And Free Speech will be protected in Denver

Mmmm. So the city is preparing for mass arrests during the DNC. Granted there will be your standard stock of anarchists and the like protesting there (did clown bloc exist past the 2000 RNC? They were my favourites, for obvious reasons.), but I think this is more then likely made for us dried up old lady PUMAs who will be there protesting as well. And woo won't it be fancy. A warehouse, complete with metal cages made of chain link fence topped with barbed wire will be awaiting the people who get arrested.

A sign on the wall reads "Warning, electric stun devices used in this facility."

Sallinger showed video of the warehouse to Adam Jung of Tent State University and Zoe Williams of Code Pink, leaders of groups that plan to demonstrate during the convention. "This is very bare-bones and very reminiscent of a political prisoner camp or a concentration camp," Williams said.

"That's how you treat cattle," Jung siad. "You showed the sign where it said stun gun in use. And you just change the word gun for bolt, and it's a meat-processing plant."

Oh yeah, this'll be great. I can't wait. But think of the press if some old lady actually does get arrested. That'll be awesome. Not to mention the fact that no one really cares if a bunch of ragged old anarchists get arrested, but what about when your everyday Jane or John Q. Public gets arrested? People that your average American citizen doesn't look down on? I'm hoping that people will be outraged if what I think is going to happen happens. But I don't want it to happen, doesn't mean it won't.

Luckily I have press credentials and will be there with my In These Times press passes (including my assorted press gear) which has always prevented me from getting arrested. Let's hope the streak continues, but I fear for all those PUMAs and Hillary supporters who have real, legitimate concerns and problems with the Democratic Party who will be silenced because we can't exercise our only avenue to free speech without fearing arrest and imprisonment. Awesome. Way to go democracy.

DISSENT is the highest form of patriotism -- Thomas Jefferson

The backlash continues

Lynette Long has a new Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun entitled Painful Lessons

•Women voters are not factored into the decision making of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC is concerned that black voters will protest and stay home if Senator Clinton gets the nomination, even though she is the stronger and more electable candidate. But the DNC doesn't worry that white women, three times larger than the combined black vote, will stay away from the polls if Mrs. Clinton does not get the nomination. They expect the white women of the party to fall in step and vote for Mr. Obama in the general election.

•The rules for women candidates are not the same as the rules for male candidates. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy adamantly supports Mr. Obama, even though Mrs. Clinton won his home state, Massachusetts, by 14 points. Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly called for Mrs. Clinton to pull out of the race, yet when he was running for president in 1980 he took his bid for the Democratic nomination to the convention floor, trying to change the rules to unseat Jimmy Carter, who already had enough delegates to clinch the nomination. And let's not forget that this year Mike Huckabee stayed in the contest for the Republican nomination when he had no chance of winning. He was committed to stay in the race until Sen. John McCain reached the number of delegates needed to win. At the end of the contest he had a total of 267 delegates, more than 900 behind Mr. McCain. No media barrage pushed Mr. Huckabee to withdraw. Barack Obama has not reached the needed number of delegates to win the nomination, yet Mrs. Clinton - who is fewer than 200 delegates behind Obama - is being pressured by commentators and the DNC to withdraw.

People, including some of my friends who are Obama supporters are having a hard time understanding why there are so many of us who won't vote for Obama. (Me, I've never voted party line, in fact I have not been a registered Dem since I registered in NY in 2000 and registered as a Green and I still don't vote exclusively Green in that case anyway though in WA we do not register by party. I signed a paper at the caucus saying that I would not caucus for any other party and I did not, I had a friend who refused to caucus because he thought it meant he would have to vote party line and found that unacceptable.) This is a backlash against the Democratic Party as much as it is a vote of nonconfidence in their selected candidate (if he does indeed get the nomination). I, and I think others like me, feel that the DNC and party leadership made clear who they wanted and since then have tried to push our candidate out of the race unfairly. No other candidate in history has been pushed to step down, to whit:

• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.

• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the “inevitability” of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan’s failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

• Also in 1976, three candidates — Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church — ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the “certain” nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

Hillary's closer to Obama then any of them were and no one was screaming at them to step down "for the good of the party." Why? I have my theory. She's not in the penis club, and I think that many other people feel the exact same way about this as I do. If we hold our nose, again, and vote for someone we don't really like just because he's better then the other guy, again, it's worse this time. This time we have been knocked about by the media, the party, everyone. We have seen just what they think of women. They have told us what they think about the working class and the Reagan or lunch bucket democrats. But the backlash is coming strongest from the women. The democrats tell us they are the party that will stand up for us, for our rights. The Dems have not fought for abortion, for womens' rights, for anything that would actually help women, in a long, long time. Abortion's pretty much already illegal. The Dems in Congress rolled over on Alito and Roberts and now my right to choose is being held over my head. If the Dems I elected (though my Senators stood up and said no) can't grow a fucking spine and stand up for my rights why the hell should I keep voting for them? And why should I reward them by voting for someone I don't even trust?

And now they lie there, complicit as we are insulted daily, hourly. Insults flung at Hillary that are flung at her because she is a woman are flung at all of us. And we've had enough. We're saying no more. To roll over yet again and reward a party that has done nothing but pay lip service to women's issues for years (finally people get this) means that we are telling the Democratic Party that they never have to take us into account again, and that, my friends, is unacceptable.

EDIT: A Commenter at The Confluence said it best:

Jeralyn said tonite that “It’s about putting a Democrat in the WH” or words to that effect. Not true: it is about putting someone who shares your values in the WH. Some may argue that requires a Democrat, but I would rather suffer 4 more years of Republican presidency than give up my ideals of what the Democratic party stands for (like, f’rinstance, ANYTHING) forever for some short term gain.

NOTE: If you are an Obamaphile who cannot be arsed to READ THE POST (especially the part about people taking things to the convention) then you will most assuredly not get published. If I can mark it off on my Bingo Card just keep it to yourself. Now excuse me I need to go wash my dentures, polish my walker, and hump my cousin.

Something smells fishy

First off, there's a great post (with video!) about Obama supporters campaigning INSIDE polling places, which everyone should know, especially them, is I-L-L-E-G-A-L. And a blog about the entire weirdness that is Indiana voting.

Watching CNN regarding the IN primary. Anyone who was watching should know that Lake County (the one next to IL) didn't have any precincts reporting until after 10PM PST. Average of several polls had her up by at least 5 points, yet it's all of the sudden a nail biter. Hmmmmm, I'm not exactly convinced that this is above board.


Good analysis from BDBlue:
He’s making it look worse.

The Mayor of Hammond says they knew what the machine votes in other cities were at 7:30. It’s midnight and we don’t have any information and it looks bad. This looks improper. I’m not saying it is, but it looks. We don’t need this kind of negative exposure in Lake County. He’s telling the Mayor of Gary to release the numbers.

Here’s a question, why does the Mayor of Gary have the ability to hold the votes.

Now the Mayor of Hammond is trying to get the Mayor of Gary to tell why he hasn’t released the machine votes. Mayor of Gary says it’s absentee counting. Mayor of Hammond is grilling him. Has no answer why it is taking so long to count the vote.

Now they’re reporting 98% of the vote in Lake County, Clinton still leads by 22,000 votes with 99% of the state reporting.

So maybe it’s not fraud, the Mayor is just an idiot. Or else it is fraud, they realized they were going to get caught and stopped it.

You know you've got a problem when the mayor of another large Indiana city is questioning just what the hell is going on with your ballots and you have no explanation whatsoever. Seriously. Why did they have to take them to the airport? That sounds super shady to me. The hold up was the absentee ballots? What about the electronic results? Is it really a "Chicago county?" Because that's not what you want to import from Chicago.

