Not that it will help Nader, but....

Matt Gonzalez a Green party member, Supervisor and former President of the SF board of Supervisors has accepted the role as running mate with Ralph Nader's doomed campaign.

This bothers me for several reasons, Matt is a really great guy and has been a good Supervisor for San Francisco, he was instrumental in bringing Instant run off voting to our city.  He has been an ardent fighter for the inner city poor as well as an anti violence advocate.  

Some of his stands have been controversial for sure, like his positive stance on surveillance camera's in area's that have had historically high homicide rates.  A principled stand balancing first amendment rights and security for troubled neighborhoods.

I am somewhat sorry to see Matt connect himself with Nader like this, i think it will only diminish his stature and future respectability in the political world that is San Francisco.

I would be curious to hear what others thought about this move?  Will this be a good or bad thing for Matt? politics/fromtheroad/entry3888154.shtml

There's more...

Democrats, unite NOW against sexism and racism or die under Republican tyranny.

A few months ago I wrote a diary explaining why I supported John Edwards, in that diary, I proffered  a small, rarely discussed thought.  Politically incorrect as it may be, I suggested that America was too sexist to vote for a woman and too racist to vote for an African American.  Now we are approaching the end of our primary season and it is undeniable that we will have an historic nominee, either the first woman or an African American man, both of whom would make a far better President than anyone on the Republican side of the aisle.  That is a fact that cannot be ignored. Yet on this very site, MyDD, we have many people who have openly declared that they would rather vote for McCain, or not vote at all, as opposed  to voting for the eventual Democratic nominee, if  that nominee was not " THIER " choice during the primary season.  We've all seen it, we could probably all name those people, but it serves no purpose to do so, just as it serves no purpose to turn against the Democratic party now, because your candidate didn't win the nomination.  Rather than tearing our candidates apart limb from limb, we need to begin the discussion of why BOTH these candidates will be great Presidents and why BOTH these candidates are worthy of our support.  We need to show America that Democrats, regardless of gender or race, are superior leaders.  We cannot do that when we spent every minute of every day attacking our own.

More blow the fold...

There's more...



As Democrats we have long held the mantle for "freedom of speech",  We have been the standard bearers, frequently at our own expense.  The ACLU  has filed amicus briefs and acted as representation on behalf of the American Nazi party, the KKK, Larry Craig, Rush Limbaugh and many other groups and individuals we as Democrats find personally abhorrent.  We, Democrats, stood in unity to protect freedom of speech from the constant assaults by those who would relegate our Bill of Rights to a Bill of suggestions.

One of the most cherished privileges we possess in America, is freedom of speech, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. It is not only a privilege, it is a right, under the Constitution of the United States. A wise man however, once said:

"With great freedoms, comes greater responsibility".
The obligation to exercise restraint and good judgment concerning free speech is a topic of debate in our society. When does freedom of speech go too far?

We know one cannot scream fire in a crowded public venue without legal complications.  There is an assumed responsibility for  the physical safety of others when making such public demonstrations.  Then the question is;  Are we only concerned about physical safety? Are there other occasions or actions that would fall under review? The courts have generally protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech", wearing hats, clothing or accessories like jewelry etc. that may contain messages or images, but even "symbolic speech" is not always allowed.

The court has emphasized the need for consideration for the "personal sensibilities of the audience." This is where I will begin my case for censorship.

The personal sensibilities of the audience.

MyDD is a private venture, it can, and has written it's own rules for engagement.  They, MyDD, are, in many ways like the Boy Scouts of America, they can pretty much arbitrarily decide who can and who cannot be a part of their organization. They write the rules and we comply or we get shown the door, as it should be.  But the basis for our participation as described by MyDD is:

MyDD is a group blog designed to discuss campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power.

The operative word there seems to be to be "DISCUSS", not accuse, threaten, insult, disparage, slam, smear or blame. To that end, there are even rules to which we all have agree to abide.

Users who are bashing or attacking any other user on the site, including authors of diaries and front page postings, will be banned. Candidates and politicians are fair game (but that doesn't mean you can use inflammatory language against candidates).
It is here, with these rules that I have a problem.  Simply put, we are not following the intent and spirit of those rules, perhaps it is our belief in freedom of speech that is preventing us from enforcing rules that apply to everyone.

There are so many inflammatory diaries and comments on this site now, that at times, one can hardly tell if it is a Democratic site or the "freerepublic".  I have gotten so frustrated with the name calling and vitriol that spews forth from some supporters of both remaining candidates, that I've resorted to filling the personal mailboxes of the three front page writers.  I am not a "nanny" type of person. but as a "Trusted User", I have on more than a few occasions found myself uprating user comments that were unfairly troll rated, and troll rating other comments that were rated "MOJO" for absolutely no other reason than they were written by a "cohort".

You also have a duty to read comments posted by untrusted users (you are the only ones who can!) and rate them up if they deserve to be viewable. We hate to see users become untrusted, and want them to rejoin the community, and rating them up when they post good comments is the only way for that to happen.

