Score one for Disability Rights

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day and finally Congress did something right. (Well the Senate anyway.)

On September 11th the Senate passed S. 3406, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. This is a big fucking deal for people with disabilities. Now I'm gonna ask you to send a short email to you reps and ask them to vote for it (it had 77 cosponsors in the Senate (including my own, Patty Murray, who I love, and Hillary Clinton) so hopefully that's some indication that it will easily be passed in the House as well). What is so great about this? It changes the language, it removes some of the worse paragraphs, it gives people with disabilites (more) legal recourse if discriminated against, and it changes the definition of disability as well as putting in writing (thank god-this is something that means a lot to me personally as someone *on* disability who is mostly functional on medication) that the determination of whether or not one has a disability is made without taking into account things that aid in helping the person to lead a "normal" life. Observe:

'(E)(i) The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as--

'(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies;

This is important because the courts ruled in the past that there have been rulings that have said that if such assistive devices improve your life then, viola! you are no longer disabled as in the 1999 case Sutton v. United Airlines. My life is 10x better on medication and I'm continually scared of being kicked off of disability as a result which means no Medicaid and no medication. Whee. What a catch-22. I become almost fully functional with medication and then I am kicked off because I am only fully functional to fall back into my less then desirable state of functioning just to go back on SSI-D and medication. Whee again. And I'm not the only one who lives with this fear.

Back to the legal recourse. Many different types of disabilities were not included and were being discriminated against and not recognised by the courts under the current laws. Non-physical disabilities, i.e. the ones that most people think of when they hear the term 'disability' were generally discriminated against, because, well, if you can't see it it doesn't exist, right? Wrong. And this Bill is changing the laws to make sure that people like me are covered. If the government pays me disability why then am I not included in the ADA? Hmmmm.

In a statement, Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, praised the bill's introduction: "The ADA Amendments Act is the most significant civil rights bill of the 110th Congress. This act will correct narrow court interpretations that have restricted ADA coverage in the workplace, and taken away coverage for people with diabetes, epilepsy, serious heart conditions, mental disabilities, and even cancer."

I am writing first as a HURRAH that this was passed for the 43 million people in the US living with a disability, but also to ask that you do contact your reps (whether you actually vote or not-I don't care and they don't know) because this bill needs to pass the House. This amendment needs to happen. For me. For the 43 million others and all those undiagnosed. For the people who are usually left behind when talk of civil rights is brought up.

(Oh and while you're at it you should add something about HR 676 single payer healthcare-then no one would have to worry about going without medical care or medication.)

Also, currently there are Disability Rights Activists blocking all the doors at McCain's Campaign Headquarters (follow the happenings through Twitter) What are they asking for? Housing! Call McCain headquarters at 703-297-8900 to tell them to get the housing platform to McCain!

2 photo sets up from DNC

Storm stirring shit up
Originally uploaded by union_clown

But not the IVAW since that's huge. I'm going to be doing that tomorrow so it will should be up by tomorrow evening.

Green and Black march

and

18 Million Voices 88th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment/Hillary's Speech Celebration

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

Hey Obama, remember women?

Because your VP vettings say you don't, or you're still planning on the whole "they have no where else to go" bullshit to happen. Well you know what? We've been saying no, and we're still saying no, so fuck you mate.

NOW's put out this Obama, Are You Listening? This One's for Your Girls

Some highlights:

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, appeared on Meet the Press on July 27 and was pressed by Tom Brokaw to discuss the criteria, timing and prospects for his selection for vice president. Obama refused to name any names, but he did offer this insight: "I want somebody who I'm compatible with, who I can work with, who has a shared vision..."

Well, I hope that shared vision includes full equality for women, because some of the names that have been floated recently aren't particularly reassuring.

.....

The New York Times puts forth a frustrating Catch-22 in the veepstakes, claiming that there's little chance Obama will choose Clinton, but that hopefuls like Sebelius shouldn't hold their breath either because "if a woman were to be placed on the ticket, could it be anyone other than Mrs. Clinton?" Um, because Clinton was such a strong contender, that should eliminate all other prospective Democratic female VPs from the field? John Edwards lost, so does that mean Obama shouldn't consider any white males for the VP slot? Of course not. Only in a patriarchy are we allowed just one woman trailblazer at a time!

