MyDD :: Leaving the church. UPDATED

Leaving the church. UPDATED

by OrangeFur, Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:09:13 AM EST

I hope the following is taken as sincere and in good faith. I know it's likely to be controversial at the moment--or would be, if anybody cared about what I think.

I would like nothing more right now than to feel my usual enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate and the Democratic Party. I would like nothing more than to believe wholeheartedly in party unity in the fall. But I don't, and it's not a matter of choice. I can no more convince myself to do so than I can convince myself to fall in love.

Simply put, the treatment that Hillary Clinton received was the most disgraceful and contemptible I have ever seen in politics. Much of it, whether from the party, the press or the blogs, was from people who call themselves Democrats. They convinced themselves and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, that Hillary Clinton was a lying, racist, race-baiting, selfish, anti-Democratic woman who was actively hoping that Barack Obama might be assassinated. Much of the criticism took on a thinly disguised or overt sexism. The critics dismissed her voters, including me, as low-information racist white people.

They said all of this through the very end of the campaign; some of them are still saying it. The party, by and large, stood silent and did nothing meaningful to stop it. Now, a lot of the same people--the ones who promoted the nastiness and the ones who enabled it--are calling for unity and praising Hillary Clinton for her historic campaign.

I wish I could believe they're being sincere. But how could they actually believe all the things they said during the campaign and now praise her and appeal to her voters? I wish I could buy into it. I really wish I could. I don't enjoy feeling alienated from the party I loved. But unfortunately, it will take some time before the extremely sour taste of this campaign washes out. Whether this is weeks, months, or years I can't say.

Today, I switched my voter registration from Democratic to Independent. I didn't do it out of anger, and it didn't bring any satisfaction. It wasn't the cathartic slamming of the door on the way out, but rather the somber realization that an old friend was becoming a stranger.

I'm still a liberal, and proud of it. I still support all the same policies, mostly shared with the Democratic Party, and the same political philosophy. I'm no more inclined to vote for any Republicans than I was before. But for now, I need a break from the party and its official organizations. I'll support candidates and causes as an engaged citizen, and this may very well include Barack Obama. I hope that as time passes, and both the party and I move forward, it will soon be time to reunite.

Thanks for reading.

Update [2008-6-7 15:25:37 by OrangeFur]: Thanks for everyone who recommended the diary and who took the time to write thoughtful responses. I'm pleasantly surprised to see it on the recommended list.

In response to some of the comments, I just want to make a few points, many of which were made, perhaps not emphatically enough, in the original diary.

First, I am still a liberal, and as liberal as I was when the campaign started. I haven't changed my ideals in the slightest, except as happened naturally by listening to the issues discussion of the campaign.

Second, as such, I will very likely continue the same voting patterns as before. I can't imagine myself voting for McCain, for example. Perhaps, having seen the outrage machine ginned up repeatedly for so many silly incidents in the primary, I'll be more skeptical of charges thrown against him by lefty blogs, but I'm under no illusions as to what he and the GOP stand for.

Third, I know that the Democratic Party couldn't care less about my registration or my vote, being one of over 100 million voting Americans. They care a little about my money, judging from the mail I get, but not all that much either. In fact, this indifference is part of the reason I've decided to switch to being an Independent for the time being.

Finally, I want to reiterate that this was not a happy process for me. I've been a Democrat my entire voting life, and was proud to call myself a Democrat not just during the high points (Bill Clinton's presidency, for example) but especially during the low points--in 2004, for example, I took special pleasure in being a defiant member of the political opposition.

Right now I feel as if I've lost my faith or my family. It's not some satisfying anger, but rather an uncomfortable void instead. I look forward to the day when I feel comfortable as an official member of the party again.

Thanks for reading, again.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party (all tags)

Permalink :: 240 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 7)

You can do that. You do, of course, have more power if you're a member of the party than if you are not, but I appreciate your sentiments. My mother did the same thing when impeachment was taken off the table - I thought it was a mistake but not a major one. Just don't see the point in symbolic gestures like that.

As for your greivances, it's hard for me to see them as I was an Obama supporter and saw most of the mudslinging as headed towards him. Obviously I'm aware that that's not an objective assessment, but I'm mentioning it only because if you expect an apology, you probably won't get one other than a generic "all sides have behaved badly". And by the way, all sides have behaved badly.

Most of the primary was the Obama campaign complaining about the negativity from the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign responding with "this is NOTHING. This is pattycake compared to most contests". I think they only realized the electoral value of complaining about the media and about their opponents later on.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:34:44 AM EST

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 21)

I understand that supporters of the two candidates will see things differently. To me, there are two levels of criticism. One is the usual criticism: your health care plan is bad, you're too close to lobbyists, you're not experienced enough. Then there's the really serious stuff: you're racist, your supporters are racists, you secretly want Obama to lose so you can run in 2012, you're promoting the smear that he's Muslim, you're hoping he gets killed.

The latter category I think is far more dangerous--you can overlook someone's health care plan or experience or campaign financing, but if you believed anything in the second category, you couldn't vote for Clinton for dog catcher, or even want her to stay in the Democratic Party. That stuff was nuclear, and it was tossed around like water balloons.

Having said all that, I'm under no illusions that my party registration affects anything of importance. Frankly, neither does my individual vote. The only thing I do that the party notices at all is donate, and even then, not in large enough amounts that they'll miss it that much. My becoming an Independent is really more for me than anything else.

Thanks for your comment.

by OrangeFur on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:55:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 3)

"but if you believed anything in the second category, you couldn't vote for Clinton for dog catcher, or even want her to stay in the Democratic Party."

I don't think it works that way for everyone, and it certainly doesn't work that way for me. I don't vote only (or even mainly) for a person's personality, I also vote for a platform, and I also vote for a particular frequency in the political spectrum of my country.

