Thanks but no thanks

I'm moving over the next few days & it seems as good a time as any to have a sort of final reckoning with the Democratic Party.

I'm leaving a big tray of strawberry pie with real whipped cream & fresh squeezed lemonade. The lemondade isn't bitter, just a hint of sweet, the way I like it, but lots of pulp & so frosty that you can blow a little fog off the top.

I'm going to be using my voice, my creativity, my critical thinking skills, my time & what little influence I have on events around me to serve me, instead of frittering & squandering it away on the Democratic Party & maximizing my stress level. I came into the Democratic party as an indie in 2000, and I will shortly return to same. I came in because of a coup & failure to count votes, sadly, I leave for the same reasons. I came because the Presidency was handed to a puppet/prime minister "movement" type of Reagan/Blair "charismatic" propped up pretentious corporate (but positioned as anti-corporate) candidate, I leave for the same reasons. I came because of rightwing radio hoppped up hate & continuous non-stop propganda, I leave because of leftwing blogosphere hopped up hate & continuous propaganda. Well, and a little rightwing for good measure. And I say that as a jerk who went to both of the yearly kos conferences, etc. For what? I now ask myself. What was all of this for? To see a person installed in office by gaming the system & being the beneficiary of some kind of scorched earth media attack that was so pervasive, so accepted, so every day normal so endemic so unquestioned so blatant... A person who has ties to extremely questionable entities- and honestly, I don't even have the heart to type out the list one last time.


There's a comforting symmetry in it, in a way. I've now bookended my American political experience. I'm leaving the library & going outside to the garden. Let me be clear- this is not soley or even primarily (no pun intended) about the treatment of Hillary Clinton. Let me say I like Hillary plenty, always did & always will. It's what the treatment of her revealed about this sorry excuse for a "party." I thought the elevation of John Kerry was ridiculous beyond all measure. Little did I know.

Driving up to our new house we whizzed by some kind of billboard - it might have been a multi-service branch ad, but it was a young man wearing armour. It made me think of the Marine Corps marketing that I grew up somewhat with- swords drawn, etc. What struck me was the metaphor of the armour we've all had to don these last years in our individual & collective attempts as citizens to right our ship of state. Sometimes we all have to do things or take positions that are anathema to us. I'm not saying Wes is doing that, I'm saying my will to do so has been completely eroded.

I would do this one last time if I hadn't witnessed what I have witnessed over the course of this campaign, but I think this time I'll believe my own lying eyes, thanks.

Good luck. I really really really really really don't know what to say except- enjoy the pie.

Wes Clark, who is the figure who brought me into politics in a big way, will always be bigger than The Beatles to me & my sense is that the political process is far far the better for his involvement in it. My life has been greatly enriched by my forays into Clarkville. On the other hand, I've deemed that my involvement in the Democratic party to be, on balance, corrosive to my own spirits & quite possibly contrary to my own enlightened self-interest.

I survey the inevitable "Unite" arguments and all I can say is that to spare myself from frothing at the mouth like a mad dog, to save myself the stress of attempting to to refute a thousand poisonous blame the victim arguments eschewed by bullies, or even the application of mere reason, I am outtie.

I am offended to the bone, to the quick by the machinations of the Democratic party apparatus & now that they have decided the ends justifies the means to me that makes them exactly like... the other guys. I appreciate the we want to win mentality but I question the criteria the power brokers used to come up with their "winning" candidate & I submit to you that we are a long way from "winning."

Again, it's not about Hillary per se. Was she unwittingly positioned to lose from the moment she hired Mark Penn? Probably. Did she run a general election campaign that guaranteed she would not make it through the primary? One could argue that with the new NCLB math... Was she outfunded, outfoxed, outspent? yada yada, again, it's not about that. It's about manufacturing consent. It's about having watched those 22 debates & noticing that she really had her shit together & was great on her feet, with good instincts & a pitbull's grasp on policy but then being saddled with the vague starry eyed wet behind the ears guy instead who brings dozens of questionable associations to the table.

Like I said, good luck. My sense is that the corporate power brokers & professional Democratic party crashers have done a bang-up job. I never thought my one vote counted for much in the matrix of the ones & zeroes of the machines but I thought my voice mattered.

And it does. But I'm just not lending it out to the Democrats this time.

I'm trying to leave on a sweet note, even though it may be coming out mangled. Again, the pie is fresh, the whipped cream is homemade, the lemonade is fresh squeezed.

Enjoy your summer. Good luck with this whole thing.

Bon appetit

Tags: unity (all tags)

Comments

155 Comments

What failure to count votes are you referring to?

I hope you're not that confused about the invalid contest in MI that you're comparing it to FL in 2000. Are you?

by LiberalDebunker 2008-06-08 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: What failure to count votes are you referring

too late. that noise was the door slamming.

obama did what he had to do to get the nomination, and now he has to live with the consequences.

as y'all are fond of saying, DEAL.

by campskunk 2008-06-08 06:38AM | 0 recs
What did he do? He didn't get what he

asked for with regards to MI. The state of MI got what they asked for.

Of course, it wasn't decisive anyway since he had more than enough delegates.

The whining wouldn't be so bad if people actual had the political acumen to back up their points.

by LiberalDebunker 2008-06-08 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: What did he do? He didn't get what he

Wow, these guys are PISSED.  IF Obama loses and Hillary runs in 2012, obviously she's got no shot.  Obama supporters probably won't vote for her, and if her own supporters are that angry at the RBC committee, she may as well retire now.

I'm of course, assuming that they are indeed acting out of principle and were genuinely upset by what the RBC committee did by stripping both states of all their delegates when it was under her control.

Unless they're liars, and again, I have no reason to believe they are, she's just lost all her supporters.

Unless they're liars.

by Jess81 2008-06-08 10:29AM | 0 recs
Yes, please ignore

that neither Hillary nor the vast majority of their supporters gave a shit about Michigan until she needed those delegates.  Your fake outrage fools nobody.

by JJE 2008-06-08 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, please ignore

Oh, I would argue that her highly placed supporters cared very much about it when they were stripping Florida of all their votes.

I'm reading this diary as one, long, hot piss in Harold Ickes and Hillary Clinton's face.

by Jess81 2008-06-08 10:31AM | 0 recs
So sorry

So sorry you're willing to sacrifice the good of the country for your petulant pride.

DEAL.

by nightsweat 2008-06-08 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

hey, don't blame ME. i'm one of the people you disenfranchised.

by campskunk 2008-06-08 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

You mean the state of FL or MI. Or you should.

by LiberalDebunker 2008-06-08 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

I think he has you confused with Harold Ickes.

by Jess81 2008-06-08 10:32AM | 0 recs
Like I said, petulant.

by nightsweat 2008-06-08 07:01AM | 0 recs
Yeah,

I am too.  But I realized that that I was disenfranchised way back in 2007 when the RBC voted almost unanimously to strip the delegates from my state.  I knew then that I would not get a fair say in choosing the nominee.

I was upset about that.  I am more upset however by people trying to game the system to their advantage after the voting began.  I was told repeatedly that the election in my state would not count for anything.  Allocating delegates for an unfair election after the fact does not enfranchise me, it doubly disenfranchises me.

You don't get to play the victim here.  There are other perspectives besides yours.

by you like it 2008-06-08 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

You were not disenfranchised.

You had the ability to go out to vote.  You were not denied a ballot.

You were not disenfranchised.

by JenKinFLA 2008-06-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

The people of FL and MI were indeed disenfranchised. Their vote didn't count, it was window-dressing after the fact.