So, let's look at some of the men whose names are being bandied about. Gov. Kaine is reportedly very close with Obama and is supposedly the frontrunner at this time. This concerns me a great deal, as it should all feminists. Kaine, a former Catholic missionary, is on the record as having "a faith-based opposition to abortion," and having promised to enforce the (numerous) restrictions in Virginia law. We think Barack Obama should look for someone who trusts women to make these important decisions with their doctors and their families.

....

What a great way to lose women's votes -- and hurt girls' and women's future. In a year when an unprecedented number of feminist and progressive voters are energized and engaged in the electoral process, what a mistake it would be for Obama to turn away from his base in perhaps the most important decision he will make between now and the convention. A misguided attempt to reach out to evangelicals and socially conservative Democrats can only backfire. I fear that if women have to choose between a ticket with Chuck Hagel and a ticket with John McCain, they're likely to stay home.

.....

The simple political fact is that Sen. Obama needs to reach out to women, and demonstrate that he is a true proponent of equality for all. He needs to ask for women's support the same way Clinton did. It was the first time in a long time that we've been talked to by a candidate who wasn't talking down to us.

Some of the men on Obama's short list might not even bother to talk down to us -- many of them, with the exception of Joe Biden, haven't talked to us much in the past, so we suspect that they just might ignore us entirely in the future, while trading away our rights.

Of course only one woman at a time! And I'm sorry, but I heard Gov. Sebelius floated before the primaries were even over as a way to "quell" our anger that Clinton did not get the nod so I'm already pissed of about that. But now it's (almost) decided and seriously the names that have been floating are repugnant. Napolitano, who I would think of as a good choice, has not even been asked for vetting papers, but Sebelius has, and it seems like that's just a little nod to all us dried up bitter women who were screwed out of having an actual progressive candidate who cares about women. Which, I'm sorry that you don't like it Obama, but that includes the right to abortions without having to consult the entire community AND accepting the fact that mental health issues are just as damn important as physical health issues to the life of the woman. I'm glad that no one close to you has had to go through mental health issues and that you've never had your life touched by domestic violence, which does create undue mental stress even if it's not a diagnosed condition, but FUCK YOU for telling the many women who have been and will be in those situations that their pain is just not good enough to get a late term abortion. I'm lucky, I'm diagnosed so I'll be able to get one. Many people, including me, go undiagnosed for years if they ever do get diagnosed. It is NOT UP TO YOU.

Anyway, looking at Obama's list and especially the list of people who have given vetting papers we have a token woman and then a slew of men who are at best tepidly OK for women. It's not like I haven't been screaming it from the rooftops this entire damn primary season, but OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN. He wants us to vote for him, but he doesn't want to do a damn thing to earn those votes, just like the Democratic Party has for, well, forever. We are the LARGEST voting bloc AND we had a candidate who has done a shitload of work for women: Plan B over the counter, VAWA, Vital Voices, etc, etc, and yet here we are being ignored. Again. Why? Of all years why are we being ignored? Isn't it obvious that these things are a BIG DEAL to a good portion of the 18 million people who voted for Hillary, and dare I say a good deal of people who didn't? This is a big deal. STOP FUCKING IGNORING US. Right now, you are not that much better then the other guy so stop thinking that that's gonna work for you. Democrats have always counted on us voting for them since they're better then the other guy. Well both guys suck, both guys want to restrict my access to abortion, and both are going to completely fuck up this country.

And can I tell you I am so happy that there are other PUMAs. Ever 4 years I scream from the rafters about how the R's and the D's are too incredibly similar and now other people are realising it. Well, they realised that the Dems weren't being what the Dems were supposed to be. I can tell you that by the amount of trolls (can you call them trolls if you know who they are?) that visit my tiny little Hillary group on Ravelry (the main Obama group has about 30x the number of members as our group and we're the little Hillary group b/c we're unaffiliated-people in our group will be voting McCain, McKinney, no one, or Obama and some people do not like this) they really are worked up about PUMAS. If we were so sad to them why would they bother to troll us continually? Why do they care what we're talking about all the time? PUMAs are real, there are a lot of us, and if we were inconsequential no one would care.

But yet they're just saying "oh they're angry," "they'll get over it," "they're throwing a tantrum b/c they didn't get what they want." Well in part, yeah. I'm angry and I didn't get what I want. But you know what? It *still* isn't up to me to blindly follow someone who says and does things I abhor. It's up to him to win my vote. You know what would be a step in that direction? How about choosing candidates for VP who don't openly and actively hate me? Or is that too much to ask? You and Michelle always talk about your daughters, but guess what, they're girls who'll one day be women too. (I hate having to use that whole "look at this girl/woman you know" crap.)

It's Independence Day, did you do your part?

Today we are asking all Hillary supporters to help her gain her independence by helping to pay down her debt by donating $20.08.

NOW's media Hall of Shame

What sexism? Visit the Hall of Shame here.

Some of my favourites that I missed this campaign season:

Andrew Sullivan from The Atlantic:

“The second bout of public tears just before a crucial primary vote - after no evidence that Senator Hillary Clinton has a history of tearing up in front of the cameras - provokes the unavoidable question: should feminists actively vote against Clinton to defend the cause of female equality?”

WHAT. THE. FUCK. How does one imply the other? What does that have to do with female equality? I'm actually speechless on this one.

Charlotte Allen in the Washington Post

“Women ‘are only children of a larger growth,’ wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right? … By all measures, Hillary Clinton has run one of the worst – and, yes, stupidest – presidential races in recent history, marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex… . What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental? … I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home… . Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are … kind of dim.”

Internalized sexism anyone? Yes let's reinforce the entirely false stereotypes of femininity and womanhood. These are complete lies about what women are capable of that were created by this patriarchal society and do nothing but continue to reinforce women's oppression. Yes some women may choose to do these things, but to say that it is innate behaviour is on par with saying that blacks are naturally inferior to whites. It just. ain't. true. and is a lie propagated by the white male patriarchy to justify oppression of all non-white and non-male people. (Not to mention the laundry list of other oppressions of people who deviate from what the powers that be define as "normal," i.e. people with disAbilities, homosexuals, etc.) Yes please set us back to Victorian notions of women as weak, stupid creatures that can do nothing more then tend to the home. (Though of course this only applied to women of some means, and ones who were white at that.)

By the way, according to her I am not a woman, which by her definition is just fine by me. And my partner makes a much better househusband then I make a housewife. He's the one who cleans the house (I don't scrub the kitchen floor on my hands and knees/clean good enough), he irons his shirts (what? people still do that?), he cooks all the time (by choice fyi), and doesn't like my style of throw everything into the washing machine without separating (I do it when he's not around though). So is he less of a man?

As for that last sentence, do I really have to name all of the accomplishments of women or the fact that there are an amazing amount of smart women out there, the fact that we are graduating college at higher rates then men. Women have always been overlooked for their intelligence. For instance from the letters between them it has been revealed that Mileva Marić, Einstein's first wife, contributed equally to the theory of Special Relativity so much so that he gave all his Nobel Prize money to her. This line of thinking almost kept Elizabeth Blackwell, who was let into medical school b/c they thought her application was a practical joke, from becoming the first modern female doctor who then set up a practice in the slums of New York City (because she was denied by all other practices in the city because of her sex), trained nurses to help during the Civil War and went on to inspire and teach women to become doctors themselves.

It is this kind of reasoning that was used to justify denying us the vote. It was this kind of reasoning to deny women from entering universities and male professions. It is this reasoning that keeps us from earning the same amount as men do, that keeps women from being offered tenure track positions at the same rate men are, etc, etc. But somehow we weren't so dim and weak (swoony) during WWII when they needed us in the factories, or again when you are working class or working poor you are apparently not a woman since you are working and a lot of times in crappy labor intensive jobs (a few of my old factory jobs come to mind *shudder*)

Yeah, well, FUCK YOU.

