the real change 'from the ground up'

The real grassroots movement needed is one to retake our ability to judge and hold our elected officials accountable.

To be effective (unlike what we've got now) this will first mean we need to stop using that power to judge to try to make our fellow voters conform to our ("thought police") vision of what they ought to think and how they ought to vote. We remember how to use our power wisely.

It requires a faith in democracy - a belief that people armed with correct information will make good choices.

It requires letting go of the desire to coerce. Even if you're sure you're right and the rest of the world is stupid.

I blame the fringe liberals for the fact that we have done a complete reversal: instead of us judging our elected officials, liberal voters judge each other - and now the circle is complete: elected officials have learned how to judge the voters, while fringe liberals have done nothing but cheer at the idea that a "new kind of politician" can make the voters be the change we are waiting for.

Ugh!

the sexism debate is a trap (and it's working)

Sexism didn't cost Hillary Clinton the election.

Yes, she faced misogyny. But she understood - in a way many of her supporters obviously do not - that she could never be credible as a leader* unless she took every smear they threw at her and defeated it and won voters' respect anyway.

Which she did.

Hillary Clinton lost because the DNC did everything in its power to flip the election to its preferred candidate. They fixed the rules to benefit a particular candidate's strategy (which they probably helped design), and then broke those rules anyway. They used their positions of power and authority irresponsibly, even fraudulently (for instance, feigning neutrality even as they took questionable actions to sink one candidate and promote the other). And so on.

Even now, they are working to skew the convention because Obama still hasn't actually won; an actual vote of the superdelegates must be prevented or else the nomination could very well go to the woman who won the popular vote and every big state except one.

Now a lot of women are understandably having issues with the sexism, but that's personal. I wish everyone would please stop projecting onto Hillary**. I'm sorry everyone is just now figuring out that a huge number of husbands, boyfriends, sons, and/or governmental leaders have no respect for women whatsoever. But it really is a separate issue from the more immediate, more urgent problem: there is a hostile takeover of the Democratic party in progress.

I think this is why Barack Obama and his supporters actively insulted the Democratic base, even going out of his way (it seems) to antagonize the same groups that watch the news and protests when things are messed up: so that people would be outraged and upset, and then sexism would be an "issue", and we'd talk about sexism instead of about broken rules or even broken laws.

Then those who are protesting against the stolen convention can be dismissed as sore losers, as emotional, as "just women", because they're "just upset" about the sexism.

If you care about the election - you know, trying to save the country from "Bush's Third Term" - be very careful of anyone, any group, any thing that makes the "movement" lose its focus on what is the real problem and what needs to be done.

If, on the other hand, you wholeheartedly agree that talk of stolen elections must be toned down (or disappeared entirely), then by all means - make this be all about sexism.

Because most of the country already knows (and by the way does not care) that women don't get no respect, so that makes the whole issue of stolen elections go away quite nicely, doesn't it?

It also has the side benefit of feeding the narrative that says only old women voted for Hillary, which helps disappear the entire working class, as well as entire states (PA, WV, KY, etc).

We won't have a female President until we have a woman who can and will stand up to the worst they can throw at her - and still get the job done. Hillary Clinton did just that. Don't take that away from her by repeating (as if it were true) that sexism "cost Hillary Clinton the election".

Misrepresentation and deliberate voter suppression strategies (from elected officials pretending to be neutral) and stolen votes and cherry-picked rules cost Hillary Clinton the election. Not sexism.

______________________________________________
* a leader must lead all the people - including the bad guys. Also, our leader must represent us - not just when we're talking to our allies, but also when we're talking to everyone else.

That is why a leader absolutely must meet the challenge, no matter how unexpected or unusual the situation. An election is a test of leadership. "But the other candidate's test isn't as hard as mine is" is not a viable excuse. The whole point is that there are no excuses. That is the test.

**When you redefine the issue away from "Hillary was hurt" to the more honest "I was hurt - I deserve more respect from my party and from society in general, and I am absolutely shocked at how ok everyone is and was with this!" - then it becomes easier to see how ineffective it is to put this up as a national issue requiring immediate attention.

It's a question of anger leading to action. If you are angry about sexism, what action does that lead to? An election cannot be reversed based on the idea that sexism (or racism, or religious discrimination, or any other form of bigotry) played a role. The only outcomes that can come of the anger over sexism are long-term in nature.

Obama and the ever growing ick factor

I hope all those people who said we have to vote for Obama because McCain will decimate Roe vs. Wade will appreciation Obama's abortion rhetoric now that he has come out in favor of a much stricter, narrowed definition of the "health of the mother" standard:

Obama recently gave an interview in which he seemed to back off his broad support of abortion rights, saying, "I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy." In "clarifying" his remarks, he said this:

My only point is this — historically I have been a strong believer in a women’s right to choose . . . I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions . . . It can be defined through physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don’t think that’s how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don’t think that’s how the courts have interpreted it and I think that’s important to emphasize and understand.