Had they actually counted, Hillary would have won them decisively and it would have helped her fund-raising and momentum.

They should have had a revote. They obtained private funding and the Obama forces in the state legislators voted against it for political reasons.

There is no good reason in the world not to have a revote and let EVERYONE have a say in who the nominee is.

If Hillary isn't on the ticket I will switch to Independent and vote down-ticket.

by mmorang 2008-06-08 12:24PM | 0 recs
There was never going to be a revote.

If Obama had fought every day for a revote or if he had opposed it every day it would not have made a difference either way.  The Republicans in the MI and FL legislatures were never going to let a revote happen.  It was far too advantageous for them to let us all fight about it like you continue to do.

There are several reasons that a DNC sanctioned election did not happen in MI and FL.  The 'supposed' opposition to the idea by Obama is not one of those reasons.

by you like it 2008-06-08 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: There was never going to be a revote.

You are wrong. Gov. Crist was for a revote and said he would do whatever he could to cooperate. He just wasn't going to pay for it. He didn't have to as private funding was obtained.

Obama stopped a revote. It will come out in books so why deny reality.

by mmorang 2008-06-08 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: There was never going to be a revote.

Obama stopped a revote. It will come out in books so why deny reality.

It will only come out that way in history books if people like you succeed in spreading that misinformation.  That is why I'm pushing back against this now.  Last time I checked, Gov. Crist was not in the legislature.

by you like it 2008-06-09 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

I'm sorry Harold Ickes disenfranchised you by not allowing you to vote for Obama.

by X Stryker 2008-06-08 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

Harold Ickes didn't prevent a revote even though private money was obtained to pay for it.

Fact: Hillary fought for and supported a revote (her supporters obtained the money to pay for it) and Obama's supporters in the state legislators prevented it from happening.

That is reality and it will go down in history as such.

The Republicans will bring up the race-bating in ads. They will show the timeline, what was said, and how it was spun to look racists. Obama's strategy will backfire.

by mmorang 2008-06-08 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

Yeah, a revote funded by one side.

That sounds like a smart, fair, democratic idea.

Clinton's camp shot down the caucus idea (not that I blame them, it'd be easier to just give Obama 65% of the delegates in that case) but that was an option that would have been funded by the state of Michigan.

by BrighidG 2008-06-08 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

Caucuses have a very small percentage of people who participate and that's one reason it isn't very representative of the peoples will....since very few people participate.

Many people can't participate. The Clinton's wouldn't run the election the state and counties would have.

Obama didn't want a revote because he would have lost and it would have counted.

It will all come out in books so no need to deny the truth.

by mmorang 2008-06-08 11:40PM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

You were only half disenfranchised. So was I. together, we make one!

Lets clasp hands and sing, kumbaya!

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-06-08 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

The people of FL and MI had ZERO impact on the Democratic primary despite being two of the biggest states in the union.

Clinton's supportes obtained the funding for the revote but Obama's supporters in the state legislators prevented it. There is no excuse for what occured. None whatsoever.

by mmorang 2008-06-08 12:33PM | 0 recs
This is revisionist history that you are pushing

Every one of HRC's supporters on the RBC voted to strip MI and FL of all their delegates in August.

That includes Harold Ickes.

The only person who dissented from this move was an Obama supporter from Tallahassee.

Those are the facts. And the fact also is that Clinton's supporters only reversed themselves when it became clear that Clinton's only shot at winning the nomination was to reverse a ruling that they universally supported.

It sucks, that's for sure. I would rather that FL and MI were given a re-vote, but that wasn't in the cards. But let's be clear about this: Senator Clinton bears more blame for that particular mess. That's the facts.

by maxomai 2008-06-08 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: So sorry

When you don't vote you disenfranchise yourself. Deal. Or curl up into a fetal position.

by kitebro 2008-06-08 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: What failure to count votes are you referring

What absolute bullshit.

Look, campskunk, all the Hillary supporters voted in favor of that supposed "disenfrachinsement" you people complain about.

ALL OF THEM. Back in 2007, when your campaign didn't give a damn about MI and FL.

Remember Harold Ickes? The guy who had voted for 100% disenfranchisement? Big Hillary supporter? Pretend to forget all about him

If you want to complain about disenfranchisement, that's a complain you should have attacked the Clinton campaign with.

That you didn't, proves you don't actually give a damn about that -- you simply care to hold onto your resentment and onto your LIES no matter what.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-08 07:21AM | 0 recs
We are dealing

And whipping.  McCain, that is.  Whining losers such as the diarist can hit the road, we'll not miss them for a split second.  We've got an election to win, and it will be a thing of beauty.  The contrast couldn't be clearer, the candidate couldn't be better equipped.  A perfect storm of Bush hatred, Obama inspiration and economic misery is our opportunity.  It's our year for once.

"a pitbull's grasp on policy but then being saddled, blah blah blah"  

I guess it was the pitbull's grasp on policy that caused her to vote for the Iraq invasion, then pop up like a jack in the box applauding heartily when Bush said the surge is working during the State of the Union address.  This year.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-08 07:26AM | 0 recs
Facts is facts.

Good reply to the diarist's storm of sour grapes.

by Celtic Merlin 2008-06-08 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Facts is facts.

Would the new sour grapes wing of the Democratic party please get lost. We will win in a landslide without you.

by ImpeachBushCheney 2008-06-08 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: What failure to count votes are you referring

Yes... he did what he had to do...

won many of the caucuses

won several primaries

put simply, won enough delegates to be the nominee.

That's what he had to do and he did it.

by JenKinFLA 2008-06-08 07:31AM | 0 recs
Deal with Winning?

I can do that.

by ksh 2008-06-08 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: What failure to count votes are you referring

We're dealing with it quite, well, thanks.

Oh wait, I'm sorry...I totally missed the cue where I'm supposed to beg, plead, cajole and bargain with anyone who bashes the Democratic party and vows to vote for McCain or not at all.

Maybe if we prostrate ourselves before them, self-flagellate until we're good and bloody, and rend our garments while pleading for absolution from our numerous, horrid sins, the diarist might, might possibly consider voting for a Democrat as long as we say pretty please with cherries on top.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-08 09:07AM | 0 recs
Fail.

You forgot the whipped cream to go along with those cherries on top.  Just for that, I'm gonna vote for Obama.  That'll teach you.

by edg1 2008-06-08 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: What failure to count votes are you referring

Yes, he did what he had to.  He ran the most positive successful campaign in recent history.

by Drummond 2008-06-08 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Oh for God's sake.

by mady 2008-06-08 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

I thought about posting a more substantive post about taking an unbiased look at the facts of the Michigan case instead of simply accepting the side of your candidate.  I thought about asking if you have read the rules that were violated.  But I don't think either would have worked (and not just because I strongly suspect you're a GOP troll who entered in April) so I'll go with

by PantsB 2008-06-08 06:45AM | 0 recs
Hey llama

Pass me the cheetos. We've got another I'm Leaving the Party Cuz Everybody For No Reason Picked the Handsome Dummy Who is Sure to Lose and Besides No Fair He Cheated diary.

* yawn *

by 79blondini 2008-06-08 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey llama

Watch out, they spit!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-08 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey llama

But he's "our version of Bush"! Haven't you been reading the front page?

by really not a troll 2008-06-08 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Thanks for confirming precisely what this diary was about.

