Denni's Blog

Thank you, all of you tax paying patriots!

2010-04-16T01:18:45Z

While "not-a true-grassroots-movement" Tea Party members are out and about protesting today, I just wanted to thank those of you who pay your taxes. Most of you probably do it begrudgingly - you wouldn't be human if you didn't. There is no joy in giving up hard earned cash, but there is honor in it. Many of us pay taxes with a greater purpose in mind. Thank you for doing whatever it takes to make sure our system of government is able to provide various benefits and protections to those who need them.

I have a very personal reason for thanking you for your efforts, today of all days.

As a private person, I'm not very good at self disclosure, but I will disclose this one bit of personal information. I grew up in a 'broken family'. It's an ugly term that doesn't adequately describe my family. My parents' marriage ended when I was nine years old. I don't know if my life would have been any different had my parents stayed together, but I know I had a good life, better than most others I knew. It's not the number of parents you have at home, it's about the people who are committed to you and who move heaven and earth to give you what they can.

While my parent didn't have a lot of money they valued education. Neither attended college but would have if they'd been given the opportunity. There was NEVER a discussion about whether we (my siblings and I) would attend college. The only discussions we ever had were about which schools we were interested in applying to, and if we'd thought about what we wanted to study when we got there.

I was fortunate enough to complete college and obtain a bachelor's degree but that was in large part due to federal and state funding and whatever money I could earn. My last year in college was interesting because a professor causally comment that she wanted to see me apply to graduate school - and I did. She believed in me enough to introduce me to the person who would become my future graduate school adviser. That was half the battle.

I could only afford graduate school through a competitive Predoctoral Fellowship. You guessed it, the fellowship was federally funded as many programs in higher education and advanced study are. The fellowship also provided a small stipend for living expenses. To earn the stipend, I worked as a teaching and research assistant. Like many others who benefit from college and advanced study, I now pay nearly as much in taxes as I lived on in grad school - if not more. If it weren't for you and your tax dollars which gave me an unimaginable opportunity, I would never have been able to have the life I have and work in a profession that I love.

What else did you do that made a difference?

The clinic I had to rely on for medical and dental care was funded in part with the dollars you paid in taxes.

Thank you tax paying Patriots because you've been with me, and most others in America, for a very long time. The streets we played kickball on as kids were paved in part because of federal and state funding (YOU).

The highways that connected us to our loved ones, no matter how far away they were, were there because you paid your taxes.

The low income children I often worked with in college, graduate school, and beyond, had a free breakfast and lunch thanks to you - those of you who provided the federal and state dollars needed to help them survive.

Funding for the agencies that make sure that we have relatively clean drinking water, safe foods, clean air? We did that with our tax dollars.

The freedom I hold dear, that's defended by our sisters and brothers in the armed services is supported by taxpayer dollars.

Women who are going to be able to send their daughters to school, worldwide, and give them the chance they themselves never had? That's because we stood with them.

Our sister and brothers who are rebuilding their lives after floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides, fires and all other forms of natural disasters? That's in part our handiwork.

The first walk on the moon, and every other mission after that, and the resulting technology that has made life easier? We made that happen.

It angers me, too, when congress wastes taxpayers dollars or uses them to help corporations quite capable of taking care of themselves. Having said that, I pay taxes without hesitation - though I'd never say that I pay them joyfully -- it hurts! My fondest hope is that I'm returning the favor. When I look at how much of my pay is spent on taxes at the federal, state, and local levels, I imagine some smiling kid eating breakfast and feeling good that morning, or some grad student pouring over hundreds of pages of text while sitting in a comfortable chair late at night. I think about the myriad of ways my tax dollars might just make a difference.

Thank you, fellow taxpaying Patriots! You understand that the sanctity of life isn't just about how it starts, it's about how we help get one another through it.

** Cross posted at the DailyKos.com

The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising, or Why the Obama Plan is working

2010-04-11T16:10:25Z

This diary is a cost free call to action. If you've seen "The Seeker: The Dark is Rising" You know that it's an improbable film (fantasy) about a seventh son of a seventh son who learns that he is an immortal warrior whose fate it is to save the world from the rising darkness. For now, I'll ignore the misogynistic plot differences of seventh son vs. seventh daughter films to make this seemingly unrelated point: President Obama's economic plan is WORKING. Unfortunately, he's getting very little support for the things he's done right from some would be allies. He's also getting very little recognition from the traditional media, which has chosen to prop Sarah Palin and the teapublican party. The TM has seemingly devoted more time to regurgitating the half truths and flat out lies of the President's staunchest and least reputable critics than reporting his successes.

In order to win, the baggers, in particular, have to convince the angry mobs that: "The Dark Is Rising" (and you can take that any way you want to).

For the sake of regaining political power, the teapublican Party also has to convince the American public that the country is headed down an irreversible wrong course without their stewardship. Americans must forget and forgive the fact that Republicans drove the train we're on. They must deny/ignore the fact that President Obama and his team are fast and furiously laying new tracks to redirect the train and put us back on the right course!

The teapublican party has to convince the American public that we are in mortal danger and that the New Southern Strategy is the only thing that will save them from the uppity usurper(s). What they DON'T want Americans to know is:

The Economy is turning around and headed in the right direction:

A Bloomberg national poll in March found that Americans, by an almost 2-to-1 margin, believe the economy has gotten worse rather than better during the past year. The Market begs to differ. While President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 44%, according to a CBS News Poll, down five points from late March, the judgment of the financial indexes has turned resoundingly positive. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is up more than 74% from its recessionary low in March 2009. Corporate bonds have been rallying for a year. Commodity prices have surged. International currency markets have been bullish on the dollar for months, raising it by almost 10% since Nov. 25 against a basket of six major currencies. Housing prices have stabilized. Mortgage rates are low. "We've had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board," says Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak + Co., an institutional trading firm in New York. "If Obama was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the President."

