Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Still feel like a proud member of the democratic party?
I don't.
I don't even know who's leading the democratic party. Do you?
Howard Dean? Pelosi? Reid? Kerry?
No?
Is it the Clintons?
Do they represent the moral and ethical values that I identify with? Will I have to lower my standards?
What about the FL and MI issue? Will the DNC uphold the rules they set and Obama has honored? Or will they yield to Hillary, fold like lawn chairs and break them?
Are the leaders of my party powerless?
They chose to stand idly by and watch two people destroy the unity that was sweeping across the country. The unity that brought new democrats, young democrats, old democrats, black, white, hispanic and asian democrats all together.
They watched two people divide the party, the country, and essentially recreate the same vindictive relationship there was between Democrats and Republicans in the 90s.
Now there's even a vindictive relationship just between democrats.
These "democratic party leaders" and "superdelegates" are watching these same two people assassinate the character of a statesman in their own party. And in so doing, fracture the progress and civility that took decades to make between blacks and whites.
All because a former first lady is trying to fulfill her own personal sense of entitlement?
That's not democracy.
That's hijacking democracy.
And we've just spent the last eight years trying to get it back.
I'm a democrat now.
I'll be an independent by November.


Comments (93)
You need a vacation (at least a day or 2 off from political news).
April 29, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
LIMBAUGH "CHAOS" THEORY EXPANDED
Obama supporters donate to HRC. She will squander it on self loathing attack ads and pants suits.
(insert head scratching Cohenboy here)
HOPEism: The sinking ship is only half full not half empty.
April 30, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A+ ! Lol.
April 30, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an independent. I'm not a big fan of political parties, I understand its purpose but I think that it can be corrupted and you end up supporting causes that you don't really believe in because of party loyalty. Look at what's happened to the Republicans. I support candidates who show me that they're honest and that they really care about the nation and where it's headed.
April 29, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now Obama's a statesman? What about Obama trashing the legacy of the only living two-term Democratic president to heighten his political standing and disparaging the achievements of the Clinton Administration for political gain? What about the 15 million people that voted for Hillary, the first, truly viable female candidate for president this country has ever seen? Because they voted for her, all the sudden they're ethically or morally corrupt and are trying to wreck the Democratic Party?
The fact is, many of the voters Hillary has united, save for black voters, are the most reliable wing of the Democratic Party. This is our party supporting the candidate we think is best suited to deliver on what's important to us. Many of the lefty, schmefty wing are the ones who are responsible for Bush getting elected by voting for Nader. Many of those who voted for Hillary think that Obama and his supporters have hijacked their party to go on some quest searching for some undefined "hope." Many of those who voted for Hillary don't need to sit around and discuss the tough issues facing the American people in the abstract because they are all too real for them. They are Democrats and have been loyal to our party.
What Obama is doing is a great thing by bringing in new voters (though I refuse to concede that Hillary isn't bring in new voters, too), but don't go off on her and her supporters as if they're not true Democrats. It's insulting.
April 29, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
We will probably need to disagree on the matter but I do not think that the DLC wing, of which Clinton is most certainly part, represents the Democratic party. Perhaps it is time to split the center-left and the progressives into two parties.
April 29, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Clintons succeed in derailing Obama's nomination, I think this could happen.
April 29, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could and should. Sometimes an institution outlives its usefulness, and the Democratic party is just about to jump the shark.
April 29, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, what a great idea! Why didn't we try that in 2000? We could have had three left candidates running, instead of just two!
April 30, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, jeez, Mike doesn't want us lefty-shmefty folks in his party anyway!
April 30, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, exactly. Bush was elected anyway and the Dems were utterly useless as an opposition party. In those seven plus years, a credible alternative could have been built.
April 30, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but, um . . . "Bush was elected anyway" *because* of the sort of reasoning you've just offered. It wasn't frackin' inevitable. It was, in fact, tragically close.
So your argument is a bit circular. If "Republicans got elected anyway" *because* the left failed to get its act together, then that can't very well serve as an argument for splitting the left.
If you're still in denial about 2000, I'm pretty confident that none of this will convince you. But fortunately, many people on the left *did* learn from that experience.
April 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it ought to be clear now, in hindsight, how we fool ourselves when we say the Dems are no different than the other party.
It may look that way at the time, but it never looks that way afterward. For instance -- Bush, Gore, Gore, Bush. They were pretty much the same, right? -- all just servants of the same corporate masters. The world we live in today wouldn't be all that different if Gore had been elected.