Like I said, good luck in November.

by bluemoon 2008-06-08 06:51AM | 0 recs
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts

Thank you bluemoon. For my part, I'm doing my best to hold off deciding anything until I see whether or not Obama means what he says about being a uniter, giving the people a voice in government again, and representing their interests in Washington - namely by choosing Hillary as his running mate. With a solid majority of Democrats in poll after poll favoring a unity ticket, Sen. Obama is confronted with a 1st actual challenge to put his words into practice, and signal sincerity.

Short of that, I'll take the words an Obama supporter said to me to heart, and be right behind you - "This isn't your party anymore - it's ours now."

by phoenixdreamz 2008-06-08 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I appreciate you sharing your thoughts
"I'm doing my best to hold off deciding anything until I see whether or not Obama means what he says about being a uniter ... by choosing Hillary as his running mate." Obama's career, as well as his campaign for the last year and a half has made his position clear - he finds common ground to work with people, uniting instead of dividing. He's faced this challenge throughout his career, and risen to the challenge in a way that I've never seen a politician do before. Unfortunately for your desire for Clinton to be VP, her recent, immature behavior has made it virtually impossible for Obama to make her VP. But despite that, Obama has held out an olive branch, making clear that he wants to work with her to move things forward. I can only hope that her endorsement speech leads go a more constructive approach. Personally, I hope that she focuses on the Senate, where she's been doing a great job.
by laird 2008-06-08 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

I am still confused at how people can possibly think that it was Obama who had the deck stacked in his favor. A huge underdog, a new Senator, no big money connections, no big name staff members. Clinton had 30 years of connections to build on.

That Obama beat the Beltway insiders is a huge win for Democracy, in my opinion. Since the beginning, the fact that Florida and Michigan decided to jump the gun and lose their votes for a perceived political advantage is completely unrelated to this simple truth: Barack Obama's team learned the rules, played by the rules, and won by the rules.

In an age where breaking rules wins elections, it's a breath of fresh air.

by not Brit 2008-06-08 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

The Hillary Clinton side voted unanimously in favor of stripping Michigan and Florida off its delegates.

Then they spun it about, lied some more, and tried to present it as if it was they who were fighting for those two states; when they had unanimously voted to "disenfranchise" them in the first place.

You have connection to the Internet obviously. You should have known all this already, so I can only assume you choose to remain wilfully ignorant.

But ofcourse it's not about enfranchising or disenfranchising -- for the deadenders this is just about finding ANY excuse to hold onto their resentments, no matter how false or ridiculous they are.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-08 07:25AM | 0 recs
Amazing that you went to two Yearly Kos

conventions and took virtually nothing in.

by ksh 2008-06-08 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Quitter.

by X Stryker 2008-06-08 07:52AM | 0 recs
walk the walk and leave already

For those Hillary supporters that are upset I would feel the same way if my candidate had lost. Many of you invested time, emotions, ideas and imagined a better America enabled through your support of your candidate. I welcome your support of the Democratic party and the goals of getting out of Iraq, insuring woman's right to choose and universal health care. But please stop threatening the rest of us. I know it is hard right now but try to imagine if those of us that supported Edwards or Obama said the same things to you had Clinton been the victor. You would be giving us the middle finger right now.

by TMP 2008-06-08 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Yes, yes, things didn't turn out your way so the party is going to hell in a handbasket and ambiguous forces like "the media" and "the Party apparatus" are to blame.  Like many others, you overlook the flaws of your candidate and see only the flaws of everyone else.  

by rfahey22 2008-06-08 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks
It's okay to be cynical about the process, but the machinations occurred on all sides.  It's the nature of politics that every politician has questionable associations, especially if you judge those associates by taking a ten-minute clip of them at their worst.
Expecting every candidate (yours or your opponents) to be as pure as the driven snow is always going to leave you with bitter disappointment.
It's not a perfect world or a perfect system, and it's hard to accept it when you feel the wrong decision is being made over and over.  But, ultimately, if you believe in progressive policies (and if you're here, you presumably do) there's still a clear choice between the two candidates.  Listen to the two conventions and see which one appeals to the better aspect of our natures.
The Democratic party is far from perfect but they're still striving towards the right goals.  Hopefully after a break, you'll reconsider your decision.  If not, best of luck to you.
by bottl4 2008-06-08 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You're a good writer.

I think you've articulated things that a lot of Hillary's supporters (and maybe supporters of other candidates) are feeling right now.

I hope that after you've recovered a little, you change your mind about leaving the party.  Stay, and be an agent for change from within.    

by half nelson 2008-06-08 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

I'm sorry you're not happy with the process or the result.

That does not mean I agree with much of what you've said, excepting of course the need to reform the primary system.  That needs to happen.

"I am offended to the bone, to the quick by the machinations of the Democratic party apparatus & now that they have decided the ends justifies the means to me that makes them exactly like... the other guys. I appreciate the we want to win mentality but I question the criteria the power brokers used to come up with their "winning" candidate & I submit to you that we are a long way from "winning.""

You are factually incorrect on this one.  If the goal was to win at all costs, Barack Obama would not be our nominee.  Nobody, not even the often-insane Democratic Party, is sufficiently whacked out on cocaine to think that nominating a black guy with the middle name "Hussein" is the best way to win.  He's just the guy who won, and will be our standard-bearer.

You have every right to be mad.  You have every right to associate, politically or otherwise, as you choose.  I do not denigrate these things, and I am genuinely respectful of your right to choose your associations.  The Democratic Party may not be right for you.  There's no evil in that, nor is there any insult intended on my part.

For better and for worse the nomination process is done.  We have our nominee.  He's the one I've wanted, and I savor this victory, especially in light of the fact that he defeated the inevitable, the unbeatable Hillary Clinton.  And yes she was framed that way for ages.

She blew it.  Yes, there were people who said unkind, thoughtless, or demeaning things about her.  I feel about as angry at them as I imagine you do.  The difference is this:

I expect slings and arrows, insults and lies, and all around crap to be slung at our leaders.  Sadly, this is how the process works.  I am not convinced (as I simply do not agree that the empirical evidence supports the notion) that Senator Clinton was significantly mistreated as compared with how Senator Obama was.

If your view is different, I respect that.  

I'm not going to take a paternalistic tone and tell you what your self interest is, or how you should vote.  I have been known, when these diaries occur, to explain what the Republicans will do if they win, but that is no threat by me.

If you are comfortable, through action or inaction, with whatever increase in likelihood of a John McCain administration you create through your own choices, well, that's life.  I can't tell you what to do or what to believe.

But Hillary Clinton is no victim.  Whoever thought that "breaking the glass ceiling" would be easy?  Fight the power and the power will fight back, dammit!  There is always pushback in these things.  That's part of what makes winning so worthy in these matters.

For myself?  I hunger for a woman to be our president.  I just don't want it to be Hillary Clinton.  And I'm truly glad I don't have to vote for her right now.

Good luck, and godspeed.  I wish you well.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-08 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re:Yes,there's always pushback...

...but in this case, some of the pushback  came from other democrats and self-identified progressives, who should have been the first to decry the treatment that Clinton was subjected to.  There were plenty of reasons to oppose her, without engaging in sexist, misogynistic smears that are ultimately damaging and demeaning to all women.

Our party has some serious soul-searching to do.  I hope something positive comes of all the anger and disillusionment that has resulted from this primary.  

by half nelson 2008-06-08 07:38AM | 0 recs
Who pushed those smears?

Seriously -- who?