Don't Mess with Hill

Friday afternoon political blogging

Before I disappear into the delightful world of my friend Jhayne in Vancouver. Trust me, it's unlike the rest of Vancouver. You lose track of time, days, everything. I'm so glad school is over. Summer of knitting, trying to squeak by on SSI-D (I have enough yarn to last a lifetime so I'm good with that and a few odd jobs-mowing a lawn for 2 weeks possibly more depending on their vacation, weeding which is in jeopardy b/c they are having money problems too and selling plasma, wheeeeeeeeeee! I'm gonna try and use my ticket to work from SSA, but employers aren't really keen on someone who has a lot of health related issues that may or may not be able to come into work regularly. Awesome. Any ideas?)

Anyhow, back to some thoughts that were brought up by pocochina's post highlighted below.




Highlights from pocochina at Hillary1000's Post Primary Thoughts

I’m pissed at the classism of this campaign. It’s not even that the Democratic Party is taking the working class for granted any more - no, according to Donna Brazile, we don’t want the working class any more. Sending out Harry & Louise flyers, ignoring the rural poor, giving up on true universal health care. A party that turns its back on the sick and the poor is a party that does not deserve power. We’ve been saying that about Republicans for years. We have met that enemy, and it is now ourselves.

...

I’m pissed at the blatant misogyny of coverage of the campaign. I’m pissed at people who should know better - who acknowledge other people’s sexism, who can cast an accusing finger at the entire horrible media, but can then turn around, utterly free of irony, and utter, “but he just inspires me,” or some other sufficiently vague, comforting reason to not check one’s own sexism. You know, it feels a bit ridiculous now, with my highly partisan perspective on the campaign, but I did a lot of soul searching to make sure that I wasn’t just voting based on whiteness or femaleness, and I did it relatively frequently - though less so as the campaign went on and only one candidate acted as if she actually wanted my votes. The bottom line was that I trusted her views on government (we have it, so let’s use it, and do so in a way that helps as many people as possible, and then next time let’s do better) more than his (hope!(TM) change!(C)); that her health care plan was better; that while his reproductive rights record was more than satisfactory, hers showed nuance and leadership. And those, in the bottom line, are the reasons I went for Senator Clinton. I am deeply fortunate to have access to the pro-Obama voices of POC who forced me to take that look into myself.

....

I’m pissed at Barack Obama for his misogyny. I can understand - though I do not condone - why he did not apologize for his own fuckups on that score. But he had not one, not two, but three clear opportunities to distance himself from the hate speech of others, and he did not. He could have taken a moment - just a fraction of a breath - in his many condemnations of Rev. Wright - whom he could no more disown than the black community, until of course he did just that - to say “by the way, the personal attacks on my opponent are not worthy of my church, my party, or my country.” He did not. He could have said the same when distancing himself from Father Phlegler. He did not. He was careful to condemn so-called divisive rhetoric which did nothing but tell the truth about the drug war, allegedly un-American comments which would (and, of course, still will, for there is no escaping the Republican Attack Machine) make him look bad, and he could not be bothered to condemn hate speech against a colleague. He could have said the same when he issued his departure from his church and he did not.

Were an observer from Mars to judge the man by his public statements in these moments of crisis, that Martian observer would be quite rational to conclude that his need to see Senator Clinton abused means more to him than his faith. I expect that from Republicans. I expected better from Democrats. I no longer can.

....

I’m pissed at feminists who decided their feminism didn’t extend to That Bitch. I want to be clear, I’m not talking about feminists who, in good faith, decided that they wanted to support Obama, Edwards, Dodd, or whoever else. I am the first to state openly that reasonable people could have come to different decisions on that. I’m talking about feminists who, usually incisive and merciless in their rejection of expected gender roles, uncritically accept the Nasty Harpy narrative about Senator Clinton. I expect feminists to be able to step back and say, “well, knowing what I know about how I, and everyone around me, and in particular the chattering heads paid to tell me what to think about this campaign, have been conditioned in my expectations of female behavior, I am going to be critical of how I process this election.” For a lot of feminists (Edwards and Obama supporters as much as Clinton supporters) that happened; for a lot of them, it didn’t. I saw one feminist blogger say of Clinton’s suspension speech only, “Best speech of her political career.” The best speech of a thirty five year career of one of the most brilliant women in modern public life just so happens to be her concession? We’d be unbelievably suspicious of such an assessment about any other woman’s career - but it was Hillary, so it’s okay. It’s nauseating from a babbling jowl show - it is heartbreaking from a feminist. And the wheel turns, and a woman’s career is at its apex when she submits to a man.

