can only be an abject failure.
(emphasis mine)
Obama frequently falls into the conservative-sounding rhetoric of positive thinking (in fact, a lot of the appeal of his campaign appears to rely on that nice conservative miracles motif). The problem with his affirmations are that they are just words. Magical thinking. There are no actions to follow up with. It's as if he is trying to combine the worst of both worlds - wedding the politics of blame and victimization to the delusional belief that you can do anything if you just want to hard enough.
Bill Clinton did it exactly the other way around. He rejected the politics of blame and victimization, and he didn't go in for feel-good beliefs about how you can do anything if you just buy New Age prayer beads. Instead, he gave us accountability and expectations coupled with real action toward increased opportunities.
That is what is meant when people say he "moved to the center". He broke the Republican monopoly on the issue of personal responsibility. That might sound ironic, seeing as how later Clinton would get busted for not taking responsibility for what he did with Lewinsky. But before Clinton ran for office, liberals were all about blame and victimization. Nothing was within your power to achieve. Everything is out of your control - everything was legacy and environment. That is what Bill Clinton weeded out of the party when he "moved to the center" and became what Michael Moore famously called our "best Republican President".
If Bill Clinton was really a Republican, I'd switch parties. It's too bad the wing libs can't see that. There is a real split between two groups who want an inclusive society - but differ sharply on the best way to achieve that.
The old-style liberal approach is not the only option out there. Those who act like Democrats who reject their victimhood are "not true Democrats" or are "Republicans" are not being fair to the changes that have happened. They say, "but poverty/injustice/inequality still exists". True enough - but that does not mean all the dynamics are frozen in place, and wanting to go back to 1968 is not a very good answer.
Rather than associating "white people" with being the "enemy" or the "man" as most radical dogma is known to reiterate, as well as within the "white guilt" sentiments of white liberals, she suggested an approach that mirrors Buddhism (ms. hooks is also a Buddhist), to have a sense of "agency" when faced with racism, and, in turn, to confront your opponent with love, not in reaction with hate. This way, the offensive party will walk away with a greater sense of awareness about his/her own prejudice rather than have a tendency to stay on his/her side based on race or sex.
Most Eugenians could not wrap their minds around this concept...basically because it is common for ethnic studies programs to be steeped in a victimization mentality, comparable to the tendency for white liberals and radicals to have a knee-jerk "white guilt" reaction when faced with race issues; but for me, hook's disdain for "victimization" was my key into ethnic and womens studies.
It takes a certain out-of-touch quality to not get that things have changed. Most people who have not acknowledged that reality are either so angry they are actually creating the bias against them (as in the hostile, aggressive witnessin the Bell shooting) or are just, like John Kerry, incredibly out of touch. Throw in college students who don't know a lot about history, and haven't seen a lot of the world - and you see the groups who support Barack Obama even into his digging in about race and the politics of victimization.
We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts.
There's a history in this country that Barack Obama never seems to have heard. It is usually called 'the immigrant experience', and its basic assumptions are at the center of why Obama is so incapable of connecting with working class white voters.
The majority of "whites" in America are not descended from the Mayflower. Our people came here through Ellis Island. We mostly weren't considered white when we first got here - in fact, some of the earliest IQ tests proved "scientifically" that we were subhuman (which is largely why we ignore jerks who publish books like The Bell Curve).
But we were proud to become Americans. And now peoples' definition of whiteness has expanded to include our features.
We are not passive beneficiaries of the slavery system. We had to fight for our place in America's prosperity, and we are aware (acutely aware, this election) that we are already losing what we've gained.
The first of us got here just in time to fight the Civil War (on the Union side), and after that the rich whites used us like disposable tissues in and on their factories and railroads and mines.
Cities like New York were so crowded with dirt-poor immigrants that the only way to get a job was to literally sell your body, signing away all rights. Conditions were terrible - sweatshop conditions. Immigrant labor made other people rich, but the workers lived terrible lives.
We did benefit from wealthy whites who were horrified at what we were subjected to. There is no simplified narrative like the one Rev. Wright gives us, where you can tell who the villain is by something as easy to check as skin color. If rich whites were as bad as some people seem to think, immigrants and blacks would still be living the way they did in 1904. It is crude and simplistic and insulting to suggest that you can divide people into moral categories of good and evil in such a fashion. There were activists who spoke out and who worked to end horrific conditions and we owe them something. And it's petty and ungracious to refuse to acknowledge that debt.