Think about this very carefully.

by maxomai 2008-06-08 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Who pushed those smears?

Completely OT - your dog is cute - lab / terrier x ?

by interestedbystander 2008-06-08 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Who pushed those smears?

Lab / question mark.

by maxomai 2008-06-08 09:56PM | 0 recs
Name one "sexist, misogynist smear"

that Obama (or even one of his top aides, or even any of his staff) made about Hillary (provide link please).  Answers must be received by January 20, 2009 to be eligible.

Personally, despite the fact that I am an Obama supporter, I sent numerous emails to MSNBC and other media outlets stating that I was boycotting them because of the outrageous sexist comments by the likes of Tweety.  And I emailed hundreds of friends and fellow Obama supporters to do the same.  I like to think that this action taken by so many of us led to Tweety's televised mea culpa.

But there is no basis for blaming Obama or the Democratic Party for statements made by the right-wing corporate media.  They have made, and will continue to make, similarly disparaging comments about Obama in their never-ending effort to put yet another Republican in the White House.  If you want to stop the activities that you complain of, do all you can to defeat McCain.

by DaveG 2008-06-08 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

So you think the Democratic Party power brokers and machine supported Obama over Hillary and that is why she lost?

What primary campaign have you been observing?

How much of a lead did she have in superdelegates before Obama started winning state after state?

Who agreed to having a SuperTuesday which, at the time, was universally regarded as guaranteeing Hillary the nomination?

You appear to be living in an alternate universe.

by DaveG 2008-06-08 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

"Manufacturing consent" implies that Obama supporters are dupes who support him because the media led them to Obama.

I feel your unhappiness that Clinton is not the nominee, but I also ask you to treat others with respect that they made choices because they thought through it and decided otherwise.

And, I hate to say it, but Clinton used the FL/MI situation as a political weapon, not in good faith. She had no problem with those states not counting. Other state parties made decisions based on similar threats of losing delegates. And then her campaign decided it was an issue that could help her win.

Those were not elections that pass international standards for free and fair elections. Horribly flawed elections do not yield meaningful and democratic vote counts and have to be excluded.

Politics and policy-making are about choosing among options, nearly always imperfect ones.

If you prefer McCain policies over Clinton's, then  your best choice now is to vote for him. If not, there is a candidate who shares nearly every policy position of Clinton's.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-08 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Seems to me like that lemonade is a little more bitter than you're letting on.

My advice: Grow up.

That is all.

by brathor 2008-06-08 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Goodness! Someone's got the vapors. Good thing you made cold lemonade. Goes great with whine.

by Rationalisto 2008-06-08 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

I'll see your "bon appetit" and raise you 'Bon Voyage'.

Really, though, I echo ReaperBot: Good luck, Godspeed...I wish you well.

(and I hope to see you again after the summer is over)

by Kysen 2008-06-08 07:29AM | 0 recs
Is this a Dem blog?

"Again, it's not about Hillary per se."

Right.

I'm totally unconvinced any of the bitter bloggers on the rec list are being honest about their motivations.  Democrats, and really anyone who gives a crap about this country, would not be deciding to re-register in a fit of pique.  Sorry, not buying it.

by McNasty 2008-06-08 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

We're not in a perfect world. As a man, I found the sexism appalling. Hillary's day will come. I'm for her as you are BUT

It was never about her
It was never about him.

It was ALWAYS about health care, ending the war, not staring a new war in Iran, etc.

by NY Writer 2008-06-08 07:34AM | 0 recs
"We don't have a choice"

We don't have a choice (but to win). Because now, if we screw this up, all those people that I have met who really need help, they are not going to get help.
- Barack Obama (June 6th 2008) talking at his campaign headquarters.

Video

by JoeCoaster 2008-06-08 08:23AM | 0 recs
You're officially part of the legion

who'd rather stay in Iraq, ban the right to choose, leave us without healthcare, and let the "free market" rule our economy. Congratulations.

We in the reality-based community will rally behind our nominee, in order to prevent people like you from further destroying the country. By the way, the Clintons will be working with us.

by Firewall 2008-06-08 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: You're officially part of the legion

Good blackmail.

by gaf 2008-06-08 08:40AM | 0 recs
How is that blackmail?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-06-08 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Sorry blewmoon.  We are not trying to elect a democrat for the personal edification of people like you.  We are trying to get our party and its PLATFORM in the white house.

If you have no interest in that now, then you clearly never really did, and were in it just for the horse race, the competing cults of personality, and... I don't know, the lemonade I guess.

And if your post wasn't to get yourself some attention, or to create drama, please tell us what its purpose was.

Cheers.

by NeverNude 2008-06-08 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

You are right in the idea that it isn't all the treatment of Hillary that insulted our intelligence this campaign, it was the DNC and the peek into what is in the sausage.  Though I have belonged to the Democratic Party for 33 years and voted Democratic in every single election in that time, I never had a chance to look into the meat grinder and see the ingredients.  As it turns out, the ingredients are stomach turning and not what I had always believed.  The main ingredient this year that led to the product being spoiled is the Democratic Party's attempt to discard the people in favor of maintaining control of the structure.  I am speaking of the jackassed thing the power structure came up with when they threw the people of Florida and Michigan under the bus in favor of maintianing a hierarchy of party hacks who would decide the election instead of the people.

The next amazing thing I learned is that the Democratic parties from the states have their collective heads up their asses with the missmatch of so called elections in each state.  From observation I have decided that the people in each state aren't the important thing, it's the party structure and the power the party lords have worked up for themselves in the way they developed the individual voting process.  In some states, like in caucus states, ordinary people just plain don't really count in favor of the activists and the idealists who want to make sure their keys to the power structure are never taken away.

Lets go then to the calls for Clinton to resign coming from all the jackass big wigs who were certain that letting her go on would ruin their own chance at elections and their own stream of money in the fall.  Be damned little people, or voters as they are otherwise called, it's the politicians own self importance that is important.

Then there is the media.  I learned that when the media is on the side of a candidate preferred by the power structure, the dug in politicians who have to be able to control everything or lose their 15 mins of fame if they don't, and is allowed to say or do anything without a peep about it, even if they are attempting to destroy a anot so golden boy or girl in the process who has given their entire life to the party.

So, I hear and know exactly what you hear and know, and at least until there is some evidence that the power mongers at the time have noticed something is not right, I will be leaving a pie behind of my own.

by Scotch 2008-06-08 08:03AM | 0 recs
Sorry, but

What happened with MI and FL was the fault of MI and FL. If you actually paid attention to the cases presented at the RBC meeting by the states themselves this becomes clear.

The DNC said "don't move your primaries up, or you will lose your delegates." The states didn't believe them, they gambled, and they lost.

Note please: the people in MI and FL who made those decisions were elected by the people of MI and FL. If I were a Michigander with political aspirations, I might consider running a senate challenge to Carl Levin on the basis of, "he cost us half of our votes in the Democratic Primary."

As for the local Dems worried about their own election chances with Hillary at the top of the ticket--remember that if Republicans win those local races, "the little people" WILL "be damned". It is not pure selfish ego that drives people to make such pragmatic considerations. There are a great many 'swing' districts in states that Hillary won't win anyway, but where some local Dems do hold office by a thin margin. Their fear the Dittohead Hillary-hate might bring more people out to vote Republican was not imaginary.

by 2501 2008-06-08 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

"I am speaking of the jackassed thing the power structure came up with when they threw the people of Florida and Michigan under the bus..."