They have drawn race as black and white. This is patently ridiculous. I’m not linking to anyone who makes the claim that - essentially - white women are the only ones who liked HRC, we should just stop whining and suck it up, POC are thrilled about Obama and we are just entitled bitches. It is true that Black Americans overwhelmingly - though far from universally - preferred Obama. But this erases the huge numbers of brown women - Asian-American, Hispanic-American, in huge numbers, at least where the pollsters bothered - and men as well, who knew that they are not invisible to her. Those claims are out there, though. I’m thrilled for African-Americans who see themselves in Senator Obama. But I do not ever condone the erasure of anyone because they are inconvenient to a political agenda. I have been proud to call these women ally and sometimes, presumptively, friend. I’ve talked before about my frustration with this erasure, but with Clinton supporters - neither all white nor all male - so offended by this campaign they have decided the Democratic Party is no longer their home, the erasure has reached fever pitch. I do not begrudge Obama supporters their excitement. I do not understand the need to begrudge us our grief.

I think that non-feminist Obama supporters, and particularly male non-feminist Obama supporters, have this idea that we are just irrationally angry, our feelings are hurt and we should get over it or we’re just silly, don’t we know how bad McCain is, maybe they’ll just tell us one more time. The choice not to support Obama is a long-run rational choice. Right now, there is a party that hates women all the time, and a party that used to humor us, but hates us when it is convenient. It is our job to never, ever let it be convenient again, or there will be no one in government advocating for our rights.

We are not your sweeties, who just need candy and flowers to come around.

We are not your bitches, that is not a leash in your hand. Our bodily integrity is not a choke chain you may use to threaten us. If you think it is, you are no better than the Republicans. And yes, the “But! But! But!” Roe stick is just that - a threat. Politically involved women know exactly where we stand on Roe, and we know the Democrats haven’t been all that bothered to even look like they’re trying to protect it, these last seven years. We know what an anti-choice Supreme Court looks like, because we read Gonzales v. Carhart and our hearts broke in fear for ourselves and our sisters and nieces and daughters.

When you tell us that we’d better get in line and vote for Obama, OR ELSE ROE, you are holding our own bodies hostage against us, as if they were yours to take. You are actively, proudly, literally threatening us with our lives. Is that the change we should believe in?

....

The party’s eagerness to push her out, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (particularly in the case of Representative Cohen) was in reaction to this very feeling. They have come to rely on women not expecting any better. They have grown dependent on the Bush Administration’s vile abuse of women, so that their burden of accountability to us is lighter. They were terrified of rank-and-file Dems realizing that there is better out there. And there is, and she still lost, and with her she brought down the pretenses of the party. The bullying we’re all getting now is an unapologetic part of that - baby, you need me, nobody else will love you.

I've seen all of these and can not agree more with her here. The part I bolded about feminists, well, I've been in too many fights about what is and isn't sexist in this campaign that by all accounts would seem sexist happening to anyone else or being done by anyone else. The sweetie comment, not sexist apparently. Told to me by Obama supporters on a feminist board. To be fair, there were Obama supporters who were also saying that it was indeed very sexist and fucked up, but they were ignored by the Obama supporters who were too busy attacking me for calling sexism sexism since it was seen as an attack on their candidate. Well, yes. He was being sexist and I said something. If you have a problem with that you should get him to work on seeing women as people, not "sweeties." Same goes for the "Periodically, when she's feeling down, she launches into attacks." comment. Being a radical feminist I'm used to being told that I'm taking things "too far" or being told I'm "overreacting" or some such bullshit. But this campaign season I am now being told that about everyday sexist abuses that even my own FATHER has spoken out against in our conversations, and he is, for the most part, the opposite of progressive thought. When FOX news (which my dad watches), O'Reilly, and my dad are calling sexism sexism and feminists are calling it overreacting something is supremely wrong in the world.

Of course maybe they'll change their tune now that the misogyny will be aimed at Michelle Obama. As Red Queen asked Did you think it wouldn't happen to you and your candidate?. I may no longer get the NYTimes for free everyday since school is out, but I, along with RQ and the Hillary1000 bloggers will continue to blog against sexism, EVEN sexism against Michelle Obama, because guess what? We're outraged at SEXISM, not just because we support the other candidate. (Waits for people's heads to explode.)

The thing that brought the most joy and most misery and anxiety into my life this season has been the simultaneous rise in consciousness about sexism and the rise in denial about it from people who already called themselves feminists. The second part had me in highly anxious states for long periods of time because I just couldn't understand how people could brush away something so obvious. Forget the stuff coming from Obama, but praising Olbermann, the man who wanted a super-d and Hillary to go into a room together and only HE comes out. The man that gets all foamy mouthed and wild eyed whenever he goes on his WWTSBQ (Why Won't the Stupid Bitch Quit) rants. Praising the network news stations my FATHER became so disgusted with that he stopped watching because of the sexist things that they said about Hillary. I know that even my friends cannot really understand how insane this is to me as I don't really talk about my strict Catholic Republican parents, but MY FATHER WAS TURNED OFF BY THE MSM's SEXISM. MY OWN FATHER!!!! But not a lot of 'feminists.' As pocochina said, it's ok because it was directed towards that woman. But any comment directed at a woman simply because she is woman is directed at ALL WOMEN and the thrashing that Hillary got as a woman was a thrashing of all of us.


If you need to be reminded of the MSM's sexism this season, take a peek at the Women's Media Center video:




Or one of the many videos at Come a Long Way

Thank yous

We are trying to get a “Thank you card campaign” started. We want to flood Senator Clinton’s DC office with thank you cards. On the front of the envelope we are writing “WE ARE ONE OF 18 MILLION” and we are asking her to take it to Denver. We want to reach as many supporters as possible so it can be effective. THE ADDRESS:

THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

UNITED STATES SENATE

476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING

WASHINGTON DC 20510-3202

Not done yet? Still want to win in November?

Know that presumptive =/= actual?

Well in her speech she told us that she wants to hear from YOU, her supporters:

… .. Now the question is, where do we go from here, and given how far we’ve come and where we need to go as a party, it’s a question I don’t take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight. But this has always been your campaign, so to the 18 million people who voted for me and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you’ll go to my website at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.

In the coming days, I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.

You should do ALL of the following:

Sign the petition urging Hillary to take it to Denver.

Send an email to comments@hillaryclinton.com with “ATTENTION: HAROLD ICKES” in the subject, and again as the first line of the email itself, followed by something as simple as “Take it to Denver!”.

Send another email to TMcAuliffe@hillaryclinton.com

Finally, go to HillaryCilnton.com and Stand with Hillary. Tell her to stay in it and keep fighting. (Though I added that I think she should suspend her campaign for a little while. The things that the national press has refused to run on Obama are sure to come out with the Republicans.) Make a contribution, anything, if you can. Show her you're still there for her and you need her to still be there for you.

More Numbers

Hillary's support has steadily grown in March-May while Obama's has dropped in all categories except African Americans (so all you commenter's who say it's only old white women (apparently I and many other Hillary supporters don't exist) can shove it). There are numbers and charts and everything. I may be a mathematician but I prefer pure mathematics. Ask me how to invent square roots, not do stuff like this.

She certainly has gotten more votes since March 4th. Don't you think that the presumptive nominee should have been winning all those, since he was inevitable? Obviously, no one told the voters.


Oh and to Keith Olbermann: Stop using "Good night and good luck" as your sign off. You are a misogynist gasbag that is not even a fraction of the journalist that Edward R. Murrow was. He's rolling over in his grave every time you say that. If anyone in the mainstream media came even close to doing what he did (HA!) they would be fired in a heartbeat. There is not a modicum of honesty or integrity in your reporting. You uphold the status quo, he sought make sure that the truth was exposed, even if that meant bucking the status quo and putting himself in jeopardy. YOU, sir, are NOT him, and are besmirching his legacy.

Women's Media Center Petition against sexism in the media

Sign it!

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.

I just had to share this

I’m hardly a feminist but I’ve been aghast at the attacks Senator Clinton has been subject to. I’m not sure I can vote for obama come November.

If enough women stand up and don’t vote for Obama, maybe the Democratic Party will recognize that their largest voting bloc isn’t going to just stand by and be ignored any more. This is not just about soccer moms. Every woman was diminished by the treatment of Clinton during this election, and there was no outrage, not even a hint of recognition by those in power. It was made quite clear that racism was unacceptable, even if it was so vague that it had to be explained to people, while overt sexism was an acceptable method of attack. Every time someone dismissed “old school feminists”, I cringed, not because I am part of that group (I’m in my early 40’s), but because I know that I owe my job and my home to those women. They broke down the barriers. I just walked through. But there are barriers yet. I run into them every day. And we need to address this. I’m adding this to the reasons I’m not voting for Obama.

from donna darko

Want my vote?

One thing you can do to make the Dems listen

I wrote my Rep today, short, to the point letter.

Dear X
I do not need to remind you that this is an election year. I voted for you last time, but I will only vote for you again if you do one of two things:

1) Publicly denounce the sexism that has been rampant during this primary season. It is an atrocity and an affront to the largest voting block of the Democratic party. You, along with the rest of the party have stood idly by and in your silence have made it perfectly clear how you feel about women. If you do not feel this way you need to say it and you need to say it now.
or
2) Take back your endorsement of Obama and endorse Hillary Clinton before June 3rd.

You may choose either of the above, but you must do something or else you will not have my vote come Novemeber.

Sincerely,
me

The local, state, and national parties may not be listening, but if the pols who need to get elected get enough of these you bet your ass they'll be listening.

NOTE: This is not to say that all Obama supporters are sexist (though if you are not speaking out, especially about his demeaning behaviour towards women (see sweetie comment, PA kiss comments, etc) you are in my book) I just threw that in, though I'm about 99.8% sure he won't.

Someone's going to Portland tomorrow

WOO WOO. Unlike when I went to Indiana I will not be stuck in an office and I will (hopefully) be pounding the pavement. (Well I'm hoping that I won't be in the office, I'm assuming there's a crap-load of people in the office.)

I will be visiting and staying with my friend Sam as well, but I'd love to go out drinking with the Hillary crew since it's so much fun. WHAT TO DO????

Hopefully I can combine the two, I think once I hit the office my crazy political side will take over and hopefully some after hours carousing will take place (and maybe Sam can be persuaded to come out?)

Oh well, I love getting out of town and other then the pornographization of PDX I love it. (Perhaps there will be some mischief?)

Anyway, Mischief is demanding my attention. Have a good weekend everyone!

Electoral matchups EDIT

Taken from state by state polling (2 different data sources):

Clinton 237 (290)
McCain 198 (241)
(map #1 here. map #2)

Obama 228 (237)
McCain 237 (290)
(map #1 here. map #2)

Obama starts off much weaker against McCain. But then there's the analysis of the swing states. But why should I do it when someone else has done it so well? Jeralyn at Talk Left has a a post in which he talks about the swing states, but also, and probably more importantly to some, uses articles from William Arnone, long-time Democratic party activist and also has posted his state by state analysis (this is a long and very detailed and in depth reports). (NOTE: You can also find his entire key state series linked from the post.)

Both I and Jeralyn strongly recommend you read Arnone's stuff. It's much better then something my overworked brain could pump out at one in the morning.

*snort*

From my friend, who's "not an Obama fan" on my last post:

Except for a minuscule amount she doesn't get AA votes, that's the point.

You really refuse to accept that Hillary might have a race problem, don't you?

Obama regularly gets around 45% of the female vote, he campaigns towards women, he campaigns towards Latinos. Hillary has written of the black/AA vote.

Of course you seem to be on the whole, women and working class white people are more important than Blacks/AA so I guess it doesn't matter.

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.”