Except a few thousand young people in America would still be alive, and about a hundred thousand elsewhere, and the Constitution wouldn't be in tatters, and god knows what else.
Jeesh. If we can't learn from our mistakes, we might as well go back to living in trees.
April 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, you misunderstood me, or I misunderstood you. What I was saying was that in 2000, the Dem party wasn't split in two, and still lost.
April 30, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Understood. I was trying to suggest that splitting the Democratic party is an extension of the logic that got us the Nader candidacy. In a first-past-the-post electoral system, success is all about holding together your coalition.
April 30, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW the real problem is that obviously the Democratic Party didn't learn from the experience.
April 30, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The party has changed a lot. Which is why we're going to have Obama as our nominee this time. The left wing of the party is more unified and more sober than it was eight years ago. And the centrist wing of the party is more energized and more willing to take risks than it was eight years ago. And we've got guys like Josh calling the MSM on some of the bullshit. As a whole, the Democratic party is bolder and stronger, and it's going to have a better nominee. (I like Gore, but Obama has more charisma.)
Right now, I admit, is a dark moment. But give it a week.
April 30, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm not so optimistic. This is the Democratic party we're talking about. These guys can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like no one else in the world.
And honestly, more and more it seems to me that there is an "Obama party" and a "Hillary party", and the two have little in common.
April 30, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that happened, then I probably would become an independent.
April 29, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when the DLC ran Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 did you vote for them?
April 30, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind that Hillary and McCain sound increasingly the same. Never mind that Hillary's idea of being tough is dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. Never mind that you (unwittingly?) confirm what the OP was saying about splitting the party.
April 29, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Obama trashing the legacy of the only living two-term Democratic president to heighten his political standing and disparaging the achievements of the Clinton Administration for political gain?
The achievements of the Clinton Administration?
Huh?
Did you mean NAFTA and WTO? That's worked out real well.
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act? Can you say "subprime mortgage crisis"?
The 2000 deregulation of the commodity markets? Can you say "speculative bubble in crude oil"?
Telecom deregulation, leading to massive consolidation of media ownership?
The dot-com bubble and the faux "prosperity" it engendered?
THOSE achievements?
Oh. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.
The rest of your post is equally complete bullshit.
As Truman once said, "Give people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, and they'll take the Republican every time."
You trash "lefty-schmefties". They USED TO BE THE BASE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, fool. Progressives. Working class folks. Union members (until Bill Clinton continued Reagan-Bush's union-busting policies, until Hillary Clinton hired notorious union-buster and corporate shill Mark Penn to RUN HER DAMN CAMPAIGN.) Before the Democratic Party left them to scratch for crumbs left by the Republicans and the Republican-lites (a/k/a the DLC Democrats.) The DLC has spent the last twenty-three years trying to remake the Democratic Party as Republican-lite, including enthusiastic support for Bush's misbegotten invasion of an unarmed foreign country that at the time posed no threat to us, based on trumped-up evidence (that progressives knew enough to doubt but the DLC types, including Hillary Clinton, apparently did not) and has now, because of our invasion, become a near-fundamentalist Shia state and a recruiting poster for terrorists, both locally and throughout the Muslim world, for which we pay $12 billion a month, a sum likely to exceed $3 trillion (Stieglitz and Bilmes). And they have "led" the Democratic Party to defeat after defeat. (Bill Clinton's 1992 victory, btw, was simply and solely due to the presence of Ross Perot, who siphoned conservative votes away from GHWB.) How many more defeats do we have to go through before we get that this doesn't work? Do you intend to sit there and tell us with a straight face that 2006 was a DLC victory?
Zell Miller was wrong. The DLC Democratic Party didn't leave him. It left the millions of working people and poor people, the working class and the middle class, to go feed at the same corporate trough the Republicans were feeding at. And it's allowed the Republican Party to destroy the country -- in fact, it has assisted in the destruction. That's what twenty-three years of "Leadership" by the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party has brought us.
April 30, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best comment of the month. Isn't it interesting how some people believe we have a duty not to question anything that occurred during the Clinton Administration? As though it breaches some unwritten rule of etiquette? I spent eight years defending him and screaming at the Right. I righteously believed that his transgressions were de minimis, standard political faire. That the Republicans were 100% to blame for the circus that ensued. The truth is, Clinton's sexual escapades were weak, reckless, and selfish. Failing to take responsibility for it (i.e. lying about it, both sworn and unsworn, and then smearing numerous women such as Kathleen Wiley) was an asshole move. Was it worthy of impeachment? Of course not. Responding with impeachment was like imposing the death penalty for second degree trespass. But Bill Clinton was NOT blameless, and none of it had to happen were it not for his worldview that dictates that everything is about him and what he wants. I am done with them and their bullshit sense of entitlement. DLCers are not progressives. People need to wake up from this ridiculous Clinton-era coma.
April 30, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weak, reckless, and selfish?
You make it sound like it wasn't worth turning the party inside out for a few minutes of fun.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
;)
April 30, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Monica
April 30, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton administration brought us the best domestic policy and the best foreign policy since Truman. Record deficit Bush-Reagan to record surpluses and the longest expansion in our history to record deficits to Bush 2's war, record deficits and economic malaise.
They think the Democratic party of Gore and Kerry is some rotten to the core republican equivilant. I suspect that a lot of the Obamabot are the mental equivalent of 12 years. Some of them are actually 12. Others never got out of their parents' basements long enough to look at the differences between the parties and vote.
Maybe some of them will now prove me wrong by at least claiming to have voted for Gore and Kerry. But I suspect all we'll have is silence.
April 30, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel EXACTLY as you do. It'll be condmened by Dems who want to hold the "union", but I think being independent sounds really good right now.
April 30, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you were independent when Gore ran against Bush? And when Kerry ran against Bush?
April 30, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, when the Democratic party of Bill Clinton that you hate so much ran Gore against Bush, who did you vote for? Or when the Democratic party ran Kerry against Bush, who did you vote for?
In your mind they are equally corrupt? Do you really think Gore would have started this Iraq war? Would he have run the economy into the ground? Are you really saying that traditional democratic party values are the same as republican party values?
But now, all of a sudden you want to join us? But only if we nominate your idol?
April 30, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing wrong with a good contest to come up with the chosen nominee, but it's wrong to get dirty and initiate and perpetuate the negative campaign tactics in a primary. It pisses half the party off and all of a sudden a rift begins to form. Leave the negative stuff for the fight against the Republicans, when the Dems have already coalesced around our nominee. Don't poison half the constituency against the other. Hillary has gone dirty again and again. Obama has struck back some but repeatedly tried to turn things back to the issues (witness the recent abc debate). At this point were all getting bitter.
April 30, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama went dirty on the Clintons with phony charges of racism very early on -- he had to split the black vote off from Hillary if he was to win the nomination and this is the method that he chose to use -- in my view this choice disqualifies him morally from the Presidency. It also dooms his chances of winning in the GE.
All this blather about hope and unity misses the distinction between a goal and an achievement.
Obama never produced the unity that was cited above.
Some choices in politic are zero-sum and the electorate needs to know which way you are going to jump when the chips are down -- Obama tried to be all things to all people -- the ideal Rorschach candidate -- and never deigned to say.
The Republicans and the Independents seem to think that he will unite us in the middle and the left thinks he will bring us left -- somebody is going to get screwed.
April 30, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could you please cite an example of Obama going dirty on the Clintons re race? I didn't think so. Now, Hillary going dirty on Obama? Well, not as far as I KNOW, wink wink wink.
April 30, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it was the press, Clyburn, and common sense that did that. Can you please go review the video on You Tube of what Bill said, and then come back and make a persuasive argument that he wasn't minimizing Obama's win in SC by sniffing that Jesse Jackson had won SC too (twice), ergo Obama's SC win was meaningless?
April 30, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Obama supporters are still yelling racism about the SC comments infuriates Clinton supporters. That Clinton supporters are painting Obama as an elitist without understanding or empathy for small town white working and middle class voters infuriates Obama supporters.
In the last two months Clinton's campaign has gone negative on Obama, but Obama went negative on Clinton very early on, at least a year ago, by painting her as an old school Washington insider who was really no different than the rethugs. Many, many Obama supporters bought in to this argument and really believe, deep in their hearts, that Clinton and McCain are the same and think that only Obama is capable of making progressive changes. This Clinton/traditional democrat=rethugs thread was repeated over and over again (and is still being repeated--see Axelrod on Meet the Press last Sunday) and the MSM helped them because they wouldn't have any fun if the presumed nominee won easily.
Now it was smart of Obama to hit Clinton where he thought she was weakest and emphasize his key difference, his newness, his freshness, his not being in bed with the Washington establishment. But make no mistake, these attacks, aided by the MSM hurt Clinton badly. And Clinton's attacks on Obama have hurt him, but not as much. She started a year too late and her campaign is not as sophisticated at negativity as Obama's is.
Both sides are playing the political game. Each sides supporters need to take a deep breath and relax.
April 30, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike, true democrats, liberals, conservative democrats, I'm not taking that title away from anyone but myself.
Nor am I claiming to be holier than thou.
But what I see going on, as detailed in my post, is not something I want to be affiliated with. I wouldn't want someone to look back on all this and see my name listed as one of the democrats that was party to destroying a man, one of its own members, with such malice.
April 30, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party can kiss the Black vote goodbye if Obama is robbed of the nomination. The MSM doesn't care about Black folks enough to actually give us a voice...however that doesn't mean that we aren't watching and taking notes. The Democratic Party has been able to hang on by a thread with the support of 90+% of the Black vote for decades and yet the party is perfectly content allowing racism to decide this election.
Clinton supporters can say all day that they haven't been race-baiters, but you can't piss on our leg and tell us its raining. If the party and the media planned on doing everything in their power to eliminate Obama they should've done it before we started looking, because now there is no turning back. And spare me the crap about "Clinton is better than McCain", because the fact is her and her husband are no different when it comes to being willing to throw Black folks under the bus.
April 30, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
As to this:
Trashing? Trashing? What he said was true, and it was not complimentary, but he didn't TRASH anyone. That is what Hillary and Bill do.
And yes, Obama is a statesman. If you are a Hillary backer, you just probably don't recognize a statesman.
April 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, New Voters don't mean squat if they don't actually get off their duffs and vote....
At the college where my husband teaches, of 1000 registered voters there (eligible to vote at the poll ON the campus), 364 voted.
So much for that.
April 30, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
To believe that, you'd have to believe Clenis was a "Democrat."
He wasn't.
He was the 2nd most effective GOP preznit of the last half of the 20th century, if effectiveness is measured by the amount of the Partei agenda he got enacted.
Bush41 was an ineffective, effete, elite shitwhistle. In terms of the GOP agenda, Clenis put him to shame...
April 30, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that didn't bother Little Bill, did it? ---William Muny, UnforgivenI feel the same sickened frustration with the party and the players.
April 29, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello, Mr. Cohen.
You are on to something. There IS no leader of the Democratic Party! (Imagine for a moment what it would be like if John Dean were.) Not only that...but who is the leader of the Republican Party?
How 'independent' do you want things to be?
April 29, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We all got it comin' kid..."
William Munny, The Unforgiven
April 29, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm a democrat now.
I'll be an independent by November."
No, No, No, we've already been given a Hillary Clinton mandate. My husband's not listening.
Clinton: Democrats must back nominee
April 29, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. DEMOCRATS must back the nominee this fall. But INDEPENDENTS get to do what they feel is best for the country. Hopefully that'll include backing the nominee, but we reserve the right to go it alone.
Gary Cohen's got a point--currently, the Democratic party doesn't have much leadership. I just touched on particular proof of that in my own blog with "No, YOU Endorse." I think Obama can lead. But SOMEONE better start.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/yvaughn/
April 30, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but she is such a LIAR. Not a few weeks ago, she declared that Obama has not crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold, but McCain has, and now she's saying if Obama is the nominee, we should vote for someone unfit for President for unity's sake??? Perhaps she should have considered the DISUNITY she is surreptitiously bringing to the Democratic Party while seemingly cooing about "Comg together"!!! Of course she knows she'll be the eventual nominee, she's played it this way. She's a right monster!
April 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you don't live in PA. When I was initially filling out my voter registration, I thought of registering independent, but it would have barred me from any influence whatsoever in the primaries. -.-
April 29, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virginia is a Commonwealth and we don't register by party. I guess we're all independent unless we register with the State Democratic Party. I admit I don't know how that works I just voted for the Dems in all the elections since I've lived here.
April 29, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
PA's a commonwealth too, but we require not only that people are registered with the party, but that they are so a month ahead of the primary. -.- Sucky rules...
April 29, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons will lead the Dem party when they win the general.
April 29, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What office is Bill running for?
April 29, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same office that Hillary was running for when she became, according to her own insinuations, the co-president, despite having never been elected or confirmed for any recognized position via advise and consent.
Is this a monarchy? Where are the glass coaches and the pretty tiaras and robes? Where are the cute princes? Where are the tea towels with Billary photos? If we are going to have an institutional ruling class (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush (Jeb in 2016), we should at least make tea towels.
April 30, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will not vote for Hillary. Until a few months ago, I would have proudly voted for her as the Democratic nominee.
Then she became a Republican. As a Republican, I see no difference between her and McCain.
I will stay home and joyfully watch her lose the election, and I will immediately change my registration from Democrat to Independent.
I will cease donating time and money to the Democrats.
There are millions who are thinking just like me.
Go ahead Supers, make your choice.
April 29, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama will be the nominee. If Hillary won it fair and square I would vote for her. If she steals it, I will write in Obama.
April 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 00 and 04?
April 30, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You certainly sound independent to me, JohnDoe, et al.
April 29, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and McCain will both have:
a) Belligerent neocon foreign policies
b) corporatist economic policies (this defines the DLC and the GOP).
c) Different social policies, although not as much as one might think.
d) Utilize fear to gain and keep power - she's worse than McCain on this one.
April 30, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chill out. Wait for early June. Hell, just wait a week. Reid, Dean, and Pelosi have not been playing shuffleboard. They've been keeping their powder dry, but the warnings are pretty clear. Sometime in the next five weeks, this thing is going to wrap up. If Obama can carry IN, I think the heavy guns will come out then. Otherwise, it's probably early June.
April 30, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if Obama wins Indiana it should be over on May 7. This is ridiculous. These weasel superdelegates trying to cover their own asses is the cancer on this party. The superdelegate system must go by 2012.
April 30, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Patience. It's coming.
April 30, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the finest examples of narcissistic, self-pitying sanctimony that has become ever more prevalent on this site. I am so sorry, Mr. Cohen, that your sensitivities have been offended. Need I remind you that two candidates are competing for the Democratic nomination, not for the title of moral exemplar for Gary Cohen. While Hillary has certainly played rougher, neither side has a monopoly on virtue. Destroying the "unity that was sweeping across the country?" What unity are you talking about? The unity achieved in the Wyoming caucus? Last I checked, the two candidates have been running an extraordinarily close race. And how exactly did the Clintons destroy your chimerical unity? By trying to get more people to vote for her? How did the Clintons "divide the party?" Couldn't the same be said of Obama who, after all, has premised his campaign on the theme that Hillary Clinton represents the "failed" politics of the past? Is that a unifying sentiment? If anyone has destroyed the unity of which you speak, it is people like you who see any criticism of Obama as heresy and character assassination. Yet you are so keen on wallowing in your "moral and ethical values" - read, narcissism - to see any reality beyond your misguided crusade. And most depressing is your utterly specious claim that the Clintons have "fracture[d] the progress and civility that took decades to make between blacks and whites." Could someone please tell me how they have done this? Bill Clinton, for all his faults, has done much to advance race relations in this country. Do you mean to suggest that this pales in comparison to his misguided attempt to downplay Obama's South Carolina win (after praising his excellent campaign) by correctly pointing out that Jessie Jackson also carried the state?
Do you want to see unity? I'll give you some. I'm not sure who would make the better candidate or better President. Both Clinton and Obama have strengths and flaws. But both are a sea change from Bush and vastly superior to McCain. I will vote for whichever candidate is the Democratic nominee because I would like to see an end to the Iraq debacle, the protection of the tattered social safety net, the preservation of a woman's right to choose, universal health care and a more progressive tax code. You are welcome to nurse your wounds, vote for Nader and see what happens. Sure worked out great the last time.
April 30, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever wondered why people voted for Nader rather than the Dem candidate? Maybe you should start wondering before the Dems lose another election.
Also don't forget - Clinton only became president thanks to Perot, so it's fair to lose to Republicans because of Nader.
April 30, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the democratic party I'm leaving. Not my senses.
I'm not changing where I stand on the issues. I'm just changing from where I stand.
I choose to support the democratic nominee from the vantage point of an independent.
For the reasons I listed in my post and many others.
April 30, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
How would you describe the approach in this sentence, "Both Senator McCain and I have crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold. I'm not sure about Senator Obama."
UNITY MUCH????
April 30, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound so very disillusioned. And yet you think it is because of Hillary. Could it not possibly have something to do with this:
"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who... on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are part of me."
3/19/08 - Philadelphia
April 30, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Otto. That was really deep.
April 30, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, but I think if we stay with this thing Obama will prevail. I think it is just a matter of time before there is another party or real independent candidates as the ability to raise money quickly over the internet has changed everything as Senator Obama has proven. Let's fight this one to the end and see where it takes us. Tom Abrams
April 30, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
racist much, Ludmila?
Your comment is as topical as it is useful. As in not.
April 30, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a silly post which serves no purpose but for Clinton-haters to vent their rage and frustration. To Gary Cohen and anyone who recommended this post: You have contracted Hillaria. I advise you to turn off your computer and seek immediate medical assistance.
April 30, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'll be an independent by November."
Ciao.
April 30, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm registered as a Democrat because being non-affiliated merely ensures I lose half of my ability to vote. Plus, in Hudson County, the Democratic primary IS the election.
We have no "the leader". We're Democrats, damnit! Everyone is a leader!
April 30, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
warmongering with Iran
Voting with Lieberman
Voting against a ban on cluster bombs in populace areas
voting for the war
triangulation
the only way to win is to destroy the other candidate
the craptastic DLC
robotic meaingless political talk
I'd much rather work to extend the margins in Congress for Democrats than work for, or vote for Senator Clinton.
Call it what you want. Degrade me and assume what you will. I won't give my vote for such things. It won't happen.
I agree with this post. I'm a liberal and a progressive. Hillary Clinton and her supporters constantly dismiss me, as an Obama supporter. The democratic party is dismissing the liberals and progressives. I'm not young. I don't drink lattes. I'm not rich. I'm not college educated. I'm not a blue collar worker. I'm a self made man in IT, and the democratic party is losing my support.
Months ago, it was apparent that Clinton could only win by destroying the other candidate. The party allowed this to happen.
April 30, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that - I haven't been a member - since the Clintons, the DLC, and their corporate bosses took over, corrupted, and marginalized the party formerly known as the Democratic party.
We're in a battle to the death between the the DLC and the Clintons, and the progressive insurgence that Dean started and Obama is building.
I'd like to live to see the Clintons and the DLC fade into deserved irrelevance. It would be fun to be part of a political party that worked for me and my children instead of Wal-Mart, Monsanto, and Blackwater.
The Bush crime family makes the Mafia look like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. It's no accident that Murdoch, Limbaugh, Scaife, and a rogue's gallery of right-wing nutjobs are supporting Hillary. The Bush family and the Clintons are fighting not only for their political lives, but to hang onto the power to protect three administrations from prosecution for the crimes they have committed.
April 30, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am!
April 30, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, along with Lieberman, Miller, has crossed the threshold of intraparty tolerance. When you tell the world that the OTHER party's nominee is more qualified than your OWN party's frontrunner to be Commender-in-Chief in order to destroy him, that's it for me.
April 30, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the blog - it's very carthartic for me, you articulated my inner frustrations and anger with the Clintons and their entourage.
April 30, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been there, bro, and there's one thing we really need is a little (lot?) of discipline.
What really bugs me is the negativity between Clinton and Obama partisans here and elsewhere. I support Obama but I think the level of discourse where some resort to name-calling and histrionics is damaging when it isn't laughable. We have to pull together eventually, and I hope we will.
Was it Will Rogers who said he didn't belong to an organized political party-he was a Democrat? Well, it sure feels that way right now...
April 30, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ditto Querty's thank-you. And luckily I live in Texas, where we can (for now) vote in any danged primary we want, as Operation Chaos well illustrated.
*I* am one of the people who voted for Nader, sorry to say (luckily, Texas wouldn't have made a difference, but still). I turned Democrat to get the Republicans out of office, and turned enthusiastic Democrat when Barack Obama ran for POTUS. I want the Republicans out of office so badly that, were it to come to that, I would probably vote for Hillary. If I have nothing else pressing that day. But I would definitely do so as an Independent.
That's as far as I want to go in being part of her warmongering madness.
April 30, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a liberal and a progressive.
you have no business in the Dim Partei, then, because there is very little either 'liberal' or 'progressive' about it. It is committed, in general; terms, to precisely the same agenda as the GOP: authoritarian CorpoRatism at home and militaristic interventionism abroad. They only differ (to the extent that they do differ) on the means appropriate to those ends; and neither eschews using the ends to justify the means.
April 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing. For too long the party has treated people who make under $50k per year as if we HAVE to vote for them because the Republicans will screw us over even worse than they will.
That is not a good enough reason.