But although we had help, we also fought and died ourselves for what we gained: minimum wage, forty hour workweeks, child labor laws, workplace safety regulations.
Obama is probably familiar with the Illinois Pullman strike.
(Do Americans realize that once upon a time it was legal for employers to pay wages in "scrip", that is, company credit?)
We fought for rights such as the right to not be kept locked into the building, after 146 teenage girls died in a fire (started because the building was not well kept).
I have heard a lot about how unions "overpay" their employees. What they don't realize is that working in a blast furnace is like working in Hell. It's hot and it's dangerous and it's hard work. The shifts are often crazy, ten or twelve or fourteen hours at a stretch, working through weekends and holidays, very frequently on a rotating schedule that seems designed to make sure nobody ever gets a good night's sleep. The "big bucks" usually comes from overtime, not base wages.
...of three men at J & L who fell when a catwalk buckled to the crucible and how their screams melted...
Factory workers dying on the job isn't something from last century. Even with all the nearly obsessive focus on safety, people still die, and factories still post those Days Since Last Accident signs. In a way, it kinda bugs me that those signs don't count the most pernicious danger: falling asleep behind the wheel - I wish someone would do something about back-to-back shifts. However, before there were unions, fatal accidents were not only common, but the surviving spouse usually had to pay the company for any damage done to the machinery.
Fighting those excesses in power is, to me is the essence of what the Democratic party stands for. I'm the so-called labor vote and my first interest is a decent life for anyone willing to work hard and play by the rules. This has two parts:
1. a decent life: this is what the labor movement fought for. It's what conservatives don't get/don't want to talk about. Americans had to fight hard to win a good standard of living because the sweatshop is what capitalism looks like in its natural state.
Just as our system works on the principle of checks and balances, so too economics and politics need to check and balance the other. Economics without politics leads to corruption and tyranny; politics without economics leads to stagnation. Either way, the end result of extremism is collapse.
2. willing to work hard and play by the rules: this half is important. It's the part liberals don't get/don't want to talk about. Working stiffs live in that world economists are describing when they speak of "competition for scarce resources". Scarcity is reality and it means life is naturally harsh. Civilized life means banding together to make life a little less uncertain. A little less painful.
The working class works hard and plays by the rules and wants to be recognized and rewarded for that. Some of us take it as a personal affront when our tax dollars, instead of supporting things that benefit us, are instead diverted to the sort of handouts that reward people for rejecting our ethical code.
Personally, I really like the idea of a safety net - but I resent that so many safety net projects specifically exclude white people; they should be open to anyone who has a legitimate need. I want to hit something when I hear it suggested that reverse discrimination never hurt nobody; of course it does. It's just that nobody listens to the people who actually carry that burden.
And lots of people resent programs that destroy incentive and undermine the work ethic.
There's been a lot of shaming going on for the past several decades. People aren't proud to be an American anymore, and they don't want to speak the language, and expecting people to assimilate the way my own people assimilated is considered somehow insulting.
To become affluent too often means leaving behind your immigrant roots. In today's America, if you started from working class white stock but you're moving up in the world, you either become a conservative, or you disown your heritage and take on the peculiar identity of the latte liberal - the self-hating white, the America-hating privileged American.
Many liberals seem happy to do this. They are only too pleased to have an excuse to be angry with their small town origins. I guess it's fun to mock their parents' culture. They get to be better than, and smarter.
"The place where I come from is a small town They think so small they use small words. But not me I'm smarter than that..."
"...and my Heaven will be a big Heaven And I will walk through the front door."
I won't vote for Obama because he doesn't understand that we don't share his identity crisis - we have our own identity, and we don't particularly want to renounce it so that we can become latte liberals. Or so that we can become free trade conservatives. Or so that we can become...whatever the hell it is he is offering us. (Kos Libertarianism?)
Once upon a time, the underprivileged stood together. The blacks (and other minorities) have legitimate grievances, but they are making a big mistake in letting their leaders turn their anger against "America", which too often means against the labor vote (divide and conquer).
pop quiz: what does 'typical white person', Rev. Wright, 'bittergate', Ayers, thousands of emails flooding ABC (to attack George Stephanopolous), Barack Obama's middle finger, the Daily Kos, and Hamas all have in common?
The funny thing about this election is how I can never quite be sure what's really going on. It's like reality stops connecting together into a coherent picture - but a few things seem to fall into place here and there, and so I think it's safe to say this: that after 8 years of Bush, the Democratic party is not about to settle for merely winning. It's got to be this candidate or that candidate or no other.
And I think we can see why: because one of the candidates is zero-sum. You are either with him or you are his enemy. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that this candidate's followers are willing to destroy the entire party rather than compromise. In fact, they want to. They are alight with some sort of fires of holy vengeance, come to cleanse the nation or something.
This man describes himself in messianic terms. He speaks of epiphanies. His campaign is not a campaign but a "movement". He describes what he is offering as a "new" kind of politics. He calls this "unity". What are we unifying for? He calls this "change".
His supporters describe this "new" kind of politics as more like - well, a purge.
The old people must be disabused of the notion that they matter. Baby Boomers especially, but also older Gen Xers. The Baby Boomers are, it turns out, vile and immoral. And they're the past, not the future. Democrats attacking Democrats: old people are now to be viewed as tainted.
The yokels in flyover country must be disabused of the notion that anyone needs Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan - the traditional labor voters in the Rust Belt. Oh - and so-called Reagan Democrats. Democrats attacking Democrats: all these are tainted, too.
White voters who are racist (i.e. don't support Obama). Taint, taint, taint. Who needs proof? If you're white and not voting for Obama, you are GUILTY!
Female voters who are not ready and willing to...well, the women will fall into line. They're just women.
Anyone named Clinton Is. Just. Evil. Hillary must go. And so must anyone who fails to understand why.
Key words here are arrogant and assumption and idealism. I keep thinking of what a relief it must have been for General Robert E. Lee to finally be free of that pain-in-the-neck pragmatist Stonewall Jackson - you know Stonewall means old fart getting in the way and not moving when he ought to, right? As soon as that guy stopped his endless nagging Lee was free to go charging up any hill he liked. He had GOD on his side. We all know how that turned out.
Or maybe we don't. It seems to me however highly educated, my "betters" don't know squat about how idealist movements run amok tend to turn out. People think they are joking when they call this group "Jacobin". People talk about bloodshed and riot as if this might somehow shake things up - in a good way?
This is a bad sort of unity. This is maybe why Clinton's supporters are just as adamant, in their own way - okay, we might have been good with Obama earlier, but we don't want him now. We don't want this guy. We don't - really don't - want his version of "unity".
His toxic "coalition of the bitter" brand of unity makes it fashionable to bash on "white trash" and to speak of anyone who gets in the way as an obstacle to be removed, an enemy, a threat. Evil.
Traditional Democratic constituencies are found unworthy and must be purged. They are unwilling to recognize the true vision. Traditional Democratic values are tossed aside or rewritten; Obama fans both individual and collective (Daily Kos, Huffpo) think they have the power to determine what does or does not constitute a "real" Democrat.
"Real" Democrat means the future, not the past. The future, of course, as envisioned by those who would purge the unwanted. Their future "is" what being a Democrat really means. Anyone who doesn't like that needs to be removed somehow.
The soul of the Democratic party is perceived to be at risk. Losing in the general is better than letting evil win.
But, of course, we're all sure that once Hillary Clinton's supporters recognize there's no way she can win (even if every voter left votes for her and every superdelegate votes for her, the nomination will be Obama's)...I am sure we'll all come together and vote Democrat. After all, good loyal Democrats can surely agree that anything is better than letting McCain win.
You know, I clicked on the CNN video image because it looked like maybe there had been violence. I thought, oh no, has it started already? Pushing and shoving - that was what the icon looked like to me. Like maybe a fight had broken out.
But, no, it's just CNN doing its best to make sure that happens later. To warn us that Obama backers are very angry, and if we elect Clinton, it would be a bad thing.
Nice little narrative they've got set up there, don't they?
First, Obama isn't a political campaign - it's a movement.
And, CNN tells us, the internet is full of rage. Never mind how many of those bloggers are paid. Never mind that the bloggers overrepresent a single demographic.
Frat Boy is America now (until the general, when I expect CNN will suddenly remember it prefers McCain). We are supposed to let the least experienced choose our candidate. Is it just me, or is there an edge of "or else" thrown into this mix?
And what would happen if Clinton got elected the nominee? Let's cut to an Obama supporter to find out! Let's talk about how it would make them very angry. Because we all know that's how elections are run - vote for my candidate or else the kids will throw a temper tantrum.
Isn't CNN sort of encouraging an irresponsible attitude here? Oh - I forgot - they like it when the Democrats have riots, don't they? Nonstop coverage. Who would have imagined such a thing could happen?
Never mind that most Democrats have voted for Clinton. Yes - Clinton has more Democratic party votes than Obama, who has relied on those college kids to get mommy and daddy to indulge them (for the nomination - not the general election). (See Young Obama Backers Twist Parents' Arms, NYTimes)
The fact is, the entire media has thrown in for Obama.
Who gets to choose the President again? Oh yes - the wealthy guys who control the three companies that own almost all the media outlets in America. And they want Obama - precisely because it is now increasingly obvious that Obama cannot and will not defeat McCain.
It's ridiculous how people are defending Obama's associations with politically poisonous people. Apparently they think when Obama speaks of politics 'a new way', that means he can just ignore political realities, do whatever he wants - and somehow things will work out all right, not in spite of, but because Obama is ignoring the rules that govern ordinary reality.
Three problems come to mind:
1. Most people disapprove of using violence to solve problems.
Please note that while Ayers would not be a big deal if it were just the one association, it isn't just one association. It's web pages with shackles on them and Rev. Wright attacking blacks who are "whiter than Cheney" and Catholic priests who talk about snuffing out gun shop owners and New Black Panthers and every other bitter, alienated, hateful person drawn to Obama like a magnet.
What Obama is offering is "change", a code word that appears to mean America-hating. What happens after all the bitter, alienated people are unified?
2. Is Obama too politically incompetent to run for this high office?
If you're going to run for office, you disassociate yourself from people whose views you do not share. If you cannot figure out how to do this, then isn't it safe to assume you're not going to be able to figure out how to do anything else?
Of course, the problem with "new politics" is that Obama has yet to explain how he's going to get things done, if he isn't going to do things the way they've always been done. If he does not work with Congress, what else is there to do? Kidnap everyone and hold them in a basement until they agree to give you what you want? Jedi mind tricks maybe?
3. My own biggest beef here is that Obama can't just answer a damned question.
He is so busy being all things to all people that he is either everything you want him to be, or (for those of us who are slightly less accepting on trust) he is a great big blank spot where information would go, if it were available.
If McCain were hanging out with this same guy, it would mean nothing - we have no doubt whatsoever that McCain does not share his philosophy. We know, or think we know, who McCain is, and what he wants.
update: I am temporarily removing the question of whether and how much Obama is deliberately taking the party out on his way down. I want to write more about it later....
Wow.
I mean, unity sounds nice, but ultimately - I gotta hold my party responsible for allowing this loser to come and break it in half.
He pauses. He smiles slyly as the crowd begins to mumble and then he tries, somewhat distracted, to continue his remarks, smiling as the buzz spreads through the crowd.
He'll no doubt deny it later, but that mischievous smile seems to confirm plenty. And the crowd sure sees something. (LA Times)
And it breaks my heart. I just don't know how I'm going to vote...but I can't cast a ballot for someone who behaves like that.
It’s appears that way to me. The timing, the gesture, the sheer passive-aggressiveness of the act, which would fit Obama’s passive-aggressive campaign, couldn’t be simply a habitual gesture.
Passive-aggressive. You know - that's just the term I was looking for.
update: apparently some people really believe it was just coincidence that he scratched himself that way. Coincidentally good timing, as he was slamming Clinton right at that moment.
I don't really think it changes the basic problem, which is that Obama's only response to his own lack of Presidential qualities is to relentlessly attack and destroy Clinton.
Personally, I have no doubt that the gesture was intentional (his audience certainly appears to have taken it that way).
The point I would make is - does Obama's behavior really suggest the man best fit to represent our interests in delicate international diplomatic situations? Or are we going to be getting lots of day-after sour grapes speechmaking?
...not just party officials, but also the intelligentsia that formulates the political philosophy and the echo chamber that shouts its approval, is running a campaign on little more than class resentment against former Democratic constituencies. (White) Race is elided with (working) class to create the ultimate clash of culture – to make racist demons out of people asking to have their material interests defended.
It is no less than the mobilization of resentment of the socio-economic winners against the losers. How dare you not keep us in power, when we have done so little for you and promise to do even less?
...
The ultimate shadow of Reagan is that you don’t win by defending losers, only by securing the interests of the winners. That is the dark heart beating in the chest of the Unity Democrats. They are done with the losers. - Anglachel They're just not used to somebody really smart. They’re just not used to somebody who’s really well educated. They just don’t know quite how to handle it. Cause if he’s as smart as Barack is he must not be from my neighborhood. - Joe Biden (on why "Republicans and blogs on the far right" are 'mischaracterizing' Obama)
One of the things I really like about PUMA is that, unlike an unfortunately growing faction of the Democratic Party, there are no loyalty oaths, no uniforms to wear, no hierarchical leadership structure to pay homage to or suck up to, and no demagoguery to reflexively swallow. I’ve read and participated in many disagreements on The Confluence, esp. recently with regard to voting McCain, and never once been told ’you’re not a true PUMA!’ or had ’you’re a Republican/bitch/trailer trash/freak because you disagree!’ - commenter, Corrente Whatever Palin’s political impact, her cultural significance is profound. For better and for worse, she introduces a new and likely long-running cultural type to the national stage—the red-state feminist. - Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal
The vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin is, in part, an effort to wrest the leadership of the feminist movement from the elite and militant left, and to put it in the hands of a silent majority of relatively traditional but ambitious women. It is a bold move to try to separate abortion from other issues generally associated with women’s rights. - Conrad Black I think we need to add a new term to the lexicon to sum up that prevalent bit of sexism. I'm calling it Penis Years* (not a coincidence that it echoes the term dog years.)
*Penis Years: Each year of any experience of a person with a penis is equivalent to five years of experience by someone without a penis. - The Confluence (alleging bias in the media's treatment of female candidates Clinton and Palin, as compared to the media's treatment of Obama)
Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. - Wendy Doniger, Newsweek They believe that the Democrats are right in the same way, to the same degree, that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and the Earth revolves around the sun. They take the ‘rightness’ of liberal and Democratic views as such a given, that they are not even able to think within any other framework.
Conservatives, and I am one, understand that some people disagree with us and it’s up to us to sell our ideas and get their vote. Liberals think that their correctness is self-evident and that those who don’t agree are uninformed, stupid or evil. They should be lectured and if that doesn’t work, mocked or ignored. - commenter, FT.com [Democrats'] concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt. - Clive Crook, columnist
She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right....
...Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn't even female really....
...Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a fuckin' redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?
...Palin has it all, along with being vicious.... - Heather Mallick, CBC Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town, and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey. - Michael Kinsley, TIME
...those numbers showing a 20-point swing in the support of white women have got to be in error -- unless of course, they meant to say ditzy white women, and the first adjective was omitted in error. - commenter, TalkLeft
On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. - Tammy Bruce, San Francisco Chronicle One ''hot-button'' issue is whether a woman with young children could be a good president and still handle her domestic obligations, or would she become conflicted, so that, say, if the Russians were getting ready to launch nuclear missiles at us, and the president was supposed to get on the Hot Line, she would instead be seized by an uncontrollable maternal instinct to make a pediatrician appointment.I don't know about Palin. But I do know this: women in general are WAY better at work/home multi-tasking than -- to pick another gender at random -- men. - Dave Barry
She was put on this earth to do two things: kill caribou and kick butt. She's all out of caribou. - Jonah Goldberg (enthusing over Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin)
And Hillary….I know you want to keep your job but for God’s sake woman how much abuse are you willing to take? - Mountain Sage
There is always talk of conservatives loving to start cultural war when they are down, but I can’t say that I’ve found this any more sickening and disgusting than the liberals’ tactic of belittling and demonizing much of the population of this country. I’ve found it incredibly hard to get mad at their usual attacks on liberals when my fellow liberals attack with the same degree of ferocity, but in a different way. If they are stereotypically “cheerfully vicious”, than we are most definitely “blissfully smug”. - commenter, Corrente
What is it about Republican Conventions that bring out America's inner police state? - Tennessee Guerilla Women
He's a one-trick (unity) pony, whose trick has been trotted out once too often. His sole and only schtick – standing at a podium in front of huge crowds and offering himself as their mirror – is already so yesterday that nobody can even work up much energy praising it anymore. Witness the speeches at this convention. All anybody could say on his behalf is that he isn’t John McCain. - Falstaff (on Obama) The reason that some of us will support Palin, even though we may not agree with all of her political positions, is that she is not an illegitimate candidate. She did not steal votes from her opponent. She did not smear us with charges of racism. She actually has a lot in common with some of us (mother, businesswoman, athlete, etct). And the man that will be her boss showed us that he is at least listening and aware of our presence. He didn’t flick us off his shoulder and tell us we weren’t needed. He didn’t play the abusive boyfriend and say “where else are you gonna go babe?”. - The Confluuence
Party bosses fixed a title fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In bare knuckles Scranton where I’m from, that’s tantamount to treason. So they better watch out when I come looking for a rematch. - Steve Corbett, talk show radio host
All those years I took pride in my party loyalty and now I realize I was just a fool, because I was telling the Democratic party and candidates they could take me for granted and ignore my wants and needs. The could pursue their own agendas without interference from me, because no matter what they did (or failed to do) they could count on my vote.
If I had been more disloyal they might have offered to pay me for my vote instead paying me no attention. Who knows what I could have got in return for my vote? I might have universal health care right now instead of my current plan which is called “don’t get sick.” We might even have “Congressional oversight” of the Bush Mob. - Klownhaus Nancy Pelosi said not too long ago that she supported Obama because he has the judgment to be President. This is of course, like a homeless person giving advice on how to fix the housing crisis. - Marc Rubin The Republicans couldn’t have come up with a better way to destroy the progressive movement from within if they’d invented him. Which maybe they did. - Reclusive Leftist Resolved, that 18 million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, more than any other presidential primary candidate in history, and they have a right to help shape the agenda and processes of the Democratic Party. - Declaration of Objections
I know that candidates usually run toward the center during the general, but, damn, they don’t usually run all the way to the opposite goal! - commenter, Corrente
who I am
I am an alienated former Democrat, who intends to vote independent from now on.
I took down my blogroll because I don't want to belong to any communities at the moment. I think groupthink is the biggest threat there is right now.
I always did like to play devil's advocate, and I think an honest debate is worth more than a hundred "right" opinions. Two hundred if it's lively.
I'm not ashamed to place myself near the center of the political spectrum. I have little respect for people who are way out on either wing, who see nothing but their own little bubble, and hear nothing because they can't listen to anyone but themselves and their mirrors.
I am an unashamed member of the low information bitter small town gun totin' hick crowd, though I've lived in cities too.
I've been a Democrat ever since I could vote, but I'm fed up with the sneering contempt liberals have aimed at everyone outside their little gated-community world.
To me, the word elitist brings up images of Brad Pitt on ice skates, and it is exactly how I think of the Democratic party. And, no, "elitist" has nothing to do with how wealthy you are. It is merely the opposite of someone who believes in equality (or, ironically, democracy), but who believes that 'some pigs are created a little more equal than others'.
I don't pretend to be particularly well-educated; I have no fancy degrees and I've learned (the hard way) to be very cautious of assuming a fancy degree is worth jack.
I care about eradicating poverty and I care about dignity for all (even poor people, trailer trash, Southerners, and Republicans). I care about education, equal access to opportunity, FDR's Four Freedoms, minimum protections for workers, and a fair shake for anyone willing to work hard and obey the rules.
I care about an honest dialog, and the idea that everyone ought to have a voice. I care about fair and honest elections. I am angry about how manipulative the media is. I care about procedures being followed and process being respected.
Also: when I comment on other blogs - which I don't usually do ever since I noticed someone going around posting this site as his or her personal link (??) - I use this Blogger account. If the name is the same as mine, but it's not a Blogger account - it isn't me.