What I have routinely found, is that the hidden comments largely come from a small but active group of people who continuously uprate each other's comments and diary's just to gain TU status.  They are then free to post absolutely fictitious and libelous statements and diaries at will.  A simple review of the diary list, recommended and otherwise will reveal very little in the way of substantive discussions about:

campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power.

rather what you will see is something very unbecoming of a Democratic site.  I'm not really very concerned if individuals here personally support Hillary or, Barack, but I am concerned that the level of childishness here has made many of us so uncomfortable and offended "The personal sensibilities of the audience" that it may be time to use censorship to save us from ourselves.  I know already that this would be a difficult task for the moderators as the very success of this site depends on page views and hits.  It is after all as mush a "product" as it is a forum.

We as "Democrats" have turned against ourselves to such a degree that wemay indeed be causing irreparable harm. Neither candidate will ever be able to recover in the eyes of at least those of us who remain on this site.  It is increasingly looking to me like there is a small but very vocal group of Hillary supporters will leave this site if Obama wins or at least will become little more than antagonists at every turn to those who supported Obama.  The same can, and should also be said about a small but vocal group of Obama supporters.

Anyone who has been on this site either as a diary writer or lurker for more than a few months could not possibly have missed the de-evolution of the "public side of this site into something akin to a "Freeper" zone. I have nothing but respect for the front page writers and most of the public diary writers, but seriously, what have we come to when the number one recommended diary, with 45 recommends and 180 comments, at least at the moment of this writing, is a diary about "Saturday Night live" and a serious diary about "Al Qaeda, Impeachment, and Iraq" has no recommends and no comments?  Is this really what we as Democrats are all about?  Proof of our candidates greatness or fallibilities is best described by a satirical television program?  How about a youtube of Bill Moyers or Amy Goodman, might they be better sources of political discourse?

I know I am going to get troll rated by many, many people now that I have openly called for reason, reason in the form of censorship, but if that is the price I have to pay so be it, and I will gladly post the first comment to my diary so you can troll rate me, but I hope I will at least strike a nerve in the silent majority who lurk here and who tire of the childish behavior that abounds.  Use your status as a TU, censor those who do a disservice to our Democracy and our Democratic candidates.  A little time spent searching a users comments and diary's will quickly point out who the "Freepers" are.  If every comment and diary  written is an affront to one of our Democratic candidates, they are most likely a "Freeper" trying to sabotage our discussions.  Let's send them back to the hellish place of their origin.

Let's return to civility before it's too late, and this is a plea to everyone.

There's more...

FISA and other tiny little matters

What does everyone think about stepping back from the edge for a moment, and instead of relentlessly trashing BOTH our Presidential candidates, we spend just a moment or two discussing..... oh ,..  I don't know,  maybe a few of those insignificant little things like the FRIGGIN Constitution and how it is being trampled on by the Senate and House of Representatives.

I thought things would be at least a little different when the Democrats took control of both houses, so why is David Rockefeller trying to flush the Constitution down the toilet?  Why do at least seven Democrats believe that Telephone companies deserve more protection and rights than do the American people?

When are Americans going to get off their fat asses and get into the streets and take back America? I am outraged that a Democratically controlled Legislature is allowing the Bush crimes to continue.


There's more...

This I know, polls mean NOTHING!


I hate it when people rely on polls to convince themselves that they are right. I hate it when people post poll results in almost every single diary they write, somehow believing that we will be stupid enough to think that their poll is the only true poll and the only poll that is credible. It's nonsense.

I've said it dozens of times before and have been attacked for it and contradicted dozens of times before... (by polls of course). I understand that some people on this site, including the front page writers live and die by polls.  In fact, some careers would not exist with out polls.  That doesn't mean it is right or good.    Polls mean NOTHING!  they represent a brief, momentary snapshot in time into the minds of the clueless.  Wait 15 minutes, ask the same people the same question and you will get different results. Unless you believe time and space stand still, then you should realize by now that polling today is so badly flawed all it can really tell us is Americans are ill or uninformed.

That being said, this much I know from experience.  Obama is a runaway train.  Short of a Dean "Scream", Muskie "blubber" or Hart "boat trip" nothing and no one is going to stop him.  He has been very consistent in his style and I really do not see him being foolish enough to let something close to any of the three previous campaign killers noted above, happen to him.

Hillary was never the front runner in this election cycle.  Despite your polls.  polls are "name recognition" and nothing more.  Of course Clinton would be at the top, but today, every news show, morning show newspaper blog and just about every other source of information in our world that is accessible to the "plebs" is Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama.  That is the name that is flooding the ether, and that is the name that will lead in all the polls. Again, it has nothing to do with policies or positions it is "name recognition".

Elections, the act of voting is also a poll, and to all too many people, a vote is merely a mark for the person whose name holds the primary position in your memory.  The world is not represented by the likes of us here on "MyDD".  Politically incorrect or not, most Americans are totally naive or just plain ignorant of the world, including they world they reside in themselves.

Obama is going to be the nominee for the democratic party, get used to it and get comfortable with it now before you turn yourself into a sour, bitter, poll taking, poll believing partisan, pundit hack.