To quote Bill, "I feel your pain!"
Pelosi has been SUCH a disappointment !
And Reid acts like such a WIMP!He reminds me of my high-school Principle!
But you cannot just give in!
Come on , now!
What is KEY is taking back the White House!
As I've said before , I am a Social Worker. I try to register the poorest of the poor every day and most of them tell me they have NEVER VOTED!
This is up to us and we must support the Party NO MATTER WHAT!
April 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is up to us and we must support the Party NO MATTER WHAT!"
Stalin and Mao would agree. I understand what you're trying to convey but that wording makes me feel very ill.
April 30, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the words of Benjamin Disraeli, "Damn your principles! Stick to your party!"
April 30, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need to say here that I am a 62 year old white woman retired and I live in Florida. I would have loved to be on the Hillary bandwagon. I started out that way. I am now one of those radical Obama supporters. I will stay home or write in Obama's name if Hillary steals the election. Yes yes yes I know the Supreme Court and all of that. Well for me I can be selfish. At my age I am allowed to make ONE vote that I really believe in before I die. It is a vote for Obama. I may live to see another woman nominateed that I would gladly vote for but it is not her. I stood by the Clinton's through all that garbage and even made excuses for Bill because I never really like Hillary anyway. Not this time. No more Clintons!!!
April 30, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am a proud member of the Democratic Party. My party has fielded 10 viable and strong candidates for president and my party will nominate either a woman or a black man as its candidate for president - making history no mater who wins the nomination.
I come from a liberal family with a long history of political activism. My grandmother faced arrest in Sweden for the crime of atheism. My father was investigated by HUAC for his activities in the Farmers Union. I am a professional political activist who works on health care and progressive economic reform and on building the civic leadership skills of ex-felons.
For me, both Clinton and Obama are more conservative than I would wish. Seriously, I would vote for Bernie Sanders for President if I could, but given the two alternatives, by far the more progressive and liberal candidate is Clinton.
I am so tired of the canard that Clinton is no different than a Republican. It betrays a political ignorance that offends me. You have no idea what her proposals are, clearly, and you have no idea what the Republicans propose or Obama proposes.
Anyone who says Clinton is just like a Republican is just plain ignorant and has no credibility at all. You are as big a fool as the Nader supporters who said there was no difference between Gore and Bush.
I suggest that before anyone says that Clinton is just like McCain and prove their absolute stupidity that just once you actually look at her proposals - just once you try to know what the hell you are talking about.
April 30, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I'm an Obama supporter, and I have to say that I really don't like or respect HRC very much at this point.
But she really is a Democrat. She may be a Democrat I don't like, and she may be one who (I believe) is weakening the party profoundly, and for narcissistic reasons. But she's still way to the left of McCain, and smarter than he is, and (if it came to that) she would make a better president.
Obama will make a better president than either of them. But it serves no purpose for us to rag on the party. The party is imperfect, but I haven't discovered a lot of perfect institutions in this world. I'll settle for "a damn sight better than all the alternatives."
April 30, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree whole-heartedly!
April 30, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, when the Democratic party of Bill Clinton that you hate so much ran Gore against Bush, who did you vote for? Or when the Democratic party ran Kerry against Bush, who did you vote for?
In your mind they are equally corrupt? Do you really think Gore would have started this Iraq war? Would he have run the economy into the ground? Are you really saying that traditional democratic party values are the same as republican party values?
But now, all of a sudden you want to join us? But only if we nominate your idol? Otherwise you're going to take the football and go home to momma?
April 30, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am damn proud to be a member fo the Democratic party. I am most proud of the fact that the party does not march in lock step. I am proud of the fact that a democratic congress would not abdicate its oversight duties like the GOP has. Conformity is the GOP's greatest weakness. It forces members to compromise their values to the party line. I will never be a member of an organized political party because I am a democrat who values dissent.
April 30, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am proud of the fact that a democratic congress would not abdicate its oversight duties like the GOP has"
But it's okay that they abdicate all of their other responsibilities to do anything of worth for the people that voted for them? To sit around and profit off of a war that they got elected on and promised to end? To be silent and obey the wishes of the minority that says no harm shall come to torturers and neo-fascists that would destroy the constitution (Impeachment is OFF the table rings a bell...)? I don't know what democratic party you're talking about but it's not the one I've seen lately.
April 30, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say that I am very disappointed that no one in this party can seem to take notice that Hillary morphed into Curtis Le