I think it's probably true that there are women in the world who have abortions for what others might think are "bad" reasons -- perhaps even because they're "feeling blue." But the whole point of being pro-choice is not that you think all abortions are a great idea, it's that you don't think government should restrict access to them based on the reasons why a woman wants one.

The way Obama dismisses and minimizes women's mental health as irrelevant is highly offensive to those of us who don't view women as creatures put on this planet by God to be the workhorses of the world*.

According to ABC:

The language Obama used in that response seemed to remove "mental distress" as an allowable exception justifying a post-22 week abortion.

To some observers, that would seem to go against the Supreme Court decision Doe v. Bolton -- handed down the same day as the more famous (or infamous) Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion, though the Court said the decisions were to be "read together."

Doe holds that the health exception permitting abortion after viability should be based on a "medical judgment...exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient," as ABC News' Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg noted over the weekend.

So was Obama suggesting to Relevant that he disagrees with Doe?

But of course we need translators to understand what Obama is really saying:

On Saturday, after a reporter noted to Obama that he had said that mental distress shouldn't be a reason for late-term abortion, Obama clarified, "historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family...I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions. In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case."

Notice the way Obama throws the words "pastor and family" in, as if he is hinting that in the future a woman will have to get a note from a (presumably Christian) pastor and another from her - husband? baby's father? - before she gets an abortion.

Can this guy seriously be getting the evangelical vote? Are evangelicals really stupid enough to fall for some guy whose "Christianity" comes from Rev. Wright's church?
___________________________________________
*Some of us view women as human beings and entitled to a little more than Milly from Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (for those who don't know their show tunes, Milly was chosen to marry cuz she is "young and strong and has lots of work left in her" - and, yes, she does fight back - even in the highly censored 1950s women didn't like being treated like beasts of burden).

this is how conservatives win on the character issue

I have seen some blogs carrying Lt. Col. West's statement rebutting Obama's race-baiting in Florida.

My advice to Senator Obama is to run as a Man and Leader, and the American people will evaluate you as such, not as a victim. This is a Presidential race, based solely on a capacity to lead the United States of America. It is not about skin tone…however, perhaps we should come to expect these immature statements.

It also seems rather humorous that the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a “uniter” and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism. I congratulate Senator Obama for taking race relations in America back some 30 years.

If you go to Allen West for Congress, there's another quote which I think is just as noteworthy or more noteworthy:

For most of my adult life I took an oath to a simple document, the US Constitution, to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. My allegiance is to America, its people, and their rights as put forth in that superb document. I shall not discard my principles and commitment to my God and Country, just because. I applaud Senator Obama for his accomplishment, however, there is no way I will vote for someone that is so contrary to my beliefs in lower taxes, limited government, individual rights and freedoms, individual responsibility and accountability, not collective prosperity sharing.

I grew up in inner city Atlanta Georgia, and my elementary school, Our Lady of Lourdes, is across the street from Ebenezer Baptist Church. Dr King’s seminal ideal of “content of character vs color of skin” resonates with me. Regardless of the probable ensuing vitriolic name calling, my ideology and principles are not in concert with those of Senator Obama. I wish him well, but I dont wish him to be President of THESE United States of America”.

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)
Republican Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
Florida District 22

There is something powerful in words such as My allegiance is to America, its people, and their rights as put forth in that superb document. I shall not discard my principles and commitment....

The 4th of July

Got this from here but it's making the rounds. I am going to take the liberty of reposting it in full, since I understand its makers want it seen first and foremost:

Declaration of Objections

July 4, 2008 by annabellep

When, in the course of U. S. Presidential Elections, it becomes necessary for one portion of a political party to assume among the people of the nation a position different from that which they have previously occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of their Constitution entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

In agreement with generations who have gone before us, we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes; and accordingly experience has shown that citizens are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the political structures to which they are accustomed. But political parties are not governments, and when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under authoritarianism, it is their duty to throw off such a political party, and to provide different representation for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of many in the Democratic Party, and it is this suffering which compels them to now demand the representation to which they are entitled. The recent history of both parties is a history of repeated injuries on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of authoritarian power over them, for the purpose of profit. This has rendered the Democratic Party unrecognizable to ordinary citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Objections

The members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and By-Laws Committee violated The DNC charter on May 31, 2008 by meeting in private, in direct violation of the Sunshine Rules Provision of said Charter.

On that same day, the Democratic Party grossly violated ethical standards when it awarded four delegates to candidate Barack Obama based on actual votes for candidate Hillary Clinton, and in addition, awarded him delegates based on votes for “Uncommitted.”

Earlier in the campaign season, the Democratic Party violated its own Delegate Selection Rules by applying penalties to only two states who broke Section 11 calendar rules, even though five states broke those rules. In addition, Florida and Michigan were originally stripped of 100% of their delegates, even though the rules stipulated a 50% penalty.

The decisions of the RBC meeting mentioned above are evidence of sexism and authoritarianism within the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Caucuses are a violation of the one-person, one-vote and secret ballot principles that have been cornerstone Democratic values for more than a century. They produced a skewed and unfair result this primary season. Caucus states are also over-represented in the pledged delegate count, in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle.

Sexism was allowed to flourish as never before not only because of the behavior of the mainstream media, but also by the actions of many in the progressive online community, the stark silence of the Democratic Leadership and because ordinary Americans, male and female, engaged in it as long as it advanced their favored candidate.

Barack Obama and his campaign exploited racial issues in the primary campaign, which risks setting back the Civil Rights movement, and cynical Democratic leaders, as well as some ordinary Democrats, approved of this campaign tactic.

The voices of 18 million voters who supported Hillary Clinton have been illegitimately silenced, ridiculed, and subjected to outright fabrications on the part of the mainstream press and the Internet press.

The evidence is present, for anyone who wants to see it, that authoritarian tendencies fueled by greed are on the rise in the Democratic Party.

Now, in view of the dismissal of one-half the Democratic voters of this primary season, their social degradation, in view of the unjust actions above mentioned, and in view of the disenfranchisement of the voters in two states, and because we do feel ourselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of a free and fair primary election, we insist that the Democratic Party address our objections, or risk the loss of our votes come November.

In entering upon the work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we will use every instrument within our power to affect our objectives. We will employ agents, circulate tracts and flyers, blog, advertise in all media, petitionenlist the press in our behalf. state and national Democratic leadership, and endeavor to

Resolutions

Resolved, that the Democratic Party must seat the full Michigan and Florida delegation in adherence to the thoroughly Democratic principle of one-person, one-vote.

Resolved, that Michigan delegates must be awarded according to the actual votes cast, specifically that Hillary Clinton must be given 73 delegates and Barack Obama must be given 0 (zero).

Resolved, that Hillary Clinton’s name must be offered on the first roll call at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August of 2008, in accordance with tradition for 16 of the last 18 Democratic National Conventions.

Resolved, that caucuses should be abolished, and the Democratic Primary system in its entirety must be reformed to better reflect the one-person, one-vote principle, as well as the equal representation principle enshrined in the Constitution.

Resolved, that millions of women and men alike no longer think of the Democratic Party as the party for women’s issues, or for equality and fairness, or for the protection of abortion rights, and will no longer vote for them based on such criteria.

Resolved, that the cynical exploitation of cultural issues will not be rewarded with votes, and that it is part of the PUMA mission to educate the electorate about such abuses.

Resolved, that the PUMA movement is comprised of traditional and loyal Democrats who have carefully watched and recorded the events of the 2008 Primary campaign season.

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.

I like that last paragraph so much that I am going to use it with a back-date for my "quote for the day" for July 4 (which I left blank b/c I was with my family).

tell Obama to inject his morality somewhere else

Meet the new GOP Democrat.

Barack Obama said Tuesday that if he were elected president he'd have his own version of President Bush's office of faith-based initiatives that would "help set our national agenda" and inject morality into policy debates about everything from AIDS to genocide.

Imagine this man, with his superior 'judgment', taking it upon himself to dispense morality single-handedly.

As soon as we fork over the trust, obedience, and submission we owe him, everything will be all set. We will be a moral nation. A Christian nation. And both democracy and the Democratic Party will soon be yesterday's news.

And to think I felt paranoid for suspecting he was some sort of GOP plant. It really did sound like conspiracy-theory land only a month or two ago, didn't it?

A commenter at Corrente:

Our party leaders have opened the gates to a GOP Trojan horse.

We’re trapped.

Yeah, but why have so many Democrats gone along with it?

And what are they going to do now?

the price of real legitimacy is an open convention

What happens in Denver is an excellent metric to measure them all by though. No one who voted for Hillary should consider voting for Obama unless the votes are counted properly in Denver. Period. I can even handle SD’s selecting Obama over Hillary for whatever lame reasons they have, but only if everyone sees the real votes out in the light of day.
- commenter, The Confluence

The Denver Group
Set up to "keep the Democratic party Democratic".

To deny Senator Clinton a rightful place on the ballot in an attempt to foster a false image of party unity based on unofficial declarations by super delegates made June 5th will fool no one and only create more disunity. It is in everyone's best interest, especially the Democratic Party and its chances in November, to hold an open and honest convention.
- the Denver Group

How they describe themselves:

The Denver Group has been formed to insure that the Democratic National Committee respect and carry out the democratic process at the convention in Denver this August by meeting certain specific goals. We will be advocating, and if necessary pressuring, through purchased mass media as well other accepted avenues, the Democratic National Committee to see to it that these goals and the interests of tens of millions of Democratic voters are met.

Our goals are:

An open convention.

Senator Clinton's name on the ballot

Speeches allowed by supporters of Senator Clinton on
behalf of her candidacy.

A roll call vote.

No coronation

If we can't or won't obey our own rules, what does that make us?

If this election is rigged, true lovers of democracy should resist corruption.

If Obama is really all that his supporters say he is, he should win hands down. But if he doesn't, maybe he needs to stop the Bush-like pretending that he has "political capital" to burn when he really does not.

We already had one Bush. We don't want another.

Through the use of mass media the Group intends to make it clear to Howard Dean and the DNC that the convention must be an open convention and must function that way, and to that end Senator Clinton's name must be on the ballot. Her name must be put in nomination and there must be a roll call vote allowing the delegates Senator Clinton has earned and who represent more than 18 million Democratic voters, to cast their votes. The representation of those 18 million Democratic voters is the only acceptable means for conducting the convention regardless of outcome, and the only acceptable means that is in accordance with the democratic process.

To achieve these goals we have organized ourselves as a non-connected committee. By doing this we may not accept contributions in excess of $5,000 and we may not accept contributions from corporations or unions but it will give us greater flexibility in the messages we can send.

It will also let Howard Dean and the DNC know through our use of mass media that the messages being sent through our full page ads and tv commercials are being sent by an extremely large number of Democrats concerned with keeping the Democratic Party democratic and who are insisting that Senator Clinton's s name is on the ballot and that there be a roll call vote. It will also indicate to Dr. Dean and the DNC that there will be an extremely large number of disaffected Democrats if its not.

protesting behind fences doesn't work

If I were a protester, I'd find a way to protest that does work.

I mean, isn't being seen sort of the point?

The Denver Post:

The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.

That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.

Love that word "may". Don't you?

I don't tend to join protests. But if I did, I'd choose my time and place with great care. Protesting behind a fence is a waste of time. When you submit to that - they win. Their goal is to control you, after all.

It's time to rethink old ways of doing things*.

___________________________________________

*Coevolution:

Each party in a co-evolutionary relationship exerts selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each others' evolution. ... Evolution in a one-on-one interaction, such as that between predator and prey, host-symbiont or host-parasitic pair, is coevolution. But many cases are less clearcut: a species may evolve in response to a number of other species, each of which is also evolving in response to a set of species.

talking points that don't revolve around someone named Murphy

Warning! Warning! Do not jump into the fight about whether or not Darragh Murphy is or is not a Republican.

For one thing, you don't know who she is - or what her motives are. What if she is? How do you know she isn't?

So what if it were true? What if she were a Republican? What if it turned out she was some sort of real villain - a lying, cheating saboteur who also steals peoples' boyfriends just for fun, and throws them into the river when she's done with 'em? Would that mean PUMA is no longer a valid idea, or that your concerns about this election no longer matter?

The attacks on Murphy are a reframing of the narrative. Don't let them do it. Don't let them make it all about Murphy.

Keep it about YOU. Keep it about why PUMA came into being in the first place.

A better answer:

"you know, I have no idea who these people are who started PUMAPac and Just Say No Deal, but that doesn't matter to me, because the cause is just and I believe in it, and I will continue to believe in what I know to be right whether it turns out our "movement" is infiltrated by Republicans or not.

You could even say:

In fact, I would be astonished if Republicans didn't try to do everything in their power to take advantage of this split in the party. But what Republicans do is not the point. It's what Democrats do that matters here. The Democratic 'leaders' need to address the rift in the party, instead of trying to purge the Clintons and all their supporters.

Or here is another answer:

I can't control other people - or other peoples' motives - but I can control my own vote. And that is what PUMA is about: reclaiming that control. Both Obama and McCain are going to want to control us, but our movement is about us making our own choice and making our elected officials listen to us. So naturally we have to expect that they will try to stop us from taking back the power of our vote - they are going to infiltrate and sabotage and they are going to make up stories and they are going to try to make people not believe in us - but those games aren't going to work this time.

Or here is another answer:

I don't care about those people. PUMA is real and the anger is real and the outrage is real and we are tired of being manipulated.

But it is IMO a bad answer to let yourself get sidetracked onto arguments about the character or motives or hidden agenda of any particular PUMA. It's an argument you can't win - but could very easily lose.

What you feed is what will grow.

You can waste your breath insisting that Murphy is a good person (let alone sincere, lifelong Democrat, legitimate, and absolutely the best at baking tollhouse cookies), but the more you do, the less this debate is about what went wrong on May 31st and the more it is about digging up dirt on this person Murphy. Is that really what PUMA wants?

I don't mean to say throw Murphy under the proverbial bus - the last thing PUMA needs is its own bus - but on the other hand, do let Murphy be the one to make statements about what Murphy is and what Murphy isn't. It is always, always asking for trouble to try to vouch for someone you just met.

It's also not doing Murphy any favors. Murphy is probably better able to defend herself if we just stay out of it.

Kucinich won't rally for Obama until...

Democrats (real Democrats) want to know what Obama stands for! What Obama thinks the Democratic party stands for! TheHill.com:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has yet to officially endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president and indicated he will not rally his liberal supporters this fall until he knows “what the party stands for.”

In an interview this week, Kucinich said it is too early to see which direction the Democratic Party is headed this election year. Pressed on when a formal endorsement of Obama would be announced, Kucinich replied, “[Obama and I] will be talking.”

Ahh but I know what Obama stands for: he stands for himself.

Still - it's so nice to see a Democrat willing to ask questions before just rolling over and offering up that soft-bellied unconditional support.

on tactics and risk management

PUMA people: do not think that just because you really, sincerely can't support what the Democratic party has done and is doing, that therefore the Republicans had nothing to do with what is happening now.

Get this straight: when it comes to strategy, they really are smarter than you*.

Remember earlier? How Rush Limbaugh bragged about "Operation Chaos"? This is Operation Chaos in action, folks.

The good news is that it might be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party.

What happened:

1. There was a pre-existing split between two sides of the Democratic party.
   
   
2. Someone not only widened that split, but actually used the wing consisting of young people and uber-liberals to attack the rest of the party.
   
   There isn't enough information available yet to really know exactly who did what to whom. But it's naive to think the Republicans merely stood by and watched**.
   
   Black voters were really used as pawns here - they should be on our side, but Democratic identity politics games are reaching their absurd yet logical conclusion....
   
   
3. Now that one half of the party has attacked the other to get what it wanted, the half of the party that was attacked is furious and won't stop fighting back.
   
   The side-that-was-attacked recognizes (in a way that the attacking flank does not) that the integrity of the party has been breached - and the damage is severe. It's really severe.
   
   
4. Where we are now: it is not clear that anyone should stop fighting back, because the split in the party really does need to be resolved now. It is too late to paper it over. Also, the tactics that were used genuinely cannot be legitimized. These tactics must be put down. They are tactics that cannot be tolerated.
   

Does all of this lead to the conclusion that shutting up and getting behind Barack Obama the right thing to do? No, it doesn't. Obama is a terrible candidate, and there really is something rotten in the state of the Democratic Party.

The real correct thing to do is to stop and examine and think. Don't just join a crowd and do whatever that particular leader tells you to do. Don't just worship a particular idol - whether it's Barack, Hillary, or a blog site owner. Don't just follow that idol's belief. Democracy means you have to follow your own belief.



In the absence of trustworthy leaders, we are running around like mad, looking for someone to follow. What is needed is to recognize that an excessive tendency toward obedience is the problem. Finding someone new to be obedient to is not going to solve anything.

This is why it bothers me when I see people trying to apply the old ways of doing things to the first new leader that rises up***.

It is natural and normal for people to follow their leaders. They have to, because there are too many issues and too many decisions for any of us to make an informed decision on each one. So we learned to rely on 'voter guides' - and, until Bush, that system worked (?). But the "voter guide" approach is how lots of good Republicans got fooled, and got their party stolen away. Bush pretended to be a moderate and he pretended to be a moderate "compassionate" Christian, even while he also sent out special signals to the far right Christians. Both moderates and Evangelicals were betrayed. We will see the same thing (already are starting to see the same thing) in Barack Obama, who has been taking the same moves straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. Obama has fooled many people into thinking he is what he isn't.

This brand of politics must stop. It stops when we, the voters, rise to the challenge. Think of it as coevolution.

Somehow, we have to learn to navigate the reality that it's impossible for us to be well-informed on every issue - and yet the old ways we used to measure how we should give out our vote has failed.

One thing that would help is to recognize that words do matter. And so do symbols. The Democratic party has long ridiculed most of America for paying too much attention to symbols. The Democratic party is wrong to do so - those symbols matter. That flag pin matters. That Michelle Obama said for the first time in my life - that matters. These things matter far more than promises about filibustering FISA legislation.

You can't guarantee that people who give off the right signals will be good leaders - but you can quite safely assume that a politician who gives off the wrong sort of signals during the election is not going to be a good leader. The reality is, it all hinges on trust.

What we as voters need to do is recognize that we need to develop skills we don't currently have in a thing called risk management. We need to add to our political awareness a skill set that involves being able to make reasonable estimates of the probability of - I will not say a politician's sincerity, because quite honestly I don't care if my politician is sincere or not. I just care:

• whether s/he gets done the things I expected him to
• whether s/he refrains from doing things I don't expect him to and don't approve of

That's what we all need to learn to measure.

In a nutshell, the reason the Clinton supporters I know preferred her to Obama (and that preference grew much stronger over time) has to do with signals. Specifically:

• Clinton's signals were consistent with past performance and past record.
  
  Obama's showed increasingly upsetting contradictions - eventually reaching "bait and switch" proportions.
  
  
• Clinton's signals focused on us - stories about people like us, discussion of what issues confront people like us.
  
  Obama's focused on himself - who he is, why he's marvelous. His story - over and over again.
  
  
• Clinton's signals suggested that, like Bill before, she intends to derive her real political power from the voters. She courted us and the level of detail in her discussions about issues reveal that she has actually put in the time to work on these issues and formulate opinions. She made it clear that she was willing to commit to specific positions on issues we care about.
  
  Obama does not talk about issues. When he does, he is vague, contradicts himself, and - well, it's clear there is a reason why his supporters repeat the lie that he is "virtually identical to Clinton" - and now that his actual votes and his endorsements have proved that is anything but the case (so much so that those who are still repeating the lie are either really ignorant, reeeeaaally naive, or downright crooked), the new talking point is that whatever Obama votes for is somehow excusable because he's gotta win! (Why does he gotta win? Because he's virtually identical to Clinton on issues?)
  

Obama signals loud and clear that voters are irrelevant. Whatever the source of his power, I say we should be very afraid of that source of power, because it is totally indifferent to democracy. If we have any power left as voters, we should use it to restore democracy - even if that means voting against the Democrat.

Obama's anti-corporate, left wing rhetoric appears to be nothing more than the left-wing version of the same pandering Bush did when he pretended to be a staunch conservative Christian. The far left will end up as screwed over and disillusioned as Bush's far right evangelicals were. It's part of a duel strategy: part one is fool the moderates and part two is fool the extremist fringes. And if you think Rev. Wright isn't or shouldn't be a problem for Barack Obama, consider two very troubling facts:

1. One of the central premises of Trinity involves opposition to 'middleclassness' and 'white man's greed'
   
   
2. Rev. Wright's new house

Just one of soooo many examples of the sort of contradiction that indicates fraud is taking place.



And sorry, boys, but Obama has no intention of taking us out of the war. If you're afraid of the draft, you're probably actually better off voting for McCain, because Obama and McCain are both going to expand the military - but McCain actually has knowledge and experience, whereas Obama has the same sort of experience that gave us Bush In Iraq and Bush Responding To Katrina.

(For what it's worth, I don't want to see you drafted either. I want the killing in Iraq to stop. I want torture to stop. I want peace in Palestine. And I am absolutely certain that Obama is the worst of the three candidates on all of these issues. Yes, I seriously believe that.)

Also, if McCain is elected, we might actually get some opposition from Congress. Especially if we show them that we are now not going to vote for any Democrat who does not uphold our agenda.
___________________________________________
*It isn't something to feel bad about - they are professionals. This is what they do. And never forget this: they do it very well. Very very well.

And they do it together - starting with a think-tank, and then following orders all down the hierarchy.

** Did Republicans vote more for Hillary? Would Obama be the uncontested nominee if Republicans hadn't interfered? Or do they just run circles around our tiny brains and laugh while they're doing it? They are smart enough to realize (even if we aren't) that by making a big deal of how they are keeping Hillary in the race, they are in fact suggesting that Hillary is not in the race (except through our intervention).

Look at the same question from a different angle: which candidate earned the most Democratic votes? That is, if you eliminate all the crossover voters, which candidate won?

*** at PUMA sites, it is already possible to see people all but swooning because the new PUMA-gods are emerging. People are excited at the idea of being invited into a discussion or a conference call. Or at (gasp!) actually being on the receiving end of a compliment.

It's absolutely horrifying.

(4) blaming the voters

REASONS WHY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA (and you shouldn't, either) #4

blaming the voters

is IMO the sure sign of exactly the sort of candidate we need to reject - whatever his party affiliation.

I will not vote for any candidate who blames me for not being what he needs.

I want a candidate who sees it as his job to be what we need.

It's a master-and-servant thing. I want the voters to always be the one on top. I guess I'm a control-freak that way.

(3) Obama endorses the Bush enabler over the progressive

REASONS WHY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA (and you shouldn't, either) #3

Obama's endorsement of pro-war, pro-spying Bush-Boy

Obama opposes people like Regina Thomas - while endorsing a guy who is not progressive. We don't need more Democrats who rubberstamp Bush's wish list!

Barrow is one of the most reactionary members of Congress, and he's facing a progressive primary challenger in Regina Thomas....
....

70% of the primary voters in GA-12 are African-American. Barrow is white and has $1.3 million, Thomas is a progressive African-American and a state legislator, and has very little money. I don't know what kind of game Obama is playing, but using his remarkable brand to protect conservative Democrats...

....

As Obama consolidates his power within the party, note who he is bringing with him in terms of economic policy and foreign policy, and note who he is protecting politically.

As another blogger puts it:

Yesterday, Barrow voted to give Bush $163B more to occupy Iraq. Today, he voted to give Bush unlimited power to wiretap American citizens. But Georgia Democrats do not have to tolerate his rightwing votes. On July 15, they can replace Barrow with Regina Thomas.
....