The bold emphasis is my own.

teapublicans don't want the American Public to know that the loss of jobs' trend has been completely reversed from the Republican led years:

They don't want the American Public to know:

That higher education will become more affordable - yes, even for the children of teapublicans.

That like, love, or hate the plan, U.S. taxpayers stand to make a profit of 8 billion dollars from the Citi- bailout.

That the Fed posted a record 52 billion dollar record profit (which could potentially be offset in the future, but it's still unclear of whether the offset will happen). 46.1 billion of that profit was moved to the treasury.

That HCR, the bill teapublicans hate so much despite the fact that it's PAID FOR and benefits them:

will cost us 938 billion over ten years, which is a far cheaper fix than the 2.1 trillion we were spending ANNUALLY, getting less for it each year. Health care costs were projected to head in the direction of more than 4 trillion annually without a fix - potentially killing our economy and leading to even more uninsured as more employers are unable to pay premiums.

requires insurance companies to spend 80% - 85% of money taken in through premiums on actual CARE, not administrative costs which include paying exorbitant 'bonuses' to administrators. Damned socialists!

will require insurance companies to give rebates to policy holders who spend less than 85% of their premiums in care costs.

will now allow an ANNUAL physical for Medicare patients, at no cost, instead of the ONE free physical - all others paid out of pocket.

will allow children through age 26 to remain on their parents' insurance plans.

will require members of both houses and their staffers to purchase insurance from the same exchanges as the American public - which means when WE get screwed, so will they and they'll be more motivated to fight for our families as they fight for their own.

will provide for long term care for those who need long term care or are the providers for those who require care.

will eliminate the 1/2 million people a year who declare bankruptcy because of excessive health care costs, in addition to the 5,000 a year who lose their homes for the same reason.

THIS is the crowd teapublicans are counting on:

Donald Bowles should be a winner, too. The self-employed Oklahoma City man and his wife can't afford insurance on an income that's usually below $30,000 a year, often much lower. They seldom go to a doctor. When they do, it's often a free clinic.

Bowles, 51, doesn't want the government's help. He'd rather take his chances and fend for himself. "I won't take Medicaid, and I will not pay the fine. They'll give me good health benefits in prison, I believe," he quips. "If you can't provide for yourself, why should everyone else provide for you?"

None of this crowd, to my knowledge, has yet demanded that the elected GOPers who are leading them down a thorny rose strewn path and who are encouraging their fear of their neighbors, their country, their government REFUSE the 'hand outs'. They're not checking or asking that their 'fear-filled' leaders refuse the benefits they say are destroying this country. Members of congress and the their staffers' health care costs are paid by those who work and have no insurance of their own (80 percent or greater of uninsured are working). Why not demand that they pay their costs from their own pockets? How many members of congress receive benefits from the 'insolvent' Social Security system they rail against? Does that matter to teapublicans?

What Americans should know by now is that the dark IS rising... on the teapublican side. The people who are great at campaigning, but lousy at leading, cannot win this next election cycle. They will remain unapologetic for their New Southern Strategy and attempts to set race relations back for the sake of winning. They will return us to a time of platitudes without action. They will work to reverse those policies that are moving us forward. President Obama has yet to receive the credit he deserves - and from those who live by fear, bigotry, hatred, and anger, he never will. It's 2008 all over again. The traditional media joins the teapublicans in pushing the meme that President will destroy us. They're printing and focusing on teapublican talking points. 'Networks' like CNN have decided to join them.

If he is not the 'dark rising', is President Obama the Seeker, whose improbable mission it is to stop the dark rising? If you asked him, I could only guess that he would refuse to consider himself the 'seeker' or 'savior' or anything else that suggests that we would not survive without him. That's teapublican territory. I think he would remind us that WE are the ones we have been waiting for. They will continue to spread hate and fear. We have only one simple task. SPREAD THE TRUTH! It's like sunlight. It disinfects those things that grow in the dark.

Twitter * MySpace * Facebook Whatever your social media, I ask to you please consider using it, DAILY! Instead of being reactive countering every lie or distortion the traditional media/teapublicans share, we can be proactive by posting and sourcing a truth a day (or as many as you can post in whatever time you have). There are thousands of us, who can potentially reach thousands, if not milliions more, each day. Facebook is now more widely accessed than google. "Obamabots" like myself know that we have a history of circumventing a hostile biased media. We've done it before, we can do it again!

The media and teapublicans underestimated us in 2008. Let's show them that they're underestimating us again in 2010.

**Crossposted at the DailyKos 4/11/2010 - BTW the term 'Teapublicans' is not my own. Some wonderful soul started using the term at Huffingtonpost and the term caught on!

The New Southern Strategy

2010-04-09T16:49:42Z

Mike Allen: Thursday, July 14, 2005

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

If you think the Southern Strategy is dead, I'm sorry to tell you that you're wrong. It's just less blatant. The GOP leadership appears to have developed a symbiotic relationship with those who are reviving and working to evolve the Southern Strategy (though is it fair to use 'evolve' and 'Southern Strategy'in the same sentence?). The GOP leadership is both led by this strategy and seem to follow it gladly. The only thing 'NEW' about the strategy is that, this time, the plan seems to be to spread the Southern Strategy Virus nationwide.

Allen reports additional comments from Mehlman:

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

What a difference half a decade makes! Many of us, myself included, have long suspected that electing Michael Steele as RNC chair had two primary purposes:

First, Steele was clearly meant to be the 'anti-Obama'. The GOP was deathly afraid of charges of racism for any criticism of then candidate, now President Obama. They were in uncharted territory. His successful campaign seemed only to heighten their concern that any criticism against the nation's first African-American President would finish off what was left of the Republican party. The election primary season was sufficient confirmation that GOP leaders were RIGHT to be fearful of the racially charged sentiments coming from their party (and it's probably best to view these clips on an empty stomach):

Steele seemed to relish his role as the GOP attack dog against President Obama. Unfortunately for him, his highly entertaining gaffes were too much of an embarrassment to the GOP to make him an effective tool against the poised intellectualism of Barack Obama.

Second, Steele's election seemed to be predicated on the notion that he would potentially bring new African-American and minority voters to the GOP fold. After all, it would only take a little Fried Chicken and Potato Salad. It wouldn't take too much of an investment, right?

The question is, what does Steele have to offer in light of the merging of what's been called the Teapublican Party? He seems to be losing ground while Teapublicans are gaining ground, and so much so that Bob McDonnell appears to have no qualms with issuing a proclamation that April is Confederate History Month and "inadvertently" leaving off the whole messy issue of "slavery", in the original proclamation:

WHEREAS, April is the month in which the people of Virginia joined the Confederate States of America in a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse; and

WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the numerous civil war battlefields that mark every region of the state, the leaders and individuals in the Army, Navy and at home who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today; and

WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth's shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present; and

WHEREAS, Confederate historical sites such as the White House of the Confederacy are open for people to visit in Richmond today; and

WHEREAS, all Virginians can appreciate the fact that when ultimately overwhelmed by the insurmountable numbers and resources of the Union Army, the surviving, imprisoned and injured Confederate soldiers gave their word and allegiance to the United States of America, and returned to their homes and families to rebuild their communities in peace, following the instruction of General Robert E. Lee of Virginia, who wrote that, "...all should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war and to restore the blessings of peace."; and

WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia's history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live, and this study and remembrance takes on particular importance as the Commonwealth prepares to welcome the nation and the world to visit Virginia for the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War, a four-year period in which the exploration of our history can benefit all;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert McDonnell, do hereby recognize April 2010 as CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH in our COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

Why no mention more than half a million slaves whose lives hung in the balance during the war of Southern Aggression? Because according to McDonnell:

McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."

He's since decided that slavery was an important issue. My enslaved ancestors thank you for the acknowledgment - post controversy, and post statement from members of your staff that you DO think slavery was an important issue.

That, my friends, is part and parcel one of the gems of the NEW Southern Strategy. Is it possible that this proclamation is both sincere, given the history of Republican governors in establishing such a month, and intentionally issued as a way of creating political tension which would seemingly favor the GOP with certain cross-sections of the Southern U.S. population as well as those in other regions? Are we watching the slow unfolding of a New Southern Strategy?

Steele as the ineffective mouthpiece of the GOP will eventually be replaced. He seems to have failed to deliver significant growth in minority participation in the GOP. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that he's played an active role in weakening Barack Obama's Presidency, either. He's no longer needed BECAUSE:

The Tea Party Crowd more effectively (and frighteningly) does what Steele and the GOP could not. They've made it 'safe' for the GOP to attack President Obama - no matter how irrational the claims. The Tea Party is the thing behind which the GOP Leadership hides no matter how violent, racist, outrageous, unhealthy, unintellectual their rants. Playing his own 'race card', Steele states that he has a razor thin margin for error. The irony is that by having heavily courted the racially tinged Tea Party, he helped narrow that margin. Did he really think that racism would be reserved for 'the other guy'? Has he looked around at those GOP meetings taking place in tropical climates and bondage clubs? Thanks to the Teapublicans:

GOP lawmakers can NOW claim that they were only 'doing the will of the people' while also claiming 'plausible deniability' related to the racist/sexist/homophobic slurs uttered by its constituents. Bachmann denies what's been viewed on video many times over. Other GOPers excuse unsavory attacks on Democrats as the behavior of people who've been 'pushed too far'. It's a behavior that:

Makes racists the victims and gets to the heart of the NEW GOP Southern Strategy: Hecklers didn't heckle, spitters didn't spit, Joe Wilson wasn't wrong for showing disrespect to an American President for the first time EVER in a joint session of Congress - the first African American President, which was all a coincidence, right? Does it matter that Wilson was WRONG in his accusation? Not to the GOP. The stage was set. There was The Birth of a (New) Nation, another Southern link; a "hero" to take on that "uppity" Obama... the list goes on.

The Teapulican Southern Strategists remind sympathizers that:

THEY (liberals, 'the blacks', minorities, the people you should fear) are trying to take away your right to celebrate your history. You are not wrong to want to celebrate the confederates - those who were fighting to continue to enslave millions of your fellow human beings. The problem is not us, it's the people we should fear who want us to feel shame for celebrating "our" history.. Teapublicans will spread this message beyond the traditional good-old-boy regions by trying to convince others that if the (liberals, 'the blacks', minorities, the people you should fear) are successful, "you" (non-Southerners) could be next.

THEY (liberals, 'the blacks', minorities, the people you should fear) are whining about being attacked, but look at what they did to US. The purpose of such a statement is to set up a sense of false equivalencies. Which groups of liberals showed up at the homes of Republican leaders' family members and cut gas lines causing potentially fatal leaks? Any equivalent behavior? The Republicans have said that there are comparable examples, they just haven't been able to share them. GOPers follow up those statements by claiming Dems are being 'girly' and 'whiny' by reporting these things. They happen to Republicans all the time and Republicans just don't report them - suggesting 'weakness' in Democratic leaders.

THEY (liberals, 'the blacks', minorities, the people you should fear) are not only trying to take away your right to free speech and but trying to take away your right to defend YOUR country. Chris Matthews has discussed the isolationist language used by the Teapublican crowd: "Our Country", "Defending our Sovereignty", "Meeting the Federal Government at the State Line"... They (Southern Strategist Teapublicans) are the heroes, they will save the 'American' way of life. Democrats, who know nothing of the real world because they're too busy holding hands and dreaming, will destroy us. Democrats are preoccupied with things that don't exist - like racism, and that keeps them distracted from the things that do exist and potentially harm us.

The New GOP Southern Strategy, folks.

Whereas, I believe that the Teapublicans and their GOP leadership have reverted back to the old Southern Strategy;
Whereas, I believe that the return to such a strategy is cowardly and divisive;
Whereas, I think that this nation belongs to ALL of its citizens;
Whereas, It is important for all Americans to reject the forces that try to divide us on Race, Sex, Orientation, Political Identification, Religion, and other states of humanity;
Whereas, I believe we as a nation are stronger than our weakest link;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Progressive and Proud, do hereby recognize EACH month from this point forward the KISS OFF SOUTHERN STRATEGIST MONTH, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

Posted at DailyKos April 7, 2010

Hillary has never been campaign tested - she folds in battle

2008-05-24T16:29:48Z

I, for one, never thought that Clinton’s election to the Senate was a difficult one. Rick Lazio was far from a formidable opponent. Tapped late into the process to replace Rudy Giuliani, who’d been diagnosed with cancer and who was dealing with his private life not becoming increasingly public, Lazio was an awkward rival who played out as part buffoon, and part goon. I remember cringing in horror as Lazio approached Clinton at the podium during a televised debate. He was so aggressive that I was sure he would take a swing at her. I gave Clinton enormous credit from not cowering at his advance. That moment was absolutely amazing for Hillary, and clearly the end of Lazio’s bid for office.

Jeanine Pirro, for all of Lazio’s faults, was an even worse opponent during Clinton’s reelection bid. Pirro’s campaign imploded for a myriad of reasons. You can view part of Pirro’s announcement HERE (you’ll see Mika Brzezinski in action as she talks about the match up between the two candidates and the problem each candidate has with a husband who behaves badly). No one has forgotten, I’m sure, Pirro’s rousing announcement speech ("just words") when, in the middle of discussing her vision for New York, she lapsed into a 30 second pause. She’d lost ‘page 10’ and had no idea what she was supposed to say. What an inauspicious beginning, one that would be indicative of the campaign in its entirety. By December of 2005, Pirro’s flailing campaign was over. Her family’s scandals and being ill-equipped to run for office gave her little to no option but to drop out of the race.

Both of these incidents, I think, help explain the ‘air of inevitability’ that took hold of the Clinton camp. The camp had conflated the ‘two Hillarys’. There was Hillary the strong woman - as evidenced by the fact that she was able to weather the worst of her husband’s storms and face the public with such steely resolve, no matter how deeply humiliated she’d been. There was Hilary the politician, who’d never faced a tough opponent. What Clinton, and Clinton, and Penn, and Ickes, and Lanny ‘Fox News guides me’ Davis, McAuliffe, Garin, Wolfson, and so many others refused to face is that Hillary Clinton is a smart and strong person who, as a politician, has faced weak opponents and is consequently a weak candidate.

Unfortunately for her, Clinton was presumed to be the Democratic Nominee, even from the time she ran for re-election in New York. The press was filled with articles about the First Lady-turned Senator-who would be President. The air of inevitability began long before the Presidential race began in earnest. Here’s why it matters.

I can only imagine that Clinton and long time campaign adviser Howard Wolfson viewed Obama as a cross between Lazio and Pirro. Young, bold, and perceived as arrogant- not based on his actual behavior, but that he, like Lazio, came out of nowhere to challenge a political machine. He didn’t ‘go squish’ as easily as Lazio, however. Pirro, an attorney with relatively decent oratory skills (if you were able to forgive the announcement pause) was a bit tougher. She was willing to take huge swings – some of them below the belt. She was a fighter. Obama, criticized for not swinging hard enough against his Democratic rival, was still willing to hit back. I think the Clinton camp assumed they would dispose of Obama in the way they’d disposed of Lazio, and Pirro, with roughly the same effort. They were ill prepared. The lack of fight from Lazio and Pirro had dulled their senses.

In the face of tough opposition, Hillary Clinton’s choices leave me questioning just how competent she is to hold office. I don’t think any of us doubts that she’s a scholarly person. She’s well read, she’s a great thinker (with regard to issues), and she’s accomplished. But even bright people do some wasteful and inappropriate things:

When faced with what was perceived to be a much stronger opponent, Sen. Clinton caved on the toughest issue of her, relatively short, political career. Bush’s approval ratings were soaring at the time she voted to authorize the Iraq war, giving a strongly worded speech defending her support of the vote.

A vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which would set the stage for war with Iran.

Supporting Cluster bombing in civilian areas

Add to the list:

Firing Patti Solis Doyle. This is the move that should have troubled feminists far more than almost anything else Clinton has done (other than to allow mostly men to run her campaign in the first place). I don’t understand what’s happened to some in the feminist movement who seem to consistently exchange feminist principles for the "privilege" of being in Clinton’s camp, but this is the point when I was sure that most who were part of her camp had jumped the shark.

Remember, Clinton, the presumed nominee, declared the race ‘over’ by February 5th (prophetic, but not in the way she’d hoped):

Link if the video doesn't work

Solis-Doyle spent and allowed spending to occur based on the projections of the mostly male campaign advisers

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

"We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now," said a prominent New York donor. "So much about her campaign needs to change — but it may be too late."

The high-priced senior consultants to Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have emerged as particular targets of complaints, given that they conceived and executed a political strategy that has thus far proved unsuccessful.

Sen. Clinton had a choice to make, Solis-Doyle, or Mark Penn. Penn, she seemed to believe, was the more powerful and successful of the two. Despite Mark Penn’s misbehavior, despite his failed campaign strategies (most notably the Feb. 5th disaster), despite the fact that he seemed to not understand the nature of Democratic Primaries, loyal long time supporter Solis-Doyle got the boot. Clinton’s deference to power is also probably the reason she would pay out 2.9 million dollars to Penn while smaller, more financially strapped, vendors continue to wait to be paid.

Add the various offensive statements about Obama, and implicitly about Obama supporters.

Add to that the now infamous Couric interview in which she insists she’ll be the nominee.

Add to that the various ‘misstatements’ like the sniper fire incident to show she was as tough as McCain, tougher than Obama.

Now add the tragic attempt to use the assassination of RFK for the sake of self-promotion and to defend her actions.

Don't confuse what's being said here: I am disgusted by Sen. Clinton's comments. I've been offended by the way she's run her campaign since S. Carolina. I think she's a dismal politician and has no idea what it means to maintain the trust of the people.

I'm not talking about Hillary Clinton the politician. I'm referring to Hillary Clinton, the woman, when I say this: I’ve regained my ability to see her as a survivor, and a brilliant woman, I’d lost that. I’d confused the strong woman for the weak politician who floundered when confronted for the first time by a strong opponent. It doesn’t make Sen. Clinton’s actions over these six months any less repugnant, but I have regained an ability to be sympathetic to her. The tough-as-nails survivor in her is probably as confused by "Hillary the candidate" as the rest of us are.

Ultimately, I'm exhausted. I have no more disgust and anger to waste on the Clintons. I'm turning THAT page and focusing on Nov. and working hard to help Sen. Obama win the White House and take this country forward.

Cross posted at Dailykos.

Women aren't fit to hold office, it seems.

2008-05-05T18:15:12Z

As a woman, I want to make it clear that it's not MY belief that women aren't good enough to hold office. It's the belief of the Clinton camp, and apparently, the belief of a fair number of her supporters. I can only believe that it's this practice of embracing the mindset of 'empowered masculinity' that led Hillary Clinton to brazenly and unabashedly support an immoral and unjust war and to be unapologetic about it. Forgiveness is for girls. Apologies are for mama's boys.

It's this attitude that led her to attack her Democratic rival using Right Wing talking points. It's this attitude that's led her to become the darling of the Right Wing talking heads.

Luckily for the Democratic Party, and for America, it's the same attitude that will end up costing Clinton the election.

I remember, with great sadness, that President Bush successfully mocked Dems by gently tapping his forehead, shaking his head side to side, and stating, 'this is how they think', referring to 'liberals'. Given the Clinton campaign's hypermasculinized approach, I almost expect to see her hold up an empty codpiece, tapping it gently, and re-stating the line, 'this is how they think'. She'll, of course, give the patented Hillary look of disapproval as she shakes her head from side to side, dismayed by the 'chick-like' nature of her party.

It's hard to pinpoint when it started, but it's a pretty safe bet that it began with a 'soft touch' approach to supporting the Iraq war. It was deemed, by Sen. Clinton, a necessary vote to stop Saddam Hussein from carrying out acts of war and genocide on his neighbors and eventually the rest of the world. We were told to ignore American's faithful servants and loyal heroes like Scott Ritter and Richard Clarke, who were destroyed by the Bush administration for daring to speak the truth.

We were supposed to turn a blind eye on well established agencies like the IAEA and the U.N. - when they dared to suggest that the intelligence was wrong, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Scott Ritter openly stated that this was a war for people who were bad at science - those who believed that WMDs were easily constructed in the back of trucks, or almost any lab with a bunsen burner (not an exact quote).

It was easy for the Bush Administration, which has never been science-friendly, to present this war to the American public without serious consequence back then. Unfortunately, it was far too easy for Hillary to 'man up' and join the Bush administration in their fight to deceive. There was voter gold in them there war mongering statements!

At the campaign wore on, the anger and the vitrol (heightened and masculinized) grew stronger:

- Shame on you, Barack Obama, meet me in Ohio and we'll hash this thing out. It was the political equivalent of a gang fight: "Bring your click, I'll bring my click, and we'll bang this one out -- last man standing, mutha-humper!
- There was the vote for Kyl-Lieberman
- The unwillingness to protect innocent men, women, and children from CLUSTER bombs.
- At the top of the manly man hit list? "Obliterating Iran" statements that require no apology or second consideration.
- In regard to the 'Gas Tax Holiday', you're either WITH US OR AGAINST US. Econonmists, and others, who don't support her are elitists who are always working in favor of corporate America and against the average American. As perverse as it is, I have to admit that I'm enjoying her F.U. to Paul Krugman, who almost blindly supports her and opposes the Gax holiday. Many of Clinton's staunchiest supporters seem shocked by her statements... SOMEONE hasn't been paying attention to who Hillary Clinton really is.
- Add to that the Easley comment that Clinton was tough enough to make Rocky Balboa look like a 'pansy'. She got a 'two fer' with that one. Her supporter attempted to emasculate Sen. Obama and gay males all at the same time.
- How about Gipson's comment that she she has 'testicular fortitude'?
- A beer, a shot, and a good rifle - meant to be carried by the God-fearing, anyone?
- Most recently, James Carville is 'credited' with stating that if she gave Obama one of her cojones, they'd both have a pair. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but when I get a visual on it all I know is that it makes me feel dirty, and just a little bit frightened.

WHERE are the feminists and all other people who are rightly angry about the all-too-slowly-dying penchant for sexism and subjugation taking place in modern American culture? Where are the people who applauded Sen. Clinton's take down of MSNBC's deer-in-headlights-David-Shuster, for making the comment that Chelsea was 'pimped' by her parents? Where are the people who've been attacking the media for the biased coverage of Sen. Clinton? Oh, that's right, they're commenting on her testicles, her ability to scare 'pansies', and the qualifications that make her man enough to run the country. I get it, now.

Why am I supporting Sen. Obama? Becuase he hasn't defined this job as a 'man's job'. He understands that the traits that make a President successful are intelligence, decency, integrity, and backbone - which has nothing to do with gender. He has the intestinal fortitude to say what needs to be said and to stand by it leaving the need to display 'testicular fortitude' to the war mongering corporatists who think we're all to 'girly' to know any better.

Women are jealous because I'm beautiful

2008-04-25T16:04:57Z

It’s so clear to me now that women are just jealous of me, and wish they could look like me. You’re probably jealous of me too. Sound familiar? I’m sure you’ve known at least ONE person like that over the course of your lifetime. If you thought THAT attitude was lousy, hang on. There’s now an intellectualized "prom queen" defense being offered to explain why Hillary Clinton hasn’t been able to ‘close the deal’ in getting ALL women to support her. According to Susan Shapiro Barash, women are either jealous of Hillary Clinton and threatened by the power she’s achieved, or we’re all doing the master’s bidding and we’re all too confused by the male patriarchy that keeps us held down to know any better.

Barash, referring to the PA primary, states that:

This victory represents a long needed turnaround in female thinking, and the hope that women are coalescing, recognizing that our country needs and deserves the chance for female leadership.
...
When Nora Ephron pointed out in her Huffington Post piece that "white men will still decide who gets to be president," it drives home how important it is for women to band together. Yet contrary to conventional belief that female solidarity is alive and well, the exact opposite has been evidenced in the reaction of many women to Hillary.

If we take it a step further, what exists is a "limited goods" theory. Instead of being expansive toward other women, we believe in a "magical theft," as if somehow Hillary's ascension connotes another woman's lost opportunity. The shame here is not only in this profound lack of support, woman to woman, but a false sense that our fate is to miss out when another woman wins.

The irony? That a feminist didn’t recognize the patronizing argument that there is such a thing as a prototypic woman. Hillary Clinton is supposed to represent the best interests of women, and why? Because she IS a woman. Alan Keyes is an American of African descent. So am I. He’s a bright man, even if I find his policies a little bat crap crazy, from a progressive’s perspective. Did I OWE it to him to support him when he ran for President? His ideas about what moves us forward are FAR different from my own beliefs. He’s anti-choice. Should I have put that aside and supported him?

Clinton has shown, me at least, that she responds to what is most politically expedient and that she hasn’t been a feminist in a very long time – if ever. I ‘owe’ her no more than I ‘owe’ Alan Keyes. I find her and her hawkish views as equally offensive as I find Keyes views about women’s rights. Why hasn’t it crossed Barash’s mind that it’s ‘The Clintons’ Democrats have become tired of (and that Republicans despise)? That’s not a gender issue. Why wasn’t the essay one that explored the LEGITIMATE reasons why so many women have difficulty supporting Clinton?

I’m fed up with being told that not supporting Clinton, when you’re a woman, is a sign of weakness or self-loathing. I have to wonder if some feminists who are supporting Hillary aren't trying to rationalize their support for her by creating a false narrative that she's under attack because of her gender, and that they need to 'protect' her. It may make them feel better about supporting Clinton’s anti-feminist emasculating taunts of Obama – yes, men who are sensitive, smart, and pro-woman are ‘too weak’ to run the country. How is it possible that women who support Obama are ‘tools of the man’, while those who support Clinton’s ‘the better man’ campaign’ are true feminists? Why hasn’t Barash discussed Obama’s platform and that he’s a pro-feminist candidate – the only one who doesn’t need to be ‘one of the boys’ in order to connect with the American voters? Keep supporting that pandering Clinton ideology, sisters!

It may please you to know that Marie Wilson is asking for help writing ‘The Gender Speech’ – one similar to that of Sen. Obama’s "More Perfect Union’. What I find interesting is that feminists supporting Clinton have never asked why SHE didn’t think to write that speech already. She’s been more than content to ask women to stand with her and to support her – she’s been doing it for quite some time now. ("Ask not what your gender can do for you, ask what you can do for your gender"). My response to Marie Wilson’s request:

Senator Obama's speech on 'race' included people like me, black women who are at the intersection and have been negatively impacted by RACE than gender. I'm always offended when feminists discount that to push the Clinton angle. I know, I know, in 1972 Shirley Chisholm said that she was more negatively impacted by sexism than racism. I have yet to read the use of that Chisholm quote from a feminist who wasn't trying to make the case that Sen. Clinton has been far more disadvantaged than Sen. Obama. As Clinton is supposed to represent all women, Chisholm's '72 statement is supposed to be representative of all women of color.

The Clinton name, Clinton machinery, MSM compliance and support, tapping out big donors early because of the structured campaign run by experienced pols ... SHE’S disadvantaged?

Since he began his campaign, I’ve watched Sen. Obama pull this nation together. HE didn’t use race, or gender, orientation, or class status as wedge issues. His focus was on ONE America, where the rights of all were to be respected and upheld. I’m sorry that the Clinton camp has decided that "balkanizing" the Democratic Party is the only way to go. I’m sorry that Penn’s colleague, Doug Schoen, has decided that Clinton should continue to go negative and would be winning if she’d gone negative early on. I’m sorry that it’s not already June 3rd, so that we can focus on what nominee Obama needs - as well as our down ticket candidates. I’m not sorry that I’m a woman who isn’t supporting Sen. and President Clinton’s bid to return to the White House. In fact, I’m quite proud of it.

Crossposted at Dailykos

How Stephanopoulos actually HURT Clinton

2008-04-18T18:47:27Z

If you want to put a generous spin on the ABC debate, you might suggest that Stephanopoulos and Gibson were "hopped up on testosterone" and itching to prove that they weren't in the tank for Sen. Obama. (I haven't heard the term 'hopped up' in a while and with the discussions of 60s radicals, I realized that I missed it). The most likely explanation, given Stephanopoulos' past role in the Clinton administration, is that he IS in the tank for Clinton, and Gibson was just along for the ride.

Here's the problem for George, and Charlie, the MSM/TM, and ultimately, Hillary Clinton.

They're right, 6 in 10 voters don't think Clinton is honest. She did little to change that, last night. While issue of her dishonesty was raised, and she was allowed to prattle out an answer that had nothing to do with the question of her (dis)honesty problem, there was no follow up. She AGAIN commented that she wouldn't speak about Bosnia while she was tired and that she 'got it right' when "she" (or whoever) wrote about it in her book. So how could she get it wrong FOUR TIMES?

So the problems for Clinton, thanks to Stephanopoulos, are:

1 - Clinton is now more of the 'Bush' candidate than ever before. With respect to her proposed policies? No. But who the hell knows what she'd do if she got in the White House? Cluster bombs, Iraq vote, Iran vote... you get the picture. It's hard to trust that the media, ESPECIALLY ABC would be professional in investigating or even questioning her on anything she did.

George and Charlie may not have thought we noticed, but we did. Neither of them followed up and showed her the footage of the FOUR DIFFERENT times (twice on St. Patrick's Day) when she uttered those words... NONE took place late in the evening or during a time when she seemed exceptionally tired. As far as *I* know, she managed not to tell huge lies about anything else.

Why was Bosnia so different? How could she 'misspeak' or 'misremember' being shot at, or that her child was shot at? How could George and Charlie not ask her that? They were sure to ask Obama about a man whose crimes he had nothing to do with, crimes taking place when he was 8 years old. Clinton was QUICK to jump on the Ayers issue, with the moderator's passive permission, as Obama had to remind Clinton that her partner-in-political-crime gave pardons to TWO members of that organization. Obama's sin? Working on the board of a charity organization with Ayers.

I trust Stephanopolous to be as vigorous in keeping Hillary honest as he was in keeping Bill honest. You see where THAT got the party! Speaking of the party:

2- It was bad enough when CLINTON was kissing tail and doing the bidding of the right wing party and media in tearing the Democratic party apart. Given the report that the Ayers question was Sean Hannity's brain(less) child, it's clear that Clinton and her cronies are willing to marshall their efforts and resources in joining the right wing in ripping the party to shreds. She's already wasted party resources continuing a race she KNOWS she can't win. Bowing before the right wing, doing their bidding?

They do so without shame, without regret, without so much as an acknowledgment that their actions have consequences for this party in the general election. Stephanopoulos may have thought he was doing Hillary a favor, with the tabloid-esque questioning, but once the dust settles, and it's not just the party faithfuls who are upset, there are going to be some tough questions for Team Clinton - including the media. There are those on the edge, the undecideds who were already cautious of Clinton, will start to reflect on the debate and Clinton's inability to behave as a leader in the face of the idiocy of the moderators. That's when the blowback begins.

Will it happen in five days? Maybe, maybe not, but it will certainly happen by June 3rd. This debate left a bad taste in the mouths of all who believe in democracy, justice, and fairness. It was an especially bitter pill to swallow for economically depressed voters who don't give a damn about 'capital gains taxes'. Hillary and Clintonistas may whine that Hillary has had tough debates, but no matter how much she whined, NONE of those were personal attacks on her. They were questions about her policies and the way she's handled her campaign.

Here's what 'right wing Dems', and the MSM/TM need to consider: The 'Obama movement' isn't just about turning back politics as usual, it's also about refusing to tolerate the lazy, semi-skilled, thoughtless press coverage we're typically treated to. The MSM/TM's days are numbered, and they don't even know it yet. What will replace them?
Gibson and Stephanopoulos didn't have time for pesky issues oriented discussion. Informed voters had to log on to get the information ABC was unwilling or unable to give.

As we become serious about 'wiring' this nation and making technology more affordable and readily accessible, the limited media outlets we have will become obsolete - Gibson may not have to worry about capital gains taxes, then. The fact that I can NOW tune in to any news outlet and hear EXACTLY the same conversations, day aftter day means that it's time to take the power out of the hand of corporate media. They, along with Hillary Clinton, have lost the trust of the people. We can do better.

Obama/DNC - The Third Partner in the Clinton Relationship

2008-04-11T15:36:33Z

Chris Matthews, of all MSM/TM (traditional media), seems to have finally awakened to the fact that elections matter; clearly the media have been asleep since the 2000 election. I'd started to believe that Matthews was coming around, after S. Carolina. I was only sure he'd finally gotten it once he said this:

Confession: after stating that I was done watching Morning Joe (and I AM), I relapsed, today. I watched the segment with David Shuster as he talked about his disbelief that Bill Clinton would bring up the Bosnia incident again, and his utter confusion at why Clinton done it. Had he done it to excuse Hillary's lie? I don't think so, but more on that later. In order to 'defend' Hillary? Possibly, but in order to do so, Bill had to tell another set of lies.

1 -She said it only once. No. She told the Bosnia lie MULTIPLE TIMES.

2 - It was late at night. Sorry, it was never late at night. Maybe he's thinking of the speech writing sessions? The incident was told from a PREPARED speech.

3 - Consider her age Lots of people forget things and tire easily as they age - not a direct quote, but close. (Uh, seriously Bill?) Can you image how the 'hill raisers' would be screaming MISOGYNY had anyone else said that? The assertion is ridiculous, even if you remove the issue of age. She forgot about being shot at, with her child present?

If I was Chelsea, that alone would pull me off the campaign trail. You can forget my birthday, you can't forget whether or not I was a victim of sniper fire.

If you follow the media, today, you'll see that there were other lies told. Lies? You think it's too harsh to use the term? How else would you characterize them when every point they've made has been debunked almost DAILY, and they continue to tell them? It's a clear indication that the Clintons don't respect the voters or their supporters and don't expect them to have read, or seen, any news other than the news they chew and regurgitate for them.

There've been a number of articles theorizing whether Bill Clinton is trying to intentionally tank his wife's candidacy, so I won't bring them all up here. You have to wonder whether this latest slip with Bosnia was raised, again, with the sole intent of hurting Hillary. The age issue, in particular, has me intrigued and makes me think there's some 'There' there. Was that Bill Clinton's subtle suggestion that 'youth' matters? He was, after all, just slightly younger than Obama when he took ffice. Does he identify more with Obama's campaign: disciplined, youthful and on task, more than his wife's?

This campaign is beginning to make me feel as if I'm in a live action version of "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?". Hillary and Bill have unconsciously cast themselves as Martha and George. Obama and Pelosi are the unwitting and naive Nick and Honey, unintentionally complicit, frightened, not sure how to get out of the mess, but too intrigued by the train wreck dynamic between the spouses to run away on their own. The only thing missing is a little booze, and not for Martha, for ME, because that's what it takes to get through a Clinton press conference, event, or comments by her surrogates these days.

I'm probably not the only one who thinks that Chelsea stating that her mother would make a better President, and Bill left agreeing, triggered the revisiting of Bosnia - which was thought to be a dying issue for Hillary. But now we're back to square one.

The Clinton campaign/marriage isn't a comedy to me. It's cost this nation, especially our military sons and daughters, too much. It's cost the Democratic party credibility with the voting public for eight long years, so much so that the public sadly viewed someone like George Bush as a better alternative. Bush would, after all, 'restore honor and dignity to the White House' (another load of bull). Are the Clintons alone responsible, of course not, but their past actions are significantly tied to the misfortunes of the Democratic Party for some time, now.

For me, both the Clinton campaign and marriage, play more like a tragedy.

Obama, and the Democratic Party, have simply become a "third partner" in the marriage.

Hillary allowed Bill Clinton, long before the road to the White House, destroy any credibility she had as a strong, trustworthy, progressive woman, in my book. Strength is not shown by tolerating emotionally abusive behavior. That's a better definition of inaction than strength. Stockholm set in, in my opinion, when she began aiding and abetting him by covering his bad behavior (and again, I refer you to Andrew Young's description of her 'defense committee' before the 1992 run for office).

The first time, rising above a husband's infidelity is a matter of strength. Every time after that is complicity and self abasement. If it only happened in the Clinton marriage, it would be their private business. CLEARLY, Sen. Clinton sees more benefit in being in the marriage than out of it.

The problem for me is that they've begun treating Sen. Obama and the DNC are the third party in this marriage. Obama and the DNC are theirs to do with as they will. The nasty letter from Hillary's donors read as a letter from a divorce attorney, attempting to intimidate a spouse into dropping a claim for support. They've decided that they can drag the party and the other Democratic candidate through this 'love/hate' drama and that all should feel honored to be a part of it.

Having already cost the party the House and Senate (for the first time in fifty years for the Senate) wasn't enough. To have denied the use of additional funds for the 1996 congressional races wasn't enough. That Bill Clinton began an affair with Monica Lewinsky before those races, on the people's time, on the people's property, in one of the most 'sacred' political spaces - the oval office - when his wife was 'home', wasn't enough. Knowing that the only thing left to lose, professionally, was the White House, wasn't enough. That this primary can't be won by Clinton, without overturning the will of the people, isn't enough. For Bill and Hillary, enough is never enough.

I see as much 'strength' in her staying in this race as I do with all of her other BAD choices she's made. At some point she has to realize that there are better choices to be made.

What Obama gets from the Clinton camp is the same treatment Hillary gets from Bill. Obama makes great gains in the polls, the party looks as if it will finally coalesce around a nominee, and out comes the Wright issue from Clintonistas. Which was, mysteriously, followed up with Obama being asked about the Wright matter on the campaign trail (by a Hillary supporter).

The Clintons have tolerated/loved/adored/abided by/aided and abetted one another for more than three decades. Whatever they've done to one another is their business - whatever part of it hasn't played out in public. I, however, object to them treating this party, and this campaign as if it's an 'anything goes' moment in history. It is not. I object to them treating Obama and this party as if we are theirs to dispose of as they please. Not so. I would like to believe that she's hanging on because she believes she can win. I do not.

I think it's time for the DNC, and the voters, to tell the Clintons to take their psychodrama back to upstate New York, play it out in private, and to leave the rest of us in peace. Divorce is painful, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, but sometimes its necessary to save the family.