That power structure was composed primarily of Clinton supporters, with Ickes at the forefront.

But isn't it moot? Whatever decision the RBC might have reached, it wouldn't have had any effect on the final result.  Half strength, full strength, revote, recaucus -- whatever you pick, the delegate swing wouldn't have been enough to overcome Obama's lead.

by jere7my 2008-06-08 09:31AM | 0 recs
7 recs?

A diary can make the Rec List with only 7 recs?

by Shem 2008-06-08 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: 7 recs?

After the systematic removal of rec/rate abilities from Obama supporters over the last month or so, the bar's pretty low.

by nathanp 2008-06-08 08:16AM | 0 recs
So....

You're basically saying with this is that there's no practical difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. Right?

by maxomai 2008-06-08 08:09AM | 0 recs
"my voice isn't important"

why? just because your candidate wasn't picked?  does that mean every edwards supporter should leave because they think their voice isn't important?  

absolute crap, especially given the miniscule difference between all of the democrat candidates.  

i'm starting to lose patience for these diaries.  i guess those unity diaries were all for not.  the new vogue is "i'm not bitter - I'm just leaving."

try to imagine a role reversal and try to think about how much you would possibly care to hear about it.

by ab03 2008-06-08 08:12AM | 0 recs
all for "naught"

Sorry, it's the copy editor in me.

by DaveG 2008-06-08 08:20AM | 0 recs
The person and not the policies

Look y'all, there will always be people who fall in love with the PEOPLE running politics more than the POLICIES.  This is why such people who used to support Hillary Clinton don't care that her opponent supports 90% of her agenda.  Rather, to honor Hillary, they will go out of their way to find a man who supports 0% of her policies and not think twice about it.  

For such people, best not to waste your time.  They are not in politics because they care about Democratic priorities.  

by zadura 2008-06-08 08:14AM | 0 recs
My sympathies are with you

I'm not leaving the Party.  But I will vote in November for the Democrat I think is most qualified whether she's on the ballot or not.  And, I'm voting against John Kerry in the September Democratic Primary for the Massachusetts Senate seat.

by dbrown04 2008-06-08 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: My sympathies are with you

Who is running against Kerry?

by gaf 2008-06-08 08:42AM | 0 recs
by dbrown04 2008-06-08 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: My sympathies are with you

you do realise that
1) Hillary doesn't want you to vote for her
and
2) write-in votes don't count in presidential elections. in fact, they aren't even counted in many places.

so, seriously, if you plan to write in Hillary's name--why don't you call Hillary's senate office, and tell them that's what you are planning to do. see what they tell you.

by 2501 2008-06-08 09:16AM | 0 recs
To boycott or not

Over the last 30 years, I've watched a number of debates over whether or not a boycott is the right action.  Do we boycott South Africa to try to topple apartheid?  Do we boycott apparel made in sweatshops?  Do we boycott high-priced beef?  The answer is never easy.  Sometimes boycotts hurt the very people they are intended to help.  But then, sometimes they have real positive effect.  Its never easy to know what the right thing to do is.

Hillary Clinton has made her choice.  I respect her for it.  I have not made a final decision on my vote in November.  It depends in part on how outrageous McCain's supporters turn out to be.  It also depends on how intellectually honest Obama's supporters turn out to be.

If the Republicans are outrageous and the Obama supporters acknowlege they violated certain boundaries, I'll probably vote for Obama.  But if the Republicans are restrained and Obama supporters self-righteously un-repentant, then the right vote will be harder to discern.

by dbrown04 2008-06-08 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: To boycott or not

It's bizarre that you are making a decision based on McCain and Obama's supporters, and not the candidates themselves.  Do you think you might be taking this a little personally?

by interestedbystander 2008-06-08 10:29AM | 0 recs
No not at all

The problem is that deratogatory sexually-abusive language became acceptable during this primary season: in the press, on the news shows and on the blogs.  If this becomes normal acceptable behavior, women don't have a chance.  We're back to the 1950s in spades.

In the 1950s, sexism took the form of the guilded cage.  Women had limits placed upon them, they were viewed as the property of their husbands, but at least they were treated with respect.  Today, the respect is gone.  When it comes to language about women, anything goes.

However, if those who engaged in this derrogatory behavior realize and acknowledge that they crossed a line, then I'm prepared to move on.

by dbrown04 2008-06-08 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: No not at all

as others have said, I don't think you can point to a single person in the Obama campaign, or one of his supporters in the Democratic Party who have used sexist language against Hillary.

yes, you can find people in the media who did, and you can find individual Obama supporters who did, but then you can also find people in the media who used racist language against Obama, and you can certainly find individual Harriet Christians who did as well.

and in 2004, we have whitey white guy John Kerry running, and they said he was "elitist" and made fun of his Purple Heart.

and just to remind you, you can also look back at John McCain laughing when one of his supporters said, "how can we beat the bitch?" Do you seriously,  in your heart, believe that Barack Obama would have stood there and not rebutted that?

No one is saying that there weren't bad things said about Hillary, but it's amazingly naive to react as if she is the first candidate about whom the media have made unfair remarks. Yes, you should do everything in your power to push back against the people who made those remarks, but Barack Obama was not ever one of those people.

by 2501 2008-06-08 11:15AM | 0 recs
Women and the coaliton

Women have been more faithful members of the progressive coalition than any other group.  Women have supported labor rights, migrant rights, children's rights, the education movement, the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement...  We are the ultimate cooperators.  

But this election has left me wondering whether our cooperative inclinations have served us well.  Our support has been taken for granted.  Many Obama supporters believe that they can dish out abuse, liberally sprinkling there narrative with crude and derogatory references to the reproductive organs of women and think that we'll stick with them, etc.

Well, I'm just warning you, Obama supporters may have mis-calculated.  The stuff I saw on dKos before I joined the strike blew me away.  I just don't see how I can let that pass. Sometimes there just has to be consequences.

by dbrown04 2008-06-09 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: No not at all

Sure, there was over the top sexism.

No, it's not why Hillary lost. And you know it.

by Brannon 2008-06-08 09:07PM | 0 recs
The cause of Hillary's defeat is irrelevant

You are correct.  The sexism was over the top.  Whether it was the cause of her defeat I do not know.  I also don't care.  I just know that I am having a hard time joining a coalition of people who view women and talk about women the way an awful lot of Obama supporters do.

by dbrown04 2008-06-09 09:30AM | 0 recs
You can't be a real Hillary supporter

How could someone who honestly believed in the same things as Hillary vote for anti-reproductive rights, anti-civil rights, pro-100 years war, fuck the poor McCain?

How could someone who supported Hillary even consider voting for McCain?

Not possible.

by BrighidG 2008-06-08 01:05PM | 0 recs
I'm not considering voting for McCain.

I'm considering writing in Hillary Clinton.  And, by the way, you're not supposed to troll rate someone just because you disagree with them.  

There are a whole lot of angry Hillary supporters who are considering the same.  They think, like I do, that the attacks on Hillary were particularly vicious and sexual in nature.  Not just garden variety politics.  The attacks were the sort that set women's rights back.  Attacks in the press, from the talking heads and on the blogs.

by dbrown04 2008-06-08 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not considering voting for McCain.

I did it because I don't believe you're a real Hillary Clinton supporter/Democrat. Which means you're a Republican trolling here.

And you said "But if the Republicans are restrained and Obama supporters self-righteously un-repentant, then the right vote will be harder to discern."

That suggested to me you were considering voting for McCain.

