What is going on with the "party?"

Sometimes my friends say things in a much more succinct, and oftentimes, much more understandable way then I can. So I've all ready seen the FOX news interview. I knew that neither candidate was liberal. Moderate is about all we can hope for from these parties, but after Edwards and his populism and single-payer universal healthcare dropped out (I may have finally admitted that we will never have Edwards as an actual Presidential candidate. But he made the press follow him to very poor rural areas of Appalachia. UHC is something that the Clinton's tried, but failed miserably because the dems in congress wouldn't back them because they didn't like the Clintons then and even though Bill was the only 2 term democratic president since FDR (LBJ if you count that he got re-elected after 2 years serving after JFK was assasinated). Guess what, they still don't like them. One can only guess why. Bill changed the base, he actually changed the bloc of voters that went for a Democrat. (more on this in a little bit)

Want to hear my theory? I'm sure you do. Democrats nowadays don't think of themselves as that. Look at our recent nominees, excluding Bill. Kerry, Gore, Dukakis. What do they all have in common? They are seen as elites. No matter what Jon Stewart says, people don't want someone like that in the WH. Even if they do have progressive reform for working class and poor people (which I firmly do not believe that Obama has) they're going to take it as you telling them what's best for them. The reason that Bill was not painted as such is because he grew up working class, he went to public school, even though he eventually made it into the power elite.

And of course last night there was Donna Brazile on CNN

BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul.*** But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(Sidenote here: Except you can't depend on blue collar and latino voters. If they don't feel that you are working, and I mean actively working, for their financial well-being (health-care, unions, etc), then they will be values voters. You are one of the people IN CHARGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HOW THE HELL DO YOU FORGET ABOUT "REAGAN DEMOCRATS" AND THAT OBAMA'S SUPPORT BASE IS THE SAME AS (10 state) DUKAKIS!!!! Stop blowing off the people the dems need to win in the fall, ffs. )

(I mean, even bigoted morons know that.

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win – blue-collar, working class people," Limbaugh also said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."-Rush Limbaugh

)

This fucking Unity Pony thing is pissing me off. Unity only if you're a latte liberal, oh sorry, the "creative class," a college student, or African-American. He's a uniter. Does everyone feel united? Because what I've heard from the Democratic leadership and Obama's campaign this cycle is 1) the largest minority in the country doesn't count (neither does any other minority except AA's: gays, asians, etc, all under the bus for you!), 2) women will always come crawling back since we have no where to go (fuck you!), 3) same with the working class, but who needs them since they tend to vote Republican anyway (Axelrod, and btw that's why you need them dumbass.)

But I have one question, and I'm sad to say it actually hadn't occurred to me until a friend of mine brought it up, what has Obama been doing for the black community? She hadn't heard anything. Hell, he didn't even bother to show up to black dominated areas of IN. What a fucking prince. I mean, Hillary obviously has the hick blue collar vote sewn up so why does she keep showing up? The week leading up to the primaries she was speaking in places that the only way she could have lost is if everyone suddenly died and dead people started voting. Why abandon your most loyal constituency?

Unity pony my ass. Here's why: the dems do know what unity looks like. We saw it in '92. We saw states vote dem that had not done so ever/in a very long time. (I mean Lincoln was a republican so you can only go back so far with these things.) Bill did it. That's right, the Big Dawg gave us states no other democrat has even come close to carrying. We could have done it again, but now one of our core constituencies hates him and therefore Hillary. Why? Because he got called racist for this:

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"

Which was twisted into "Bill Clinton calls Obama's campaign a Fairy Tale!" Because what better way to shake away a group that so solidly supports your opponent (and who is still very wary of you, they weren't all love and kisses at first) then in this case to call him a racist. Because even his seemingly reality challenged handlers seemed to have understood that the AA community were among the strongest Clinton supporters. Now he's a racist. Huh.

And the Democratic leadership is completely, 100% A-OK with smearing our base expanding, tried to get progressive social change done but couldn't because the dems don't like them because they're not one of the elitist latte drinkers and the leadership doesn't like that. And they don't want to see the Clinton's or anyone else so unlike them in office if they can help it. They'd rather lose in November, which is what the numbers are telling us will happen with Obama as the nominee. They seem to think that us non-black and/or non-young and/or non-rich people don't matter.

I gotta ask, why is this race so black and white? Seriously? What about the indigenous, asian, latino peoples? Do we not care about that. Are there only two races that matter in this country? And what is up with my latino friends being called racist for not voting for BO? Especially when they're giving you reasons why they didn't. Again, fuck you.


Anyway:
It's obvious why dems are falling all over themselves for Obama, even though right now nationally he has a 10% of beating McCain. (And the Rezko trial wraps up next week.) His purported 1 million name donation databank. Not to mention his immense backing from Wall Street. (Note: That site is the Black Agenda Report. I'm really glad my friend pointed it out to me and I highly recommend sticking around and reading other articles there.)

Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

I think this about money and not change. WHy would I ever take off my cynic cap and believe that someone, let alone a whole party, was in politics to help people. Yeah, I know that they'll definitely be helping themselves out while they do it, all politicians do, but turning on someone because they have an actual progressive social agenda? Afraid Hillary will succeed and will actually do better with social reform then Bill? Because that's all I can think. It can't all be white guilt and greed. It's not like he'd drop out of the party. He'll still fundraise for you. Though with all the people you keep dismissing I doubt there will be any democratic party left come January.

I haven't voted for a Democrat for President since I voted for the Big Dawg (and yes I think he's a sexist ass), but since I've been accused of being some sort of "fan" I thought I'd clear it up. (And let Taylor Marsh actually do it since I read this and just went YES YES YES!)

The reason Clinton is my candidate is not because I'm simply some fan. Hillary is my candidate because she's got a brilliant mind, is a fighter, and I believe the only candidate who can bring Americans back who have been voting against their economic interests for decades. I believe only she can expand the party to Latinos, as well as bring women out in droves, including Republican women, independents and women who have never voted before. If I didn't believe Clinton was a winner I would never have backed her in the first place.

I leave it to the venerable Dr. Violet Socks

“If the Obama contingent succeeds in taking over the Democratic party, then we will have, in effect, two Republican parties.

“Who, then, will speak for the women of America? Who will stand up for our rights? Who will hold fast against sexism and misogyny?

“Who will fight for the middle class? Who will fight for working people? Who will fight for universal health care? Who will protect Social Security?

“Who will hold fast against polluters and thieves?

“Certainly not the new Obama-style Democratic party. The Obamabots are just like Republicans: swimming in sexism and utter disdain for anyone but themselves.

“If progressives want to have a voice at all in national politics, our only hope is to keep the Obamabots from taking over the Democratic party.”

To those who say "If not Kucinich then Ron Paul"

Have you looked at any of his other stances past that of the Iraq war?

Do you know how many people will die if he overturns Roe v. Wade?

Are you that stupid to trade THOUSANDS OF WOMEN'S LIVES (because let's be honest, with the Supreme Court how it is now and the political outlook bleak do you really think that if it gets overturned we'll get it back in the next few decades? century? centuries?) for what is certain to be a disastrous withdrawal?


Now let me clear things up before you jump all over me. Yes, I am against the war. Yes, I think we should pull out, but everyone right away? We fucked things up, and while I admit we need a MAJOR overhaul of how we are conducting ourselves over there (it's appalling atm), we can't just abandon what we fucked up. I would prefer to see peacekeepers brought in (which we will never be seen as: destroying their whole society for nothing more then revenge for what happened to poor little Georgie's daddy), and preferably ones who understand the culture, again NOT US. But we need to facilitate that, or the UN, or SOMEONE. and as I see it neither Kucinich or Paul has any plan to make things better for the Iraqis while bringing home the troops. It's not just about us people, it's about us being responsible for our messes.

Yeah, Ron Paul has some policies I think are great, but he has A LOT that are scarier then hell, especially the fact that he thinks that I shouldn't have control over my own body.

I posted about how to induce a miscarriage using only parsley and vitamin c and I am SHOCKED and TERRIFIED of how far women who do not have access to abortion are willing to go to abort an unwanted baby. They willingly and knowingly put their lives in jeopardy. Is that what you want? Because that's what I'm hearing.

Do women's lives not matter to you? Or is this something you just didn't know about, because I kinda hope that people research their candidates.

And to people who commented before about my choice of who to caucus for: weighing ALL the pros/cons (and Kucinich doesn't even enter into the picture anymore, first for endorsing a misogynist and racist rag (and there is a difference between saying that something has a right to exist and endorsing it), and secondly for even musing about teaming up with Ron Paul, but in reality I could have forgiven him that one) I've re-reviewed stances and will probably caucus for Edwards.

But to be completely honest I have not voted anything but 3rd party ever since I could vote (every voting year has found me in a blue state: Washington, NY, Illinois......etc). So whatever flack you want to give me about who I support in the primary just understand that I won't be voting for them, but instead be voting for some radical leftist who never stands a chance of getting elected anytime soon. Now if we went by *popular* vote instead of the ridiculous and outdated electoral college I would probably be more likely to vote democrat, these days anyway. *sigh*