I seriously hope I'm wrong, but hey Mayor Rudy Clay what the fuck happened in Lake County? I'm not the only one who wants to know.

More at By the Left, and Talk Left has stuff here and here

I will add updates (like video/transcripts/etc) as the become available. First there was FL and MI, the the TX caucuses, now IN? Who are we? The republicans?

Latest Polls for the General Election

If you look at the latest GE match-ups, out of the 6 latest respected polls the average for Clinton v McCain is Clinton +3 points and with Obama v McCain Obama +1.5 points.

The trend shows Obama slipping, which is explained in nitty gritty detail here.

*ahem* Superdelegates, are you paying attention?

Why we won't quit.

Hillary Clinton raised $10 million in 24 hours

There is a post from the pro-Obama Huffington Post about The top 10 weaknesses Obama has against McCain in the GE

6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

As I said previously Clinton carried the regions of PA composed of Reagan Democrats by an average of 34 points. These are voters just as likely to vote Republican as Democrat. If you don't believe me, just think back to the '88 election when PA broke for Bush I. There are just as many of these same voters in OH counties where Clinton also won.

9. Barack Obama is currently in a dead heat with John McCain, according to a recent respected poll, in Massachusetts (actually, the results were McCain 46% and Obama 44%), while Senator Clinton leads in Massachusetts by 15%. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.

I think the above quote speaks for itself. I mean, MCGOVERN for christ's sake! He ONLY won MA and that's saying something. Speaking of whom, The New Republic is asking is Obama The Next McGovern?

Obama goes and sticks his foot in his mouth again by dissing working class people yet again.

Former president says in North Carolina:
“Today her opponent’s campaign strategist said, ‘Well we don’t really need these working class people to win, half the time they vote for Republicans anyways.’ And I will tell you something, America needs you to win and therefore Hillary wants your support….”
Apparent response to earlier remark to NPR from David Axelrod: “The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years.”

While at the same time saying that he needs to do better with blue collar, older voters. Ummm, anyone else seeing a problem here?

MyDD has a great post about DNC rules and how they apply to FL and MI. DNC rules say that while they can punish the states through their delegates, if their votes are certified, which they were in both states, then they stand and should be counted therefore Hillary is ahead in the popular vote

People talk about how wonderful it was that he gained 10 points from being down 20 to being down 10. But those were some damn expensive votes. He spent $10.63/vote to her $2.40/vote, and he still lost.

If you're still thinking that Obama should get it, because of the will of the people, the tide is turning my friends. People are deciding against Obama and independents who previously favoured him are now favouring McCain.


Over at my lj, a friend of mine keeps crying that if Obama doesn't get the nod then we will disenfranchise the AA community. What about women? What about the blue collar workers? This campaign has been so misogynistic and so sexist (I just found out that Shakespeare's Sister has been keeping a Hillary Sexism Watch.) and as I have said many times, if you don't speak up against oppressive behaviours you are guilty by implicitly agreeing with the statements by not objecting to them. (I have made this known to the Obama campaign, the DNC, and the local and state parties.) All the women I keep hearing from are getting angry about this and in no way are going to stand behind the Democratic party if they allow this to continue. There's even talk of forming a new opposition party for the Repubs. (Especially if Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot and losing ground he will lose and the Dems may as well declare themselves dead.)

EDIT: Chelsea talking about her mom's stances on women's issues

10 points, I think so!

Now here's the thing. I am celebrating, but of course my mind does not stop thinking just because we have won PA. An important thing to do now that we have the results from PA is to analyse them. (Yes I am one of those people.) But first, something great. SEriously, I got all misty, especially when she talked about actually funding science research again. *sigh*



Look at the sections that Hillary won, and won by large margins. You can check them for yourself here.