...just from our brief call I can understand why Democrats of all backgrounds would be so excited about Thomas' campaign. If you share my enthusiasm and want to replace a BushDemocrat with an Aggressive Progressive, please contribute to Regina Thomas

Regina Thomas at http://reginathomas4congress.com/

(2) honest elections

REASONS WHY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA (and you shouldn't, either) #2

I value integrity in our election processes.
Because without the right to vote, what other rights are safe?

A vote in favor of a candidate who won via an obviously rigged election is a vote in favor of election-rigging as a valid form of political discourse.

Without honest elections, no other issue matters - because the voter gets no input into any other issue, if the votes are not honored.

Michigan's election results were certified. This was a legal election. Obama, for reasons of his own, chose to take his name off the ballot - so when the DNC opted to overturn the legal election results and redistribute votes on how they feel it would have, could have, should have gone, if Obama's name had been on the ballot - they became a party that stands for corruption. They rigged an election. If you don't mind that - you're either dumb or crooked.

on Ralph Nader's comments suggesting Barack is "acting white":

You can't "act white".

This is a game I ain't playin', and I hope other people are as fed up with it as I am. Black is a description of race. Nobody has to (or can) audition for the role. You either are descended from African people or you aren't.

If you are descended from African people, you get to have pride in your heritage whether others approve of your behavior, clothes, attitude, etc. or not. That heritage is yours. It belongs to you. You don't have to earn it. It is your birthright. I don't know anything about African culture but I know that here in America, nobody - nobody - has the right to take your identity from you. You can be excommunicated from a bigot's church, but you cannot be excommunicated from your ancestry.
___________________________________________
*The term "Democrat", however, is a choice, a set of values that one embraces - so if Ralph Nader had accused Barack of acting Republican, that would be a different story....

(1) loyalty is a two-way street

REASONS WHY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA (and you shouldn't, either) #1

a coalition requires give and take that works both ways.

I am not an ATM machine. If I give something, I want something back.

But Obama and Donna Brazile seem proud to have thrown the so-called "old coalition" out of the party.

So why would I - or anyone else from that old coalition - vote for him?

I used to wonder why Democrats are too dumb or lazy to figure out how to win elections. Eventually I realized - I was the dumb lazy one. They have known perfectly well how to win all along. They just don't want to.

Many, many articles have been written on what it would take to get the working class to support a Democratic President. The articles are full of accurate and useful information*. The Democratic party just doesn't care.

Now we see why - they don't want us. They want to attract Republicans instead, and permanently change the demographic makeup in ways that will enhance Howard Dean's and Donna Brazile's personal ambitions.

The Democratic party has stopped standing up for women. It sometimes talks about equality - but it doesn't put values into action, and hasn't for years. Decades even.

The Democratic party has stopped standing up for gays, if it ever really did. It has stopped standing up for Latinos. It has stopped standing up for its people. It still talks about people as if it were all about standing up for minorities, but the actions just aren't there.

And, even though right now it is making a lot of demands on behalf of the black community, ordinary black people aren't going to see anything to show for it. The "leaders" are just spending other peoples' political capital, and blacks are going to end up as burned as the rest of us or worse. Just wait & see.

The entire midwest has been thrown out, and the majority of the U.S.A. earns too little to be interesting to the Democrats now - like a bank that figured out small-deposit loans are more trouble than they're worth, the fees now outweigh the interest.

The Democratic party has not opposed the Republican dream of completely replacing the old-fashioned "reward that work ethic" social contract with a new ethic - one that completely values risk over work, one that defines productivity (and one's worth to society) solely in terms of how much capital you own/put into the economy.

And, of course, on the issues, Democrats are now eager to prove themselves Republicans, or at least willing to appease.
________________________________________
* With Hillary Clinton outspent (and actively opposed by both the media and her own party, plus the rules openly rigged against her) she still managed to tie Obama, just by following the obvious strategy of giving voters a reason to vote for her.

Obama's donors

We all know that Obama gets all his funding in small, unmarked bills, from ordinary Americans. Except, of course, for the big nuclear guys and Wall Street - but never mind them; if the media doesn't make it a story, it's not real, so that's OK.

Same, of course, for the tough questions about Rezko. I am sure those questions will be asked someday.

But still I wonder about Obama's mysterious backers, so I found this interesting. Why is a guy that donated to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth suddenly giving money to Obama? And wtf is Kerry doing supporting someone who accepts donations from someone like that?

So of course, my first question is, why is a guy that donated to the SBVfT suddenly giving money to Obama? And wtf if Kerry doing supporting someone who accepts donations from someone like that? I just had to dig further. Turns out Abbruzzese donates almost exclusively to Republicans, but he donated $10,000 to Obama’s PAC, HopeFund (His trust was called “Freedom Trust.” Could he be more Bush-like in his Orwellian naming?) in 2005. WTF was THAT about?

I wish we had journalists in America. Someone needs to investigate these things.

"we just want to assure Clinton's supporters..."