Sometimes people with horrible personalities may have the right ideas that it would benefit their countries if they were elected -- I wouldn't marry them but I would vote for them. Sometimes it's the other way around: people with fine personalities may have lousy ideas and you may like them but oughtn't vote for them.

As such, do I think that Hillary played dirty politics against her opponent? Yes. I'm sorry but I do think she exemplifies some of the dirtiest politics around. Would I personally vote for her? If I was an American, probably yes: Because her domestic platform is far better than McCain's.

But since I'm a European who lives in the Balkans and think that Clinton policy has been horrid in the Balkans in the 1990s, probably not.

Still my point is: personality isn't everything. It isn't even the main thing.

by Aris Katsaris on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OrangeFur, I completely understand. (2.00 / 10)

Even for Obama supporters, there is a needed cool-down period. If you go through the comment threads where a Clinton supporter displays some lingering anger, you'll find that many Obama supporters display it too. We are trying to be gracious winners as you guys are trying to be gracious losers but we have been sniping at each other for months now...hard to just wake up in the morning and everything is roses.

I think the meeting between Obama and Clinton the other night was meant to be a healing process between them for the same reason, to remind them it was a contest not a war (a war of words maybe).

As for changing parties...I've been an Independent, a Republican, a Democrat, a Green and then back to Democrat. Changed parties for various reasons multiple times. But what never changed was my ideology. You and I might be angry at each other but in the long run we will fight together because, personalities aside, we have the same basic ideology.

If we don't fight together for presidential candidate, it will be a down-ticket candidate or with an issues-based group or for a charitable cause. So, at one time or another, I'll see you in the trenches fighting the good fight.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:14:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 6)

Then there's the really serious stuff: you're racist, your supporters are racists, you secretly want Obama to lose so you can run in 2012, you're promoting the smear that he's Muslim, you're hoping he gets killed.

Or perhaps, "you're sexist, elitists, sissies, not real Democrats, teenage boys, cultists, etc.; you secretly want Obama to lose because you want to get rid of the Clintons/hate older people/are too far left; you're promoting the smear that she's a racist..."

It goes both ways. I can honestly say that almost no one here ever derogatorily talked about Clinton supporters as a group. There was that one diary about "cranky culture warriors" that even most of us were bashing. But other than that, criticism was limited to Clinton and her campaign.

In return, we personally were attacked in all manner of ways, reaching its zenith right after the bitter comment. A certain beloved diarist constantly referred to us as "boyz." Another member called Obama supporters "the enemy," and several people enthusiastically agreed. In the media, there was non-stop coverage of Obama's "problem" with white voters, his patriotism, "bittergate," Rev. Wright, etc. There was a question in a debate about freakin' flag pins, for pete's sake.

The point? We Obama supporters have our own problems with the media's coverage. We have our own problems with things that said not just about our candidate, but about us personally. But we're also not proclaiming that the way we were treated was the worst ever!.

The thing here is to realize that for every Clinton supporter who feels as you do, there is an Obama-supporting doppelganger who feels the same the other way. Heck, the primary was nearly split 50-50...that means there is almost a 1:1 ratio of people who are pissed off about something, let down by the media, and furious at the other candidate's supporters. The only difference is that we fortunately prevailed and can let some of those grievances go.

You seem unable to step outside yourself and think of how the other side feels. This won't sound conciliatory, but your anger is not unique or extra-special. There was ugliness in this race on all sides, and especially from the media. Rather than removing yourself from the party as a protest, it would've been far better to simply talk to the reasonable Obama supporters here to better understand how THEY felt and to find common ground.

But to each their own, I guess.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:23:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

Should've been:

you secretly want Hillary to lose because you want to get rid of the Clintons

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 5)

But we're also not proclaiming that the way we were treated was the worst ever!.

Sure, late in the game Obama got some criticism -- after the MSM was ridiculed into it by a SNL sketch -- but anyone who thinks that, objectively, Obama got it every bit as bad from the media as did Hillary is just a little short of intellectual honesty, I should think.

Many of us on the Clinton side really do think that there's no prominent politician in our memory who has received anything like the vicious media coverage that Hillary has.

Even the episode in which the Obama campaign quite deliberately fanned the flames of the RFK remarks controversy -- as ugly and baseless a smear as I can remember -- shows how much the media was in the tank for Obama, and how eager they were to find something, anything, to vent their spleen on Hillary.

Again, if you can't see it or acknowledge it, that says something rather important about you.

by frankly0 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

Again, if you can't see it or acknowledge it, that says something rather important about you.

Spare me your silly little pronouncements. It's rather ironic coming from someone whose sole thesis is apparently, "No, we were treated the worst by far!"

You've got your own overwrought "never in memory..." complaints, and so do we. But so what?
The mistake is for either side to think they're extra-special or unique in feeling that way. There's grievances on all sides, and I don't care to make this a whine-fest about who was more mean to whom or how many more unfair stories there were.

But hey, if you want to make everyone miserable until you can force them to acknowledge that no one ever, ever, ever was as mistreated as Hillary--by the media, by Obama, by politicians, by superdelegates, by voters, by the New York Mets, by sneezing panda bears--then really, knock yourself out.

But then again, that point seems to have utterly escaped you, so I may be wasting my time.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You really can't deal with the substance of (none / 0)

my post, can you?

There's not a single moment of intellectual honesty in your response.

The point is simple: there was a deep asymmetry in how Obama was treated in this election, and how Hillary was treated. You refuse to come to terms with the truth of this.

And, you know, the complaints about "whining" about unfair treatment -- guess where I heard that last? Why, again, from the Bush team in 2000 -- who resemble only too well many Obama supporters of late. Do you think I'm going to be deterred by people of that sort?

Yes I'm quite completely sure you really do imagine that Obama had it every bit as bad. In that belief, you would be simply delusional. It is what would place you past a point of rationality.

Let's just say that if the media weren't obviously in the tank for Obama, perhaps we wouldn't have seen such resonance to the SNL skit, OK? Now I'm sure you have some other way to rationalize this, but that would only reflect your inability to see or present the facts objectively.

Yes, I am really saying that Hillary got it far, far worse than other politicians. One simple telling fact: that, historically, many politicians have taken their campaigns all the way to the convention; yet in no case -- no case at all -- has pressure been exerted on them to bow out of the race anything like that which Hillary has endured.

What all of us on the Hillary side have seen is a favoritism in the media and in the powers that be in the Democratic Party toward Obama on a degree we have never seen before in our lifetimes. Many of us are veteran supporters of many, many campaigns, and have supported losing candidates in the past, only to turn rather quickly to the winner. We know that this case is different. We know that Hillary and her supporters have received abuse we have only seen from Republicans -- and only from the very worst of the Republicans -- in the past. The last smear of the Obama campaign -- essentially accusing her of raising the possibility of Obama's assassination, perhaps even hoping for it -- was a smear so vile and baseless that most of us thought not even the most vicious Republican would engage it.

Now, I really do get that you think Obama had it every bit as bad. Your ability to think that is, without a doubt, what makes you an Obama supporter.

But let's just say that there are people out there who are not Obama supporters, and can be reached by some kind of appeal to objectivity, and a sense of fair play. They can see why the SNL skit had such an impact. They can see that the coverage has been slanted. They can see how viciously unfair many of the attacks on Hillary have been, including many directly from the Obama campaign, and how Obama has gotten a relatively free ride.

And for them, my point my resonate.

God only knows, though, how long the people at MyDD will even allow such criticism to continue. It's obvious by now that the latest notion is that any such person be effectively censored by declaring them a "troll".

If and when that sort of censorship takes place, then the transformation of MyDD into another DailyKos will be complete. It will be another echo chamber -- which, I can only gather, is what Obama supporters seem to insist on.

by frankly0 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton ran the dirtiest campaign (none / 0)

I can ever remember on the Democratic side. Robert Reich, a Clinton appointee and one-time supporter called it "pure republicanism," and he was entirely correct. If Clinton was criticised by the media and various pundits for the "kitchen sink" strategy, it was was fully justifed by the facts. Of course, as we were to see, any fact-based criticism of Hillary, for instance that she lied repeatedly about the Tuzla incident,or her former cheerleading for NAFTA was and is somehow viewed through the warped prism of some of her supporters such that their reality became that she was "unfairly" called out by the media and us poor old bloggers who correctly insisted she was lying as she swung wildly from one narrative to the next.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:24:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 4)

We have to look closely at WHO was doing the criticism in the media. Hillary got more criticism because she was the front-runner for so much longer. The corporate conservative MSM bashed Hillary not for months, but for YEARS. But I would argue that any liberal front-runner would have gotten that treatment.

When Obama became the front-runner, all of a sudden, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Buchanan, and Scarborough added their names to the MSM Hillary fan list that already included Stephanopolous, Gergen, etc. Yes, Olbermann, Maddow and Abrams stuck with Obama, but we also saw Wright, Bittergate and Pflegergate on 24-hour loops for weeks and weeks. The ABC debate was nothing short of an ambush.

So, I think the media thing must be kept in perspective. MOST of the corporate media is conservative, and will bash the hell out of whoever the candidate on the left is. We'll be seeing plenty of that now.

by rhetoricus on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are right Rhetoricus (none / 0)

I've always said that the MSM would start in on Obama as soon as they pushed Hillary out. And it's already started. Just listen to the characterization of Senator Obama's private conversation with Lieberman. Every media outlet referred to Obama as 'intimidating' and 'threatening' - code for 'beware the big scary black dude'! Hell - when McCain got into a shoving match with a fellow Senator a couple years back he was called 'pugnacious' fer chrissakes!

I think the media will break for McCain. As you say - they are, by and large, conservative. This is going to get much uglier by far.

by The Fat Lady Sings on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:32:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

From the moment the Wright bombshell dropped (mid-March) and onwards there was near-constant criticism for Obama. And before that, there were questions of if he was black enough or too black. As if there was some correct amount of blackness he could achieve.

If Hillary did receive more criticism earlier (while also being called "inevitable") then it was because she's been around longer and the news had already decided on their script for her campaign just as they had decided to ignore Edwards.

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

Even the episode in which the Obama campaign quite deliberately fanned the flames of the RFK remarks controversy -- as ugly and baseless a smear as I can remember

The entire comment from the Obama campaign was, in essence, "her comments were unfortunate". They never once said, "She wants to see him assassinated," and that was never their point. The point was--and still is--that tossing out the subject of possible assassination in the context of why the race should keep going was a very bad idea. I know that many people--myself included--were quick to point out that Hillary is just as likely a target for crazed right-wingers with guns as Obama--in fact probably more so, if she were the nominee. None of us ever said that she wanted to see him killed, but many many people said her remarks were careless for someone who is themself seeking the office.

by 2501 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

followed.... (2.00 / 2)

the next day by sending out KO's special comment on this matter (where he skewered her) to 1000's of reporters.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: followed.... (2.00 / 3)

and, in which KO never said--even made pains to not say--that she wanted to see him assassinated.

Hillary is not perfect, and when she fucked things up, it was perfectly legitimate for the media to say so.

When Obama's "bitter" comment came out, it was the Clinton campaign who actually spread the audio to the media in the first place, and Hillary herself kept making direct references to "people aren't bitter", even after Obama had clarified what he meant and admitted that his choice of words was poor. She never once said, "OK, he's said that his choice of words was poor, I accept that."

Obama's single comment about the "assassination" remark was, "Hillary said she didn't mean anything by it, and I take her at her word." And that was after the whole bittergate thing.

by 2501 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

your claim was that it was not used for (none / 0)

political advantage, to which i say - um - no.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your claim was that it was not used for (none / 0)

That wasn't the claim.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Breaking! Major faux pas (none / 0)

used by supporters of one candidate against the other!

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:28:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama had it worse... (none / 0)

...if anything.

Is he really a muslim?
Is he black enough?
Did he go to a madrassas?
Is he a "magic negro?"
Bittergate?
Wright?
Ayers?

Hillary had it relatively easy. Sure, she had to face some sexism, but nothing compared to the racism Obama faced.

I understand that you "really do think that there's no prominent politician in our memory who has received anything like the vicious media coverage that Hillary has." But, I'm sorry, that's just more whiny nonsense. Hillary has had it easy..

There's a strange bias among certain Clinton supporters, a bias which sees any criticism of Hillary Clinton as "misogyny" and over the top, but fails to see the much more virulent racism that Obama had to overcome. If Hillary was called a racist... so was he. What do you think the whole Wright and Ayers things were about if not an attempt to scare white voters into thinking he's some kind of black millitant... and yes, she DID do everything she could to milk those stories.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama had it worse... (none / 0)

we apparently weren't watching the same primary.

by slynch on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently. (none / 0)

Just out of curiosity, what did Hillary get that in any way compared to any of the things I mentioned.

Because it does seem odd that there's such a strong perception, on the part of a few people, that she really had it rough. And I admit this might just be my own biased perception, but it sure looks to me like she benefitted from being a white woman going up against a black man. She gets lightly tapped and everyone is screaming about how unfair it is, but he gets clobbered hard and continuous and everyone just figures because he's black and male that it's all OK. It's hard to get past those deep-seated prejudices. The image of a black male going up against a white female is almost primal.

Objectively, though, she had it much easier than he did. If you can forget that she's a white woman and he's a black man then you will see that too.

by Mystylplx on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apparently. (none / 0)

You can't make the claim that "objectively" she had it easier. I don't think you're an objective evaluator. For starters, it isn't just a few people claiming she was treated worse than he.

There's a nice montage on youtube that shows just a little of the sexism that went on during the campaign. Not once did Obama have his clothing choices questioned. Not once did Obama have to explain whether his emotions were real or not. Not once was Obama questioned on his ability to be tough enough. Not once did anyone make a comment regarding how he would handle the job during 'that time of the month.' Not once was he called a bitch.

Wright, Ayers, bittergate, etc? Those were all things he did to himself. He was not excessively scrutinized; these were serious issues that any campaign would have been slammed for. Hillary was slammed for Bill's Jesse Jackson comments (which were nothing). She was slammed for her RFK statement (which was also nothing). She was slammed for being negative continuously, when both campaigns were equally negative.

Objectively, there is NO WAY you can claim she got better treatment from the media. And, most people actually agree that she didn't. Hell, it's all over the media how she didn't

by slynch on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apparently. (none / 0)

You're right--I can't be objective. But obviously niether can you.

Hillary's clothing choices were never a big story. About like Obama's ears, which were also never a big story. And Obama was most certainly questioned about whether he could be tough enough... and far more than she was.

As for the rest, you're bringing up things that I've never even heard of. When was she (seriously by a serious person) questioned about how she would handle the job at "that time of the month?" When did any serious commentator call her a "bitch?"

Both Hillary and Obama were called all sorts of things by whackjobs--But I'm talking about real medaia coverage, not some right wing blog site.

Wright, Ayers, bittergate, etc? Those were all things he did to himself.

On what planet? Bittergate was a case of misspeaking. If you look at the context it's clear what he was trying to say. And Wright was his minister who said some stupid things years ago. When's the last time you heard it go to that level? That a candidates ministers words from years back became a story? How did he "do that to himself?" And Ayers? Give me a break, he went to the guys house once...

She was slammed for Bill's racist comment about Jesse Jackson because it was a blatently racist comment. Lot's of people won SC twice, including Bill Clinton himself. The idea that it was just a coincidence that he chose Jesse Jackson as his example is absurd. "What? Is Jesse black? I never noticed!" He chose JJ as his example for a reason and it wasn't just pure coincidence. Same goes for her RFK comment.

And MOST people don't think she was treated unfairly by the media. Probably even most Clinton supporters don't buy the idea she was treated unfairly.

It's all perception--a white woman and a black man were in a fight.

She had it easy. I notice your defense is to bring up rarified examples of Clinton being treated unfairly, none of which were big stories, and dismiss the much larger stories of Obama being treated unfairly as meaningless. The very minor examples of a white woman being treated unfairly trump the much more significant examples of a black man being treated unfairly.

My point exactly.

by Mystylplx on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

I think it largely depends on your media sources. I got the vast majority of my news from NPR, cnn.com, and MyDD, of which I would consider NPR and CNN pretty mainstream. There was not a hint of sexism I can remember from NPR or CNN, and MyDD was a constant stream of attacks against Obama supporters.

I supposed if I had been watching television, I might have a different opinion.

John McCain Hates Poor People

by pneuma on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Intellectual honesty... (2.00 / 1)

I can take that seriously. And I'll be very frank -- much of the time I think that the people making arguments on both sides were being intellectually dishonest. Certainly, I would not try to defend some of my snarkier comments as being intellectually honest when they were clearly meant to be biting sarcasm.

So let me ask you about intellectual honesty, though. You really, seriously believe that, "no prominent politician in our memory who has received anything like the vicious media coverage that Hillary has." Because I find that pretty hyperbolic, myself.

John Kerry won multiple awards in Vietnam for valor under fire. When he was trashed by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth with total fabrications questioning that courage and valor, the media just went along for the ride as if the distinction between truth and lie was too fine for journalists to possibly engage in objectively. Those lies emanated from the top of the Republican Bush reelection heirarchy. Hillary has experienced nothing as outrageous as a wounded veteran hero having his courage falsely impugned. Nothing this year comes even remotely close.

Just for the record, by the way, I do think the Clintons had a racial strategy. That's not uncommon in politics, in an age when demographics and "micro-trends" get so much press. But it took a turn that offended many of us. I won't rehash all the details because you know them and summarily reject them.

None of that would matter to me, however, but for one thing: The War. The Clinton campaign tactics are not what turned most of us off to them and their campaign. It was the war. The campaign they ran only worked to confirm some of our worst doubts about them. But that was always bullshit.

So, I'm VERY eager to have an intellectually honest discussion, but I think we are not yet ready for that.

by Dumbo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:23:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for your diary and this comment (2.00 / 2)

I share your sentiments, specially where you state that those who believe Sen. Clinton (or Sen. Obama) of racism etc. should also advocate that she (he) be thrown out of the party.

I am myself most troubled by the 2nd category of offenses, as you are.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You and me both (2.00 / 6)

I haven't changed my registration yet, but this life-long Democrat is done.

This fall I will sit out the Presidential election (at least that's how I am feeling right now), vote down-ticket, and work on issues I care about. California high speed train, here I come!

What I will NOT do is continue to support a party that tacitly supported the worst kind of misogyny. I will not go back to my abuser. They can win or lose without me.

by OtherLisa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You and me both (2.00 / 2)

Sitting out is equal to +1 for McSame.

Please think about Supreme Court, Health Care, 100 years in Iraq, No jobs, $200 a barrel oil, etc.

Peace
Rick

by rickeagle on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You and me both (none / 0)

There is another view.

That view is that had it been anyone other than Hillary, the party would have lined up behind Obama in March, once it was clear that he was going to win.

The party undeniably recognized the historic nature of her campaign, and she was allowed to stay in the race all the way, when any other candidate would have been approached much sooner to leave.

Look at John Edwards. He was asked by people in the party to leave early "so we can pick a nominee quickly," and he more or less did so, even before the vote in some states that he was likely to have won. This was the person who was our vice presidential candidate only four years ago, but that didn't earn him the support of the party when he wasn't able to score a win in the first four states.

by 2501 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please try to be accurate. (none / 0)

She was losing MOST states AND the popular vote.

(You claimed she was "winning most states and the popular vote!" Must have been a typo.)

by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You and me both (2.00 / 1)

Obama was ahead in pledged delegates the entire race.

Obama won 33 of the 54 contests, including 21 of the first 32.

The only time Hillary was "winning" was if you also counted the superdelegates, because she started off with about a 100-superdelegate advantage. After super Tuesday, though, her endorsements dried up, because barely anyone else wanted to come out and endorse the candidate they thought was going to lose.

A cursory look at how things have gone in the past shows that against any candidate other than Hillary, Obama's string of wins in January and February would have been enough for the superdelegates to rush to endorse en masse for Obama, but the majority of them respected Hillary enough to let the race play out.

by 2501 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:14:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You and me both (none / 0)

The party has no power whatsoever to make a candidate stop running. Then can refuse to accept a candidate (as the South Carolinans refused to accept Stephen Colbert), but once accepted, the candidates have a legal right to run as long as they can afford to.

Which is just as well, because if the Dems HAD been able to shut Hillary out, they've have done it right after Super Tuesday -- in which case the Wright Stuff would probably have come out in the GE via the Rethugs and it would have been much, much worse for Obama.

by Michigoose on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:46:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

the internet has truly hit its stride between 2004 and 2008 and this was the first YouTube election. You may as well thicken the skin and get used to the constant rollercoaster of soundbite drama because it's only going to get worse. It sucks and the petty shit was raining down over BOTH sides, but that is going to be elections from now on and if you're going to leave a party over it you may as well leave the whole system and become a non-voter. The drama isn't going to get any better, sadly.

John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.

by terra on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not one bit sad about YouTube (none / 0)

Let's get it all out in the open, the Wright sermons, the Tuzla hoo haa, the whole shootin' match, then we can choose from a position of knowledge rather than wishful thinking which candidate we trust more.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Everyone needs to make their own calculation. (2.00 / 1)

There are five things we can do:

1. Stay at home and not vote.

2. Skip the presidential ballot and vote down ticket.

3. Vote for a third party candidate.

4. Vote for McCain.

5. Vote for Obama.

Frankly, if Hillary had won, I would be rally the troops to her cause with delight. For the sake of my own internal consistency, I will do no less when I wound up on the losing side. That's my own calculus. Everyone needs to find her or his own.

That's it, baby; let's go win this election!

by Beltway Dem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

Please, understand something.

There is a difference between bringing up language someone uses ("hard working Americans, white Americans", the "assassination" comment, and a lot of the things Bill said) and calling someone a racist or saying they are hoping for someone to be assassinated.

The Obama campaign never once accused Hillary of being a racist--seriously, you will not find a single statement from Obama or his campaign, or any elected official who supports him which says so. Even the people in the media who criticized her and Bill for some of the "dog whistle" language they used never accused them of being racists--but they did say they were playing a dangerous game by tossing out statements that were unquestionably going to appeal to racist voters. The Clintons have been in politics long enough to have no illusions otherwise. That's what people were complaining about--that politicians who know better were saying things that might re-open wounds of racial tension which are still not fully healed in our country.

Second, on the "assassination" comment, this was again a case of someone who should know better mentioning a very ugly topic in a very casual way. No one in Obama's campaign or, again, even in the media ever suggested that Hillary wanted Obama to be assassinated. They only pointed out that her tossing out the term in the discussion of why the race should keep going was tasteless--and it was. I know you won't see it that way, but even a lot of her own supporters in the party were saying she shouldn't have said it.

I know you feel that Hillary was unfairly attacked, and I can't argue that she has been unfairly attacked for many years by many people. But also, realise that she began this election with about a 100-superdelegate lead before any votes were even cast. The Democratic Party was already lining up behind her as the nominee before the election started. She made mistakes during the campaign that lost her that support. Those politicians are smart enough to ignore what the media may or may not have said about her. They saw someone who started off the primary season with every advantage, who messed it up. That is ultimately the reason why the rest didn't line up behind her.

If she had pulled that big sweeping victory on Super Tuesday that she had been banking on, you can be assured that endorsements would have piled in for her, and Obama would have been out before he had time to win the 11-in-a-row that he won after that.

by 2501 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 3)

Most of the mudslinging was headed toward Obama? Remember the "Clinton planted a question" hysteria in December in Iowa? One of Obama's STAFFERS sat in the crowd and pretended to be a voter (this occurred in Independence Iowa) around the same time during an Obama Q and A. Wolf Blitzer had "exclusive footage" of the so-called Hillary plant winking to a HRC staffer, and this was presented on O's second home away from home, CNN, as if Wolf had rediscovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Any mention of the Obama staffer story? Gee I didn't see too much and I watch a lot of TV (unfortunately).

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:34:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 5)

The only way to reply to this is to bring up more water on the bridge. Then you'll have a counter-example and I'll have one too. And it will go on and on.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:55:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point. (2.00 / 2)

There were plenty of slights to go around. Fox News seemed to be dedicated to airing every single ridiculous Obama smear out there. The MSNBC commentators seemed to do the same to Hillary.

Another Clintonista against John McCain

by psychodrew on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:17:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point. (2.00 / 2)

Yes but Fox didn't start going after Obama until after it became apparent that he had the nomination. They were kissing his butt up til then. Rememeber the Fox News Repulican debate in Florida? AN ENTIRE SEGMENT was given over to allowing the Republican candidates the opportunity to bash Hillary for at least 15 minutes.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:43:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point. (2.00 / 4)

They also aired stories on the Muslim smear and the so-called madrassa in Indonesia. Fox News was also pushing the Rev. Wright store before it broke into the wider media.

As for bashing Hillary, I think that happened at every single Republican debate and a number of Democratic debates as well. I think linfar or Texas Darlin' did a diary on this a couple of months ago. I'll have to look it up.

There is one big difference I think between the negative coverage of Obama and Hillary. Hillary was often painted as ruthless, desparate, negative and many commentators made personal comments that would never have been tolerated about Obama.

Another Clintonista against John McCain

by psychodrew on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:40:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 5)

It was an Obama volunteer, not part of the campaign staff.

And, the stories were different is some relevant ways. First, there was no evidence that the Obama campaign coordinated with the volunteer/questioner. Rather, he was just a volunteer who chose to ask a softball question. In the Clinton plant story, however, a member of her campaign gave a question to someone from a notebook of questions.

The context matters, as well. During that period, the Clinton campaign was rarely taking questions from the audience. She was the frontrunner, running a very low-risk campaign. Obama, on the other hand, was taking questions at almost all of his campaign stops, and many of them were clearly not softball questions (remember the heated exchange with an Iowan woman who suggested that Obama would be soft on terror?).

To her credit, Clinton began taking questions much more frequently after that. And, after Iowa, she took it even further, holding marathon town halls in which she answered endless questions with essay-worthy answers.

I'd rather not relitigate old issues, since each side has legitimate complaints about the media and campaign tactics. But, I didn't want to let your claim go unchallenged since I think there was a relevant difference between the two cases you mentioned. One really was a plant, while the other wasn't.

There's no question that Clinton was treated unfairly by the media, but after Rev. Wright, the flag-pin bullshit, Bill Ayers, questioning whether Obama is "black enough," etc., it's crazy to think that Obama has been given a free ride by the media. Can we just agree that the media is shameless, stupid, and worthless and try to develop a united way of dealing with that?

by DPW on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:40:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

Excuse me but there was hardly a mention of the Obama staffer in the first place, was there? AND there was no evidence that HRC knew that questions were being palnted or not. The point was that an Obama staffer posed as an ordinary Joe asking a question and the media by and large chose to ignore it while giving enormous coverage at the time to the Clinton faux pas. And please I saw that "exclusive footage" on CNN and I distinctly remember the tone of Blitzer's remarks as well as those of that other Obama stooge, Jack Cafferty. It was that HRC was a deceitful liar, taking advantage of a naive college girl. You remember Mr. Cafferty, don't you? He's the one who said on CNN January 4th, 2008 the following, "Barack Obama's victory speech last night was unbelievably brilliant...finally we have someone who can help us take our country back."

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:52:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

And my source for the "staff" remark was ABC News--they used the word staff. I'm sure it wasn't a high level staffer or maybe it was a volunter who can not be considered staff, but they (one of the few who EVEN reported the story in the first place)used the term.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

Here's the ABC story, wherein the questioner is identified as a volunteer. He's never refered to as staff, as far I could see.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/12/obamas-friendly.html

by DPW on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:13:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

Okay, if I'm wrong about the staff remark I will admit it. But I wasn't lying. I am almost positive I heard the word staff being referenced to this incident. The larger point being that it was barely mentioned while the Clinton story (which happens in almost all campaigns-planted questions were all over the place in the Bush campaigns) was blown up out of all proportion to feed the media narrative that HRC was a conniver and a manipulator. The tone of the whole thing on CNN was a disgrace.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:20:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 4)

Yeah, I'm not calling you a liar. I assume you either recall the coverage incorrectly or that some other coverage used the term "staff" and that you're remembering that. No worries.

I just can't resist an opportunty to defend Obama. I'm just defensive by nature, I guess. On the other hand, I rarely attacked Clinton during the primary season, and I'll be the first to admit that the press treated her like crap on too many occasions to count.

by DPW on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:27:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

If there had been any evidence that the Obama campaign planted the question, then this comparison would merit more consideration. The Clinton story was just more interesting because it involved a deliberate attempt by the campaign (whether Hillary knew about it or not) to control the questions being asked. The Obama case did not involve any involvement of the campaign. It was just a softball question from a volunteer. That's not much of a story.

And, there are a lot of situations where one candidate seemed to get more scrutiny in connection with a gaffe than another candidate who committed a similar gaffe. Obama got tons of shit about his re-use of Deval Patrick's "just words" riff, while Clinton's reuse of Bill's slogans and phrases didn't seem to get any traction.

by DPW on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:10:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

And who was the person who asked the college student to ask the question--some major Clinton insider? It was a big deal to the media who made it a three day story at the worst possible time. It was the lead story on The Situation Room while the Obama plant was vitually ignored and the Obama campaign was not put into the position of looking ridiculous.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:24:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

By the by Hillary has the right to use her husbands phrases all she likes. Bill said you'll be getting two for one, before he was first elected. The Deval Patrick situation was a one day story.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:26:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

A one day story? That's just wrong. It even came up in the Texas debate (including Hillary's overly rehearsed zinger--which was almost definitely written by someone else).

by DPW on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:29:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

And, Obama has the "right" to use Deval's riff, since Deval told him he could use it. It wasn't the smartest thing to do (even though I did like the riff), but he certainly didn't do anything wrong. All candidates have speechwriters, to be sure.

by DPW on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:31:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

It might have come up in the Texas debate but the whole matter was a one day story as far as the MEDIA was concerned. What about the Obama 1996 questionnaire where he stated that he was in favor of the banning the sale and manufacturing of handguns? Gibson of ABC News asked him about it and he basically denied it. I've seen that questionnaire and his own handwriting is on it. If he didn't answer the questions and had someone do it, then that was most irresponsible on his part. But I think he did fill it out.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

I agree, it was a silly story. It was a sincere question, the person was just encouraged to ask it. I agree it was petty and mean and lame. BUT, I think the corporate media will most often treat whoever is seen as the leading liberal candidate that way.

by rhetoricus on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (1.66 / 3)

Her biggest problem in Iowa was that she didn't take questions most places (the three I went to, including my hometown of Manchester). It came off as arrogant. Her campaign was flat footed and only really changed after the math was too much against her.

As an Edwards guy, you always feel that your candidate is getting the short end of the stick (the only news stories about him seemed to be about $400 haircuts). That is part of the problem. The other part is often the other people running a better campaign.

by IowaMike on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

No her biggest problem in Iowas was again the media was focusing on missteps, and the apparent lack of objectivity. On New Year's Day, how much mention was there of the ARG Poll (regardless of what you think of IT I'm talking about lack of a mention on the networks) as opposed to the Des Moines Register Poll, which was all over the place? How about an ABC/Washington Post Poll (national) which had Hillary increasing her lead over Obama. This was released on a Monday night on ABC's website. The following morning I watched Good Morning America to hear talk about the astonishing Clinton lead she was MAINTAINING (I think it was 31 points). NOT A WORD about the poll, but I did see a 7 minute interview with Oprah about a certain candidate she was supporting.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:54:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

In Iowa, we pay attention to the Des Moines poll. We know the rest of them never get it right.

She ran a bad flat footed campaign and lost to an unknown. A great campaign doesn't do that.

by IowaMike on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:14:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

Obama got the support from Republicans and Independents, okay? Then whyb are people accused of treason for saying they won't vote for Obama but Obama people loved the fact that Republicans voted for him in droves.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

You don't get the point. The OTHER poll was not MENTIONED or barely mentioned. It could have been used to counter the Des Moines Poll.

by handsomegent on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:25:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Virginia Liberal.... (none / 0)

I'm calling you out. Why exactly was this troll rated? Seriously.

by IowaMike on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Virginia Liberal.... (2.00 / 1)

I'm familiar with Virginia Liberal. I'm positive it was a mistake.

I'll uprate you anyway.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 3)

I understand how you feel. We have plenty of time to sort through our feelings before the election. I resolved at the beginning of the election cycle, when Hillary first joined the race in January 2007, to support the nominee no matter. Although there is a lot of anger and sadness in my heart right now, I keep reminding myself of this pledge.

Another Clintonista against John McCain

by psychodrew on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:53:41 AM EST

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 5)

Also, who called you what when?

Jeff Buffbarger called me a "latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund baby."

With Hillary Clinton standing right behind him. You are not the only person whose been attacked. It's easier for me to get over it because my (second choice) candidate won, but understand that most Obama supporters are moving on, because there's no longer a point in bringing up old grievances. It's not that we don't have any, it's that we'd rather make friends than nurse old wounds.

Again, I understand it's easier for us. I'm just trying to express where I'm coming from.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:55:32 AM EST

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

Who's Jeff Buffbarger? I've never heard of him.

I don't want to get into who had it worse. I imagine if Clinton had won, a lot of Obama supporters would be feeling the same way. I don't think it means the grievances are any less legitimate.

Also, please note that my diary isn't necessarily about Obama. Most of my criticism is directed at the press and the liberal commentocracy.

by OrangeFur on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:58:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

by DPW on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:01:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

Here's a longer version:

by DPW on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:03:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

He's head of the Machinists Union. I come out of the labor movement so I know who he is; he's considered to be something of a buffoon.

It's not a huge deal; I just mentioned it because it was the first thing I thought of.

Anyway I understand what you mean. And I'm sure you'll find your level. Stick around here if you would - for my part I've liked your posts.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:06:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

And I see I mangled his name.

Again.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:09:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is an insult? (2.00 / 2)

Jeff Buffbarger called me a "latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund baby."

Puh-lease.

Now, if he had mentioned "arugala-eating" you might have an argument.

by SophieL on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is an insult? (none / 0)

I wanna know where my Prius and trust-fund are.

by rhetoricus on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is an insult? (none / 0)

Okay, well I've also been called sexist by people who don't know I'm a woman, and once they do I've been told I don't understand sexism because I've never had to face it. Which makes me see red.

I've also been told that I'm going to lose the right to choose because I wasn't smart enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, so her voters are going to see to it that I'm punished by voting for McCain. Coyote Creek is big on that. She's out for blood - literally.

I've been told I'm overcome with white guilt. I've been told I'm swooning and horny. I'm constantly accused of telling people that unless they vote for Obama they're racists. I've never said any such thing. I'm also a cultist.

But I don't give a fuck what morons in the media or halfwits here call me. I mentioned Tom Buffenbarger (thank you, DPW), because he said that WITH HILLARY CLINTON STANDING RIGHT BEHIND HIM.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Somehow Hillary being the victim (none / 0)

just doesn't fit. I wonder why...

by Fairy Tale on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:06:52 AM EST

actually... (2.00 / 4)

hillary as victim was the turning point for her. whether you appreciate it or not, it rallied her supporters and gave her reason to fight on. i'd suggest it was a successful change in theme for her...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:46:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

I'm sure it was a very difficult and somewhat painful decision for you.

I am finding obstacles to changing to Independent.

I cannot change my party affiliation because it is between June 1 and August 31 in an even numbered year.

I can vote in a primary as an Independent if I get permission from the party. I'm still researching the permission process.

I'm not entirely clear how 3rd party candidates get on the ballot. There is a man who resembles Santa who stands on a main street with a huge handwritten sign and waves to motorists made it on the ballot in 2004. It might be easier than registering.

Further you must be registered 24 days before the election you want to vote in otherwise your registration won't be processed until after the election.

Hopefully your state is less restrictive and makes more sense.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:09:40 AM EST

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 2)

I almost wonder if this is snark, "I cannot change my party affiliation because it is between June 1 and August 31 in an even numbered year". That is incredibly stupid and shouldn't be allowed to be on any voter regulations anywhere. This is the type of thing the Democratic party needs to work on along with the whole bogus state by state election process we saw this time around. It is an extremely destructive process, and even though the party can't change it, they could exert a lot more influence than they have shown they are willing to. I am reregistering as an independent and the party needs to reform themselves before I plan to rejoin the party.

by Scotch on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (none / 0)

It is not snark.

I agree. It is silly and archaic. Some states make the process very difficult.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:50:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

I understand something about pain. I am curious what, if any, your reaction is/would be to the diary I posted today.

Mea Culpa

Does it make a difference, or is it just a drop in the bucket?

McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.

by catilinus on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:23:20 AM EST

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

Orange, we've had some pretty decent exchanges during this primary although we were generally on the opposite side of the arguments. Take your time but I reckon you really do belong in the Democratic party. It could sure use your dedication and energy. Fare thee well, in any case, and apologies for any slights made in the heat of the moment.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:48:38 AM EST

Right on the Money (1.55 / 9)

Wow, thank you for your diary - reading it I felt like I could have wrote this myself!!

While I respect and admire Hillary and am sorrowful that she has lost the nomination, the REAL anger and disgust I feel is for the Democratic partys' complete and total SILENCE as the sexism played out daily in the media. And every attempt they made to push her out in the smug and contemptuous fashion since Feb. 5th actually helped PROMOTE this sexist environment.

On the other hand, the same party bosses bought into and fueled the racism charges leveled against Bill Clinton of all people. Oh yes then there is Ferraro. Ridiculous.

Yes, I too decided long ago that I am an Independent after a lifetime of voting, volunteering, donating, and living and breathing the life of a loyal, proud Democrat.

The Democrat party has BADLY miscalculated this year - there is not a CHANCE that I will be voting the ticket until the party is rid of the elitist, smug, sexist and rich, out of touch bosses that run it. In other words Never.

"Clinging to my disgust for the Democratic party"

by vtluvr on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:41:00 AM EST

Re: Right on the Money (none / 0)

If you feel this way..
What are you doing at MyDD...

Yer Blues vtluvr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAvlYLCYO DU&feature=related

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on the Money (none / 0)

"Democrat party?" Try to make your trolling a little less obvious next time.

When I grow up, I want to be a superdelegate!

by robitude on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on the Money (none / 0)

Folks, this is a troll. Check the comment history.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on the Money (none / 0)

Just curious - what would you have had them do? You do realize what a feeding frenzy the media would have had if the party leadership had told the media to stop picking on Hillary, don't you?

John McCain Hates Poor People

by pneuma on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:42:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on the Money (none / 0)

vtluvr -- you are so right. What Obama supporters don't get is that their mistreatment of HRC and her supporters alienated half of the Dem party. The fact that the Dem Party would disrespect and mistreat one of their own in such a vile manner is the core issue here. Howard Dean's sudden epiphany of the sexist bias against HRC by