If you are an Edwards supporter, like me, keep fighting for him, sending him money and vote for him when you can.  The same goes if you are a Clinton supporter or Richardson supporter.  But know this, stop attacking other Democratic candidates and begin to really educate yourself on Obama's policy positions.  The fact that you are ill informed on Obama's positions is your fault, not his, as all his positions are clearly available if you choose to look for them.

The Obama tide has arrived and it is taking away the money sources, the organizers, the movers that were waiting on the side lines, and hence, the election. No one is going to stop this wave. More people are jumping in and Edwards and Clinton can choose to do only two things.  Ride the wave or try to fight it.  

As we have seen already. Edwards is riding the wave, trying to keep up in hopes he can either be a part of the wave or control it somehow. Clinton has decided to fight and it is an ugly site.  The harder she tries to stop Obama the stronger she makes him, not by uplifting him, but rather by lowering herself.

Clinton has no one to blame but herself. She chose bad campaign managers who had a fatally flawed, "poll driven" strategy.  Who was the idiot who thought trumpeting her as the "change candidate" in her Iowa concession speech, with Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Wes Clark standing right behind her was a good idea?   Pathetic, simply pathetic and uninspired handling by her staff.

I am still supporting Edwards 100% but I am not so naive as to think our nominee will be anyone other than Barack Obama, are you?  

You know what?.... John Edwards is looking like a damn good  Attorney General to me.

There's more...

Convince me I'm wrong.. PLEASE!

Not that many people on this board will care much about what I think or do in this upcoming election season,  although I really think they should care, because I know that there are millions of people in this country who feel exactly the way I feel.  I talk to them everyday. I read their letters and comments on the Internet including MyDD and DailyKOS.  I hear them on the radio.  Simply and truthfully stated, I am NOT alone.

I have read the front page diaries on MyDD for probably four years or more.  Occasionally I would  read the other diaries but only occasionally.  In the very recent past I began to contribute my own diaries and comments because I was really appalled at the hatred, vitriol, sexism and racism I was seeing increase exponentially as the elections drew closer.  Literally, I was seeing what I thought were good progressives become screaming mud slingers.   I saw more attacks against the Democratic candidates coming from within "our own",  than I have seen coming from the right wing nut jobs.

Six months ago I could truthfully say that I supported John Edwards for President, but would vote for whoever the party nominated.  Today, I honestly cannot say that any longer.  I am not committed to voting for anyone in particular in the primaries, nor am I committed to voting at all in the General Election.  Let me explain more thoroughly before the "left wing" nut jobs start slinging mud at me.

There's more...

America's Workers American Heroes,

This is real America!

There's more...

Edwards may be gaining in Iowa, He's coming on strong in final weeks, as he did 4 years ago

(12-19) 04:00 PST Ottumwa, Iowa --Article here: i?f=/c/a/2007/12/19/MNU3U0Q0Q.DTL

More than 150 Iowans were rustling in their chairs at a community college here the other night, waiting for John Edwards. His bus was parked and running outside the door, but it was nearly 45 minutes before he finally made his characteristically late entrance.

When he did, Edwards strode in as if he were climbing into a boxing ring. For half an hour, he talked about fighting special interests and battling corporations. He urged his audience to "rise up" against health care companies and insurance executives. Pugilistic until the end, he loudly told a story of how his father ordered him to go out and "kick that guy's butt" after he came home from school with a bloodied nose, suggesting that was a lesson he would carry into the White House as well.

"We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that's not true is living in a fantasy world," Edwards said. "How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action."

There's more...

BTW, just where were Clinton, Obama and Biden?

Are you kidding me? Chris Dodd is the only Senator running for President that cares about the Constitution? Our civil liberties? The law?

There's more...

Sometimes, being condemned to repeat history is not such a bad thing.

Perhaps hope exists after all.

Welcome to 1932, redux. Almost all the elements are there, fortunately. And not a moment too soon.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt and a dire national emergency combined to wrestle the republic away from the death-grip in which the Republican oligarchy of the time was holding it, and in doing so dramatically expanded outward the envelope of progressive government in America, as well as establishing a progressive governing coalition that lasted four decades and more.

Many of the same conditions apply today. Not all, to be sure, but then there are also additional factors pointing in the same direction which were not present in Roosevelt's day.

That said, in politics - it is often rightly remarked - a day can be like a lifetime, and anything can happen. Especially given the capacity of the current governing crew to do anything in pursuit of power - and I mean anything - any predictions regarding a post-Bush/Cheney era necessarily come attached to some massive caveats. There's an attack on Iran, to start with, which Bush has apparently promised several people - including Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu - he will launch before leaving office. There are the current activities of the party in California, doing what they do best, winning elections the only way they can. Now they are attempting to rig the state's Electoral College delegation to steal about 20 votes from the Democrats and throw the same number to the Republicans, for a net switch of plus-or-minus 40, making it highly difficult for Democrats to win the presidency even after the disaster called Bush. And, of course, there's also the question - very real in my mind - as to whether Darth and the First Marionette will voluntarily leave office at all, or whether they will pull a Putin/Giuliani and engineer their own permanent dynasty.

There's more...


Advertise Blogads