They think, like I do, that the attacks on Hillary were particularly vicious and sexual in nature.  Not just garden variety politics.  The attacks were the sort that set women's rights back.  Attacks in the press, from the talking heads and on the blogs.

What does that have to do with Obama? You're not asserting that Obama is responsible for the action of his supporters and Hillary's detractors (not necessarily the same group), are you?

If so, by that same logic, I'll assert the Clintons are responsible for the racist bile of many of Hillary's supporters and Obama's detractors.

by BrighidG 2008-06-08 07:19PM | 0 recs
Well, I'm not a Republican troll

My break from my Republican heritage came in 1961 when at the ripe old age of 6 I discovered feminism.  In this primary season I was stunned by the sexism and misogyny by so-called progressives.  The constant vulgar references to Hillary Clinton's reproductive organs.  Kos using the same arguments against Alegre that my Dad tried to use on me; silly and uninformed.  Edwards making the argument that Hillary's tears in NH revealed her too weak to be President; the same argument that was used in the 1970s to argue that women are too emotional to be commander-in-chief.

This is behavior that requires consequences.  Unless there is some remedy, the only consequence I have is to break out of the coalition of progressives and join the resistance.

That doesn't make me a Republican troll.  I've just been radicalized.

by dbrown04 2008-06-09 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, I'm not a Republican troll

That's nice. I'm 25, raised in a Republican household by a dad who listened to Rush Limbaugh every night and hated "feminazis". I discovered feminism when I was 9.

The Democratic party is sexist. So is the Republican (more misogynist really). So are most things in American society because we live in a racist, sexist, homophobic, creedist, xenophobic society.

What any of this has to do with Obama, whom you don't name in your post as being sexist, is beyond me. We have two major parties and only two real candidates for President. One of the major parties is misogynist, the other is as sexist as the society in which it is based. One of the candidates is sexist if not misogynist and the other candidate is neither.

I'm voting for Obama and for the Democrats because out of the two, and there's only really two choices in this country, they're the better choice.

by BrighidG 2008-06-09 12:38PM | 0 recs
There's the short run and the long run

Its true that in the short run there are only two candidates in the 2008 Presidential election.  But the longer run question is do I join the Democratic coalition or not.  Given the way some of my fellow Democrats behaved this spring, I'm having a hard time seeing the payoff at an intellectual level or even being able to stomach it at an emotional level.

by dbrown04 2008-06-09 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: My sympathies are with you

Yes, because God forbid John Kerry not bow down to the Queen. Your petulance is astounding.

by authority song 2008-06-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
I don't quite follow your argument.

by dbrown04 2008-06-09 09:32AM | 0 recs
Enjoy the crow

You'll be eating a lot of it when you find yourself on the outside looking in during the Obama presidency

by fightbull 2008-06-08 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Enjoy the crow

....so....there's going to be an "outside" during the Obama presidency?

by jentwisl 2008-06-08 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Good riddance.

by Artemis Jax 2008-06-08 08:22AM | 0 recs
Some people seek to categorize us.

Frankly, I don't care if the diarist is a Democrat, Independent, Republican, or member of the Independent Purple Party, as long as they work for progressive ideals and causes, and if they do that, then they are not going to do anything to elect John McCain in November.

Some here are still fighting the old battles. Don't you know that everything before yesterday is irrelevant? The only thing that matters now is putting Barack Obama into the White House. Hillary has told you this. So have others.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-08 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Some people seek to categorize us.

Always amazes me that people who cared more about the candidate than the issues accuse me of being part of "personality cult".

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-08 08:50AM | 0 recs
I accused you of no such thing.

There is only one goal. Making Barack Obama president. Everything else is secondary.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-08 12:23PM | 0 recs
Sorry

I think I was responding/agreeing to another comment.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-08 12:29PM | 0 recs
"my voice isn't important"

The "vague starry eyed wet behind the ears guy" is making your voice and mine MORE important in our democracy, by reducing the influence of big money on our political system.

Not bad for someone who isn't even president yet.

by Matt Smith 2008-06-08 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

The candidate with her shit together and the pit bull's grasp on policy voted for George Bush's war. The vague starry eyed wet behind the ears guy saw this for the disaster it was. So, if memory serves, did Wes Clark.

As for "questionable associations".... Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Lanny Davis, James Carville-Matalin, Peter Giustra, Ron Burkle, Hugh Rodham, Ed Koch, Geraldine Ferraro, Bob "Death Tax" Johnson, Bob McCain Kerrey, Susan Estritch.....

Your arguments don't really hold up.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-08 08:48AM | 0 recs
Irony...

Claiming Obama is the flawed candidate because of his "questionable associations" shows a particularly delicious naivety.

Honestly, you still sound very confused, which is understandable.  Perhaps you'll figure everything out when it's time to put up or shut up in November and decide if the issues are more important than your petulant pride.

Hillary Clinton has wholeheartedly thrown her support to the Democratic Nominee, I'd think if you respected her as much as you claim you'll give that some serious thought before deciding anything.

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-06-08 08:49AM | 0 recs
Dangerous naivete?

I also think Obama has had a host of dangerous associations, suggesting he has an authoritarian streak.  Leftists as well as righties can be authoritarian.

I've worked for 30 years in Washington, D.C.  I've been the personal lawyer for five Senate confirmed officials for half those years.  I have degrees from top tier universities.   My after dinner guest last night is one of the leading foreign policy experts in DC, sought after by the military, the White House, State, etc., and will likely be a go-to guy in whoever heads the new administration.  We talked about more than baseball.  I have a little bit of experience, and no naivete.  Obama could be a danger to our country.  Notice I said could.  I will not vote for him, as, like the diary writer, I'm bidding farewell to the Democratic Party.  No one is irreplaceable -- I'm sure they'll find someone else to watch over this precinct.  I do not think many younger people realize the damage that has been done to the party, damage that is quite permanent.

by katmandu1 2008-06-08 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Dangerous naivete?

I do not think many younger people realize the damage that has been done to the party, damage that is quite permanent.

And while we're at it, we should get the hell of your lawn.

Despite all the high-minded rhetoric I read from people like you, it seems that it always comes down to a simple matter of hating the next generation's involvement in politics ("If only they all had my wisdom and maturity and could realize that my candidate is the only Democrat who won't doom the nation!") Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, and often with more profanity, to boot.

It's disconcerting that so many people have seen fit to cast a simple primary election as some kind of grand generational battle to the death. But hey, whatever makes it easier for you to blame us for leaving the party, I guess.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-08 09:17AM | 0 recs
Why do you provide no specifics?

Name one "dangerous association" Obama has, and cite your evidence.

It's hard to refute you when all you state are unsupported conclusions (and ridiculous ones at that).

by DaveG 2008-06-08 09:22AM | 0 recs
It must stem from that "scary" meme!

Because he belongs to that "scary" church, with that "scary" pastor who knows other "scary" men, he serves on a Board of Directors with that "scary" Ayers man who did "scary" things when Barack was in gradeschool, he returned campaign contributions from that "scary" Rezko who did "scary" business with other "scary" people, he had people raise funds for him who have connections with people who support other people with "scary" connections, he has a middle name which sounds eerily close to that of many middle eastern "scary" people while also being of an ethnicity that has put out "scary" men, I mean he too must "scary," right?

Replace "scary" with "dangerous" or whatever the fear word d' jour is and there you have it - the latest and greatest unsubstantiated anti-Obama argument-of-the-day replete with "guilt by loose association" and "innuendo" to boot!

