Archives for Category "Democrats"
March 20, 2008
Oh, Never Mind
So I had this long post written about Obama's pastor, Clinton's campaign tactics, the media getting ready to turn like jackals on Obama, the super-delegates, and various other such primary-related things. But really, what's the point? I lamented to a friend of mine across the pond (in the UK) the other day: leave it to the Democrats to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It is just too annoying for words. Why waste the electrons?<=> | Comments: 1 | in: Democrats / Federal Politics
February 11, 2008
Primary in Old Dominion Tomorrow
The presidential primary for Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. is tomorrow. (Some are calling it the "Potomac primary" and I've also seen the "Chesapeake primary.") I don't think I've ever voted in a primary where the nominee wasn't already "decided." And, just my luck, I'm truly undecided on this one. In a perfect world, I have serious reservations about both Clinton and Obama. In this world, they are both stellar candidates against anything the Republicans have to offer. I could still vote for Edwards, as I believe he's still on the ballot. Or, since I'm so torn, I could just not vote at all. Or, since Virgina has open primaries, I could go vote in the Republican primary - but that's not a particularly palatable option, either. I suspect either I won't go, or I'll decide while staring at the little touch screen.On, and just to wander into the political junkie weeds for a moment: on this whole super-delegate question -- yo, people, the rules are the rules. If anyone thought this was a horrible way for the party to determine its nominee, where was the big protest and screeching earlier? Besides, I truly don't think it'll come to that, but even if it does, I'm with Digby, and, heaven help me, Kevin Drum:
[Drum:] Who decides what the popular will is anyway? Is it number of pledged delegates from the state contests? Total popular vote? Total number of states won? What about uncommitted delegates from primary states? Or caucus states, in which there's no popular vote to consult and delegates are selected in a decidedly nondemocratic fashion to begin with? And what about all the independent and crossover voters? Personally, I'd just as soon they didn't have a say in selecting the nominee of my party at all, but the rules say otherwise. If I'm a superdelegate, do I count their votes, or do I pore over exit polls to try to tease out how Democratic Party voters voted? And how do I take into account the obviously disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, two tiny states that have far more power than any truly democratic process would ever give them?This is related to another thing I find pretty puzzling -- all the anxiousness over the fact that the primary selection process is taking awhile and is actually competitive for more than 2 states' worth of voting. Why is this a bad thing? I know the media will do their usual "Dems in disarray" bullshit, but I truly fail to see the problem. I wish most primaries worked like this--remained competitive, that is--and I'm fairly amused at the fact that after a bunch of states jockeyed to move their primaries as early as possible, this thing might play out all the way into April (at least on the Dem side). It's not disarray, it's, as I overheard someone on the elevator at work say today, an overabundance of riches. Two strong candidates, an engaged and participating Democratic electorate--where's the bad, again? By the way, one of my sources in Maine says that my hometown's Democratic caucus turnout was huge this year - in 2004 something like a dozen people showed up; this time it was almost 200.
[... back to Digby:] I am all for insisting that the decision be based upon the will of the people. But the system is so weird that I don't think anyone can tell what that really will be if the party remains polarized.
So while I am certainly sympathetic to the notion that the elite fat cats shouldn't decide for us, I think somebody needs to set forth some detailed criteria about how they should go about determining a more democratic way to decide this thing if there is a tie.
<=> | Comments: 7 | in: Democrats / Federal Politics / Republicans / State & Local
January 24, 2008
My Outrage Meter is Pegged to Numb
Just when you think the misogyny can't get much worse, you find out how much lower they will go. ACM put it succinctly:Hillary faces an uphill battle against unconscious misogyny (where even those who "wouldn't mind a female President" don't realize how much their filters for evaluating her include sexist standards of comportment), but this attack genuinely leaves me wordless.Of course, one can't expect much outrage or support from most so-called "liberal" men who have a hate on for her for allegedly non-sexist reasons, because they can't seem to separate the sexist treatment she's receiving (and what that means for all women, in the political sphere and elsewhere) from their own personal dislike of her and her candidacy.
<=> | Comments: 55 | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Democrats
January 19, 2008
Obama's Reagan Worship
I know I have to deal with the thread in the previous post, and I'll get to it -- but I've been traveling and dealing with other things, including some physical/medical issues for both me and one of my cats (different issues, haha), so that will have to wait. In the meantime, though, I have to point to Digby's short post on why Obama adopting the Reagan beatification nonsense is a, umm, bad idea. Reagan was a bad guy with a genial tone and pretty smile who deliberately appealed to racists and bigots. Obama is either incredibly naive, or as cynical a manipulator as certain other candidates are accused of being. (I sort of hope it's the latter, actually, because if it's the former and he wins, he won't know what will have hit him when the wingnuts and their squawking allies in the media have their way with him.)What I don't get is why he keeps using conservative phrases and adopting hot button conservative issues like social security when it's so unnecessary. If the people are there, then why keep using this tired old crap to appeal to the middle? I understand that he doesn't want to run as a traditional liberal and that's fine. I don't think he should. But people also don't need that stale stuff about love-ins and "entrepreneurship" or "fixing social security" or dissing "trial lawyers" or they'd vote for Rudy McRomney. They want something new. Give it to them.This comment in the thread attached to the Digby post was also very good:
If he wants to change the trajectory as Reagan did then he should take a page from his political strategy instead of his rhetoric, stop praising him and bury conservatism instead.
This exactly the kumbaya crap that so many progressives like Krugman, (and me) find either naive or as calculatingily triangulated as anything Clinton is accused of. [Medley ed: with Clinton, it's "cynical triangulation", with Obama it's "transcendent bipartisanship"... ooohhh-kay.] You want people of different views to come together and unite? Have you observed the Republican party and its noise machine for the last generation? Have they ever showed any inclination to coming together in good faith and compromising to solve problems? Are Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Grover Norquist, the Club for Growth, the heath insurance industry going to change course because Obama smiles at them? Any real progressive reform is going to require, well, the Demoocrats to emulate a lot of Republican tactics (absent the lies and dishonesty). It will mean increasing our majorities in Congress (as well as replacing as many Bush Dogs as possible with real Democrats), having them stand together in the trenches to pass progressive legislation, and a president that will use his bully pulpit as relentlessly as, well, Boy George. Bipartisanship (or its many eupehmisms bandied about by the Obama-bots) basically amounts to rolling over for the Republicans. Basically, Democrats need to go to the matresses, where Republicans have lived for a generation, not hold hands around the campfire.
As for Obama's Reagan remarks, they are offensive on so many levels. Let's pick this level--they are buying into and solidyfying the Republican falsification of history and beatification of Saint Ronnie. This is not an academic debate, it matters in real world terms. For crissake, when Obama talks about the country being ready to be led in a different direction after the "excesses" of the'60s and '70s, he is talking about--and belittling--our agenda: the civil rights movement, feminism, the anti-Vietnam movement, environmentalism, one man-one vote reapportionment, Nixon being justly chased from office for subverting the federal government. [Medley ed: Indeed! WHAT EXCESSES??] And yes, Regan used those "exceses" by pushing back against them, both explicitly and by dog whistle, by inciting and exploiting people's fears and prejudices, like all good Republicans for the last generation. Lavishing praise on this, or pointing to it as something to emulate, is not the language of a progressive or a Democrat in my book.
If Obama wanted to tie into some troubling excesses that the nation might be ready to right, he might do a little more talking about how the Bush-Cheney years have subverted both the letter and spirit of 200+ years of American constitutionalism and how it is required to reverse their evil work. But might not play well with David Broder or Joe Klein, or the many Republican votes Obama thinks he is going to attract (I have news for him--he ain't).
<=> | Comments: 8 | in: Democrats
January 10, 2008
Tom Toles, Yesterday
<=> | Comments: 11 | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Democrats / Federal Politics / Media Dysfunction
December 16, 2007
Shorter Candidates
I know that there's a certain subset of poli-bloggers who like to rag on Atrios for a variety of sins, but I still find him trenchant and often nicely pithy (especially if you've been reading along long enough to get what he's trying to convey). Today, for example, I thought this was an excellent summary of these 3 Democratic Presidential candidates:Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
November 16, 2007
Horrifying
I haven't been watching any of the stupid "debates" in this primary campaign. But I did note the following in some of the coverage I was reading:BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?WTF?
CLINTON: I agree with that completely.
<=> | Comments: 2 | in: Democrats
September 21, 2007
Finis.
A majority of the United States Senate, including a significant number of "Democrats" has voted to condemn freedom of speech.And with that revolting display of utter capitulation, I have canceled my nominal recurring contribution to the DNC -- I'd set it up to show support for Howard Dean's efforts, but truly, I am finished. Everyone's got their breaking point.
Avedon sums it up very well. Some snippets:
Have you ever seen the Senate condemn Saxby Chambless for morphing his Democratic opponent with Osama bin Laden?And, really, they're probably all totally compromised by Dubya's 'warrantless surveillance' and being blackmailed. As Avedon also wrote:
Have you ever seen the Senate condemn Ann Coulter for calling for the assassination of a Supreme Court justice?
Have you ever seen the Senate condemn Fred Phelps?
And what about the attacks on General Wesley Clark, or the treatment of General Shinseki? Did they condemn that? Did they even manage to muster up a little outrage over the full-scale attack on anyone who'd ever been awarded a Purple Heart during the 2004 campaign?
No.
But the Republicans call on you to condemn a mainstream organization that tells the truth about Petreaus disgracing the uniform to act as Bush's personal political shill and you fall right in line. How dare you?.
I think I can speak for every Maryland voter when I say we did not vote for you to go to Washington just to condemn your own supporters.
We sent you there to hold this administration accountable, to restore the Constitution, and to end the occupation.
When are you going to start doing that?
I want open discussion of the fact that the Democrats have been voting in ways that are indefensible and that maybe this has something to do with Bush's little program to spy on American citizens. It's not as if there's any reason to think this administration is above doing things we know the Nixon administration did, after all. Maybe what I ought to be asking Mikulski and Cardin is, "What do they have on you?"See also here.
Spineless, gutless, principle-less Democrats. Anyone got an explanation other than complicity, gutlessness, or blackmail?
What a total joke.
I'm really going to be hard-pressed to vote again any time soon.
<=> | Comments: 1 | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Democrats