There are two areas of the state that a democrat needs to win or else we have another Dukakis on our hands. These areas include counties that Hillary won by stunning margins, an average of 34 points. 28 counties down 2 strips on the eastern and western side of the state comprised of "Reagan Democrats." These are voters that are just as likely to vote for a republican if they feel that the democratic candidate does not stand for them. Hell, they voted for Bush the first. How likely do you think these people are to vote for an 'elite' candidate who thinks they are clingy and who does not advocate a health care plan that will benefit them? (I know people are sick of the clingy thing, but it offended my family in IL and they voted for the guy, and this is going to be played to death in the general. People don't like people who think act like they're better then everyone else. Think it, but act like you don't. Duh. *points to the White House*)

More later. Including a conversation I was having about the scary similarities between Reagan and Obama and Carter and Obama which made an Obama supporter make a loud and angry exit from the coffeeshop. (You can not deny that Obama's hope message mimic's Reagan's nor that they're playing on Obama's outsider status and the 'saviour'-ness of Carter's candidacy. Well, apparently this guy could (and we hadn't even gotten to Reagan), but then again it's either a matter of not knowing history or a refusal to learn from the past. Hell I'm a math and physics person and I know this stuff. But my friends are all mystified since they know that politics is my life. I did say that politics is like water.)

Also, as per people saying that Clinton has no backing, reports are coming in to the contrary:

E-mails Clinton spokesman Phil Singer:

As of 11:30 p.m. tonight, we are at nearly $2.5 million since PA was called for HRC — 80% of that money is coming from new donors to the campaign. It’s our best night ever.

(source)

Sit down, shut up, and behave

EDIT: I have been calling people reminding them to go vote tomorrow and to go vote for Hillary. You should too.

Now back to your regularly scheduled post.

In the past several days, two distinct things have happened that, while I should not be surprised, are disheartening nonetheless.

I belong to a (kick ass) knitting website Ravelry, and there are of course topic boards for people to come together and talk. Someone came onto ours and made a comment and then went back to the Obama board and made a comment about someone "being off her meds." As a disability/mental health rights activist I had something to say about this.

OK, I don’t know or care who you are talking about, but making fun and using a mental health issue/disability as a slur is deeply offensive. It is just as bad as using a sexist or homophobic slur.

It implies that what someone who has mental health issue or disability has to say is somehow unimportant or not as important as “normal” folks. It is offensive to me personally as a mental health/disability rights activist.

I know that most people do not think of this, and I ask you to please not use mental health as a way to insult people as it is offensive and demeaning to people with disabilities.

I was replied to with this:

Sigh. Ok. First of all: I realize you do not know me at all, and therefore have no way of understanding the irony of the charges you have leveled against me, but seriously…you’re way out of line. There is such a thing as being overly sensitive.

But more importantly: I was not referring to you.
....
But that said, I will remove the offending post, although I do want to make it clear (since the post will be removed) that I did not actually mention anyone by name or make any sort of indication who I was referring to. (unless more can be deduced from this post, which is possible.)

Apparently because it was not directed at me and because it was a "harmless" ableist slur I should just shut up and sit down. I was also accused of making a stink about this oppressive remark because it was made by an Obama supporter and told that if I knew anything about the person making it then I would know that I was out of line. So I should not speak up when she does this? How about sexist or racist or homophobic slurs? Should I just let those lie as well since I support a different candidate which apparently makes it impossible for me to want to end oppressive and marginalizing behaviour? I would also like to add that Obama supporters on her own forum were chiming in saying that they agreed that those sorts of comments were out of line.

Apparently I should, because in another forum on the same site someone pointed to this Salon article called Hey Obama boys: Back off already! (A preview, for those who haven't read it:)

I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. Meanwhile, I was getting e-mails from men I didn't know well who approached me as a go-to feminist to whom they could express their hatred of Hillary and their anger at her staying in the race -- an anger that seemed to build with every one of her victories. One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she'd had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton's policies before adding that when he hears the senator's voice, he's overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.

The discussion turned to the rampant sexism of the campaign and someone brought up Obama's comment “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.” So the discussion turned into how any sign of emotion in President Senator Clinton is seen as a weakness because women are painted as being too emotional, especially too emotional to do anything as silly as run a country *cough*Thatcher*cough*.

Some *ahem* argued that it was a harmless statement to which I pointed out that it is loaded with sexism when used to talk about women. To which I was told to "stop it right the hell now" and that I have "no critical thinking skills" am "regurgitating what the patriarchy and media tells me" (since I had said that if we had no critical thinking skills that's what we would be doing and we weren't, natch) and "playing the victim." Because there is no logical or factual basis for our response that the "feeling down" comment was sexist. Then same person, and this is were it gets really good said "If feminists can’t allow for more than one interpretation of a comment..." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Because I guess that only applies to you, eh? The plethora of people who disagree, Clinton AND Obama supporters alike, are not allowed their own interpretation? We're just dumb people who can't think for ourselves and must be told what to do! I see! (Sound familiar to anyone else? Now I really want to move out of this country. These people fucking scare me.)

So lets recap shall we?
1) No matter how many oppressive slurs people use, especially against the differently abled and women, as long as they are Obama fans they are somehow above reproach. We should just lie back and think of England, because apparently if you ignore (dis)ableism and sexism they will just go away. (But not racism. We must call everyone on everything that can be considered racist, which I agree with, but it MUST ALSO be applied to all other oppressions. Including heterosexism *cough* Obama equal marriage rights *cough*)

2) If you do dare to see sexism (which is punching you in the face every time you turn on the TV or open a paper) you are somehow wrong. Just sit back and let the Obama people tell you how you are supposed to interpret these things. Remember, sexism is not a big-T Truth, but a little-t truth and can only be correctly interpreted by people smart enough to love Obama.

3) Any comments about oppressive remarks made to an Obama supporter are not valid if made by a Clinton supporter. EVER. Even when an Obama supporter agrees, if a Clinton supporter ever says something about an oppressive remark it somehow overrules what the Obama supporter says and thus invalidates the objection.

Everyone clear? If we all just sit back and behave (i.e. let them tell us what to do), maybe we'll get a cookie.

Here's where I ask you to do something

In my previous post I chided the democratic party and the Obama camp for not doing anything to publicly denounce the misogyny being flung at Hillary during this campaign. So I did something about it, because unless they publicly say something, they will lose me, and hopefully all other people who do not feel that it is ok to be silently complicit in allowing this blatant sexism to continue whether it's coming from the campaign staff, the pundits, or the media. Please join me to tell the party that we need this party to be the liberal one, the one that not only talks about change and equality for women, but actually walks the walk.

It doesn't matter who you support. This is supposedly the party that represents us, but you know that it won't until we make them.

Call or email the DNC and tell them to publicly denounce the sexism being bandied about so openly during this campaign.
Phone: 202-863-8000
To email: Go here and under issue select Election 2008.

Ask the Obama to make sure his campaign keeps in line. I know if he wants my vote in November (if he is the nominee) he has to take a stand against sexism.
Campaign HQ Phone: (866) 675-2008
Email: Go here.

Contact your state and local democratic parties. If you feel confident enough in this decision, tell them you will withdraw from the party. (I will, but I know that not everyone is OK with being party-less/3rd party.)

The more pressure, the more likely they are to publicly condemn the sexist overtones. When there have been racist remarks there has been public outcry from everyone all the way down to the feminist blogosphere. When there are sexist remarks, it is *only* the feminist blogosphere, since they are perpetuated by everyone above us. If it's ok on this scale they are saying it's ok everywhere. Tell them it's not. Make them make this a better country and a better party for women.

Also, as a sidenote, if you are upset and/or feel that the voters in MI/FL were treated unfairly, you can sign a petition here. There are examples of letters talking about the dienfranchisement of voters (and yes, sexism) that people have sent here