I have more respect for the religious guy in my neighborhood who simply says he won't vote for ANYONE - Repub or Dem - who supports abortion.  Well, at least he has a principled argument.  The rant above, chock full of bloviating self adulation, lacks either principle or substance.  It leaves no room for debate and should be dismissed outright for the empty rhetoric that it is.

by ILean Left 2008-06-08 10:14AM | 0 recs
Laughable...

Any discussion of Obama's "dangerous associations" as an argument for Hillary is spurious beyond belief given the dealings of the Clinton family (or the McCain family for that matter).
At least have the fortitude to say you're leaving because you're so bitter at your candidate losing that you don't want to heed her call to arms to support the party's nominee.  Blaming it on some manufactured temper-tantrum is nothing if not petty.

And as for the bit of braggadocio about a "foreign policy adviser", name-dropping on the internet at the very least requires a name.

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-06-08 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Dangerous naivete?

What are these dangerous associations?

Please elaborate.

by Black Anus 2008-06-08 10:02AM | 0 recs
tsk tsk

your pessimism and fear are very apparent, and have no place here or in the democratic party. return to noquarter where you have a voice among ppl that will actually consider and embrace your views. I am 64 and I realize, along with many many others in my neighbourhood how much of a positive and refreshing change was just made to the democratic party. so take your votes and shove them if you think you can use it to persuade ppl to consider your pessimistic outlook!

by cdnminer 2008-06-08 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Dangerous naivete?

TR'd for "leftists." As far as I can tell, you're arguing directly from Doughboy's liberal facism. Lose the right-wing frame or get lost.

by dirtyhippie 2008-06-08 10:48AM | 0 recs
I'm with you

I do not think many younger people realize the damage that has been done to the party, damage that is quite permanent.
That's apparent; young people so easily disregard any in the party that are not Obama supporters. Maybe this is the change that everyone is talking about.

by soyousay 2008-06-08 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm with you

The torch has to be passed at some point, buddy. You're welcome to stay on board, but if you'd rather not, that's okay too. No harm, no foul.

by authority song 2008-06-08 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm with you

You have proven my point. You need us, unfortunately you don't realize that yet....and yes there will be harm.

by soyousay 2008-06-09 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Dangerous naivete?

Aha yes, you're an insider, with your cool degrees and 202 area code. You meet with the guy, and the guy behind the guy, as well as the guy behind that guy, and hey, you even have them over for dinner! And that guy says that Obama is dangerous, because he served on a board with Bill Ayers, ergo he's got an authoritarian leftist streak.

If in the course of your education at "top tier universities" you didn't learn basic logic, you should try and get a refund. Being in the same room as someone doesn't mean you share their views.

by authority song 2008-06-08 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Dangerous naivete?

ha!

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-08 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Dangerous naivete?

Your 30 years of dry-humping Senate confirmed officials and foreign policy experts didn't stop our country from getting into a seriously fucked up place. And your fear-mongering cloak and dagger bullshit is completely unimpressive.

The 2003 Democratic party needed to be damaged--it had degraded to the point where it was basically an chronic enabler for the GOP; unable to compete outside of regional strongholds, unable to offer a compelling vision, unable to lead on important issues, scared to death of being labeled as "soft on terrorism", paralyzed by any accusations of being unpatriotic--you know, the kind of bullshit your condescending post is dripping with.

In summary, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

by Brannon 2008-06-08 09:00PM | 0 recs
Take your pie with you when you leave.,

And don't forget the bitter lemonade.

With lines like this one:
"...being saddled with the vague starry eyed wet behind the ears guy instead who brings dozens of questionable associations to the table.", I can tell from way over here that there is bitterness in everything you leave behind.

Enjoy working for the McCain campaign.

by Celtic Merlin 2008-06-08 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Take your pie with you when you leave.,

See my above comment.  You are a perfect example of why so many are starting to be active in the Party.  You do not reason, you just engage in ad hominem attacks.

by katmandu1 2008-06-08 09:02AM | 0 recs
Don't let the door hit you...

...in your ad hominem on the way out.  Take your sour grapes with you.

by Celtic Merlin 2008-06-08 09:32AM | 0 recs
Why is this on the rec list?

This is not the sort of thing that should be on the rec list, especially now that we have a nominee...

by sricki 2008-06-08 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

I reply here rather than at CCN to help balance out some of the knee-jerk reaction of others.

No matter if I've disagreed with some of what you've written, the Democratic party will be diminished with you leaving.

I think you're a good egg. Good luck with the move.

by abburdlen 2008-06-08 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Hey bluemoon, I understand where you are going with this. It's getting crazy here. Another blog refers to a couple of a-holes from this site also confirming what you said. They actually list the names. As a matter of fact, one of the most ardent Obama supporters openly admits that he was once a Bush Republican. There is tunnel vision here and Republican style tactics are being used in an attempt to sway people into voting for Obama; this is done through guilt trips divisiveness and group mentality. There are fewer diaries that I actually enjoy reading as of late but that's OK, I've been visiting more welcoming blogs that appreciate more versatile viewpoints.

The webmasters/administrator for the most part have been pretty cool though. I don't blame them for the site going south.

by soyousay 2008-06-08 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

If you support getting out of Iraq, women's right to choose, the environment, and universal healthcare--then there is exactly one candidate to support in November.

Stop making this about your hurt feelings--there are real lives at stake here.

by Brannon 2008-06-08 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Can the next person

Who wants to leave because they feel it's morally repugnant to vote for Obama because HE disenfranchised voters do so without drawing attention to themselves?

You want to leave? GO.  I'll help you pack.

But from what I see, most of you do not live in a reality based world.

You came to the Demcratic Party as an indie in '00?

And then you get your pissy final shots in regarding dozens of questionable associations?

FUCKING HYPOCRISY TO THE EXTREME.

GO.  JUST. GO.  DON'T. LOOK. BACK.  JUST. GO.

The large majority of us here have decided to unify to put a Democrat in the White House.  Obviously you never really had an interest in that.

by LtWorf 2008-06-08 09:54AM | 0 recs
bleh.

no one cares what you do. you don't matter. never did, never will. the future will fall into place just fine without ever noticing that you were missing.

go feed your bitter pie to someone that wants it.

by rabidnation 2008-06-08 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

At moments when most angered by the Clinton campaign I found myself constructing and testing arguments for not backing her if she won the nomination. (He presidency would empower the right-wing hate mongers while validating their methods came the closest)

They always fell apart, at least once the intensity of anger lessened.

McCain recent embrace of warrantees search is an example of why.

Perhaps the same will happen to some now too angry.

by wrb 2008-06-08 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Some will, some won't.

Both sides would have had their bitter folk. One difference I've noticed however is that while the potential disaffected Obama folk were threatening to vote for Nader or McKinney, the Clinton folk were threatening to vote for McCain.

Both are foolish choices, but one is considerably more crazy.

by Drummond 2008-06-08 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks
I am with you my dear Comrade.
Funny thing that crazy kids from dkos have no idea what left is.
They labeled themselves with idiotic labels like progressive and liberals.
(For those who do not know: left = socialist; I don't see any real left among those "progressive" idiots)
by engels 2008-06-08 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Sorry, but those groups are already moving over to Obama.  The diehards are mostly affluent white bloggers with a deep sense of entitlement.

by Drummond 2008-06-08 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

LOL another asshole from nOquarter

by cdnminer 2008-06-08 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

So one candidate-(Clinton)was for mandated socialized healthcare and one wasnt(Obama).    And you rail against the one who was against it.   Pick  an arguement and stick with it, because your position makes no sense.   Obama was rated the most liberal senator because he voted for the 911 commission recommendations.    OMG how could he vote for the 911 commission recommendations.

by realistdem 2008-06-08 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks
"liberal" is an empty stupid label.
simple test is: universal health care; and Obama miserably failed this test.
by engels 2008-06-09 03:41AM | 0 recs
OMG the party is not pure

and did not nominate the perfect candidate?  the system was unfair?  The whole thing was fixed?