Does Obama want the Democratic party to fail?

I mean - I get that he doesn't care about old core constituency groups. But he seems to be going out of his way to drive them into Republican arms. As if doing so will help him win the election or something?

I would sure love to know what is really going on. This election makes no sense*.

You'd think that once Clinton supporters did get on the Obama train, Obama would at least make sure they're welcome. And I mean sincerely and graciously. Can Obama do anything that isn't grudging and passive-aggressive?

From John McCain's website:

Last night at an Obama rally in Detroit, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who had previously endorsed Senator Clinton, took to the stage to show her solidarity with Barack Obama now that the voters (or the party insiders as the case may be) have handed him the nomination. But Granholm, like Team McCain, still seems to hold Senator Clinton in high esteem--she tried to praise the former first lady as a "great American."

She couldn't even get the words out before the crowd turned on her and began booing. Here's the tape, watch it for yourself. We just want to assure Senator Clinton's supporters that their attendance at McCain rallies will be warmly recieved, by Senator McCain and his supporters. Of course, if Senator Clinton wants to show up to any of our events in person...consider this an open invitation.

(emphasis mine)

________________________________________________
* But, given the way Obama's camp has been bragging about all the voters he does not need, I'd watch for crooked elections in those obscure "solidly red" states that are promised to suddenly go for Obama. (Not that election fraud could ever happen here or anything, but could someone keep an eye out "just anyway"?)

date with destiny = pee on a corpse

OK, I guess I am a low-information voter. Because I did not realize the the Democratic candidate was chosen before the date of the convention was. I thought the voters had something to do with choosing the nominee.

But the Democrats' commitment to the first black candidate is strong enough that they set their convention to be held on the date of the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech. Of course, if anyone other than Obama had won, that would have been - well, let's just say they knew even then that nobody else could win. That's what "machine politics" is all about, right?

And let's face it - raping Martin Luther King, Jr's dream has become the central platform of Obama's campaign.

From May 5th:

ANYONE interested in peeking ahead to see how this whole Democratic primary debacle ends....

We knew how it ended before the voters even voted.

We set the convention date on the 45th anniversary of his speech because we knew that, regardless of which candidate actually won, Barack Obama would be the nominee.

In the address, King dreams of a day when Americans will no longer be judged by "the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Love the irony. Looking at the content of Obama's character makes you guilty of what he calls racism.

In so many ways, Barack Obama is a realization of King's dream.

It's like a sick joke or something.

He's black, King was black, therefore they are conflated.

Obama has been doing this the whole time - and if you notice it, you're racist. Well, so what. I believe those people who are going around flinging the word racist around like that are an insult to those who have suffered from real racism. And an insult to every black person who has come by what they have earned honestly.

This whole campaign has been a recruitment bonanza for supremacists both white and black. The real conflict here is between separatists* vs. those who want to realize King's dream - and Obama has definitely sided with the separatists, that is, on the side opposite King's speech.

If Democratic leaders choose to award the nomination to Obama, that speech will become a rallying cry for the party.

But if they deny him the nomination because they fear that his brown skin could make it difficult to win white, working-class Democrats in key states, King's speech will become a haunting reminder of what they have wrought.

It will have been twisted by the very keepers of King's dream into the Democrats' nightmare.

Hardcore, eh? Vote for the one we want because he has the right skin color and that is all that matters. If you look at anything other than skin color you are a racist and you - dishonor Martin Luther King, Jr.?

I wonder if Pfleger and Wright will come to the convention. Their speeches could honor MLKJr, too.

Pfleger could remind us all that all whites have to give up their 401ks and repent to atone for the dirty sinfulness of their skin color.

And Wright could remind us all that it doesn't matter if we give up our 401ks anyway - because blacks and whites will never live together in harmony. According to him, it's just not possible.
_______________________________________
* yes, black separatists and white separatists are making the same argument: that we should not mingle; that we should be committed to hatred and should actively fight attempts to join together in peace; that we should instead make war and only the winner gets to inherit whatever is left.

Harriet Christian explains why the Michigan vote-gank struck her as crooked and rotten

"When they turned around and gave a candidate who opted to take his name off the ballot, was not asked to take his name off the ballot, received 59 votes - it's unacceptable."



This election is not a vote between Democrats vs. Republicans, and it is not Good vs. Evil.

This is a vote between Voters vs. the Media, and it is over who gets to choose the candidate - in other words, it is a vote between the middle (center-right and center-left being on the same side) vs. the extremist fringes (the wingnut right and, I am sorry to say, the wingnut left).

Most of America is toward the middle. There's a reason for that. Those who are out on the political fringes, convinced that they alone have Truth and those who disagree with them are Evil Incarnate - that doesn't stop being seriously disturbing, out-of-touch behavior just because the wingnut is on the left rather than the right. (Note to wingnuts: give it up and learn to care about someone other than those Just Like You. The diversity will do your soul some good.)