This has to be your first or second trip to the dance if this stuff is still shocking to you.  News flash -- NO nomination is ever "fair", they all seem rigged to someone and politics tends to be, well, extremely POLITICAL.

It slays me how folks who seem capable of recognizing office, academic or small town politicking get all afluffer when they sense the same on the national political stage.  Duh.  It's ALL about who you know, your timing, your connections and your ability to manuveur the system.  "Honest politician" is the original oxymoron.

Clinton had her strategy to beat the system, Obama had his.  His worked.  Hers didn't.  Just exactly like Kennedy out-thought Johnson, Carter out-thought Teddy, Kerry out-thought Edwards.  Anyone who still clings to the notion that the nomination process is strictly about popular appeal and the will of the people will get their education eventually.  

It's a nasty deceptive business -- always has been, always will be.  Drop out if you can't handle that reality.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-08 10:10AM | 0 recs
YAWN.

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz. Another unhinged rant. whatever. can't even make sense of it.

by TheFullBerry 2008-06-08 10:44AM | 0 recs
Bye.....

Thanks for nothing, er I mean pie.

We will be busy trying to repair the damage done!

by missliberties 2008-06-08 10:51AM | 0 recs
the sad fact is

If Obama looses because Clinton supporters can't handle that a Black man beat their candidate fair and square then many of us will be repeating your words back to you if she runs in 2012. It just a fact.

by TMP 2008-06-08 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Welp, time to get my revenge and vote for McCain so the people that voted for Obama will die in Iran because i'm a giant baby over my candidate losing.

Revenge will be mine!

by heyhellowhatsnew 2008-06-08 10:55AM | 0 recs
GBCW

The pie is great but the lemonade is really bitter. Your tastebuds are off.

Blame the victim? Hmmmm, good to know that you freely admit to playing the victim.

You can take your jacks and go home yelling cheat, cheat, cheat!!! But that doesn't make it true. Soviet type elections are not what we believe in here in the USA. You can stop with the drama queen crap and decide if you want the policies of the Republicans to continue or not. This is not about you. This is not about anything less than the future of our country.

I am tired of hearing that this was a manufactured DNC nomination fight. I am a voter. I am a middle-aged woman voter. My vote counts too. I am not a tool of anyone. I have never been so involved with a campaign in my life. Quit telling me that it is about the popular vote, when even the candidate going in said it was all about the delegates.
If you want to change the rules, I would be behind that now. But to yell about the rules you knew about and agreed to play by before you started losing is just unbelievable.

Now go away while I enjoy the pie and throw the lemonade out.

by woman 2008-06-08 11:04AM | 0 recs
Adios amigo

Most of us have just one more thing to do this year - wipe the floor with the republican kakistocracy.   I would have liked a different, tougher, more seasoned rag to use for this purpose.  But it matters not much.   The one we have will do the job just fine.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-08 11:06AM | 0 recs
No problem

Hey, I'm an independent voter, too, and formerly Republican. Now I'll be participating in the Democratic party and helping to shape it in the direction I think it should go. It'll be fun, because there's a huge variety of opinion on how that should go, but at least my voice will be a part of it.

You? Not so much. Assuage your anguish however you please, but understand you'll forever lose your chance to make a difference in the process.

by ragekage 2008-06-08 11:12AM | 0 recs
good riddance asshole

the last thing this party needs is unfair, probably bigoted, certainly self-deluded morons. that's what the GOP is for!

by catchaz 2008-06-08 11:35AM | 0 recs
to the people who rec'd this crap

you are sad sad people.

by catchaz 2008-06-08 11:37AM | 0 recs
Five months

Do y'all really think you can keep the umbrage smoldering for five months?

by Major Danby 2008-06-08 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Anyone who lives in MI or FL and thinks the DNC "disenfranchised" them should realize that if they had voted for McCain in the Republican primary in their state then their vote would have counted...

...wait for it...

HALF!

Along with three other states!

by mydoubled 2008-06-08 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Bye Bye don't let the door hit you in the you know where.

by sparkalepsy 2008-06-08 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

Oh please. You'll vote Obama in November.  And you don't it doesn't matter because we'll win w/o you.

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-06-08 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

ehhh.

[i sympathize but dont know what to say]

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-08 11:55AM | 0 recs
I sort of see the point

I'm one who believes that Dean and Pelosi were looking for an excuse to break the Clinton's power.

That being said, the "wet behind the ears" guy got 18 million votes too, and might actually have more people who wanted to vote for him (re: MI). We'll also never know how many he would have gotten, had PV been the primary metric.

The fact that she didn't utterly crush him, is ultimately what opened the chinks in the armor. When some unknown guy ties Tiger Woods, it's Woods who has to answer if his game is gone.

I can't agree there's been any vast corruption of the process. Nudges, perhaps, but to imply anything else is to ignore the OTHER 18 million+.

by Neef 2008-06-08 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

pretentious corporate (but positioned as anti-corporate) candidate,

What a load of nonsense.  I haven't seen a candidate subject to more vague, generalized accusations with little basis in facts and evidence.  

What's worse, these accusations actually more fairly reflect the candidate being supported by these accusers.

Just check out the facts - compare Obama's donors to Clinton's donors, and let me know what you find.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-08 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

It's clear that there's a concerted effort coming from the usual suspects to game the rec list here...for the love of God, please ignore them.

by authority song 2008-06-08 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks but no thanks

You know, I've known my share of disappointment in plenty of elections.  I can have empathy for that.  Heck, you don't get to be a woman of my age without knowing disappointment, truthfully.  That being said, whatever my personal feelings or disappointment, a lot of kids are dying and getting hurt in the bloody sandpit called Iraq.  I want my son out of there.  It's that simple.  I know McCain will leave him there.  I want our kids home and our tax dollars to be returned from that soiled sandbox in the ME.  McCain won't do that, he's said so.  Obama says he will and he has my vote.  If he fails to live up to his word, I'll be on him like flies on stink, but unless or until that happens, I'll work to see him elected.  I'm sorry you don't feel that way and I wish you the best of luck.

I have no intention of debating who the biggest "meanie" in the primary was or who said the worst things.  For me, it's ancient history.  The stakes cannot be higher and people got emotionally involved because our collective future is on the line.  I understand that.  I also understand that McCain will give us four more years of what we have endured the last eight years.  There's no question in my mind about that.  For me, this is pretty cut and dried, but I can understand that it's cloudy for you.  

I recognize that there are only two candidates left, McCain and Obama, and realistically I have to choose one of them.  No contest for me, but like I said, I want my son, the troops, and our money out of Iraq.  I'm personally invested in that so it makes it simple for me.  I figure, all the insults thrown in the election, by parties on all sides, yeah, they stung a bit at times; but they are nothing compared to the wounds of Iraq.  

As I said, I wish you the best of luck.  I hope you find a place of healing for you.

by whognu 2008-06-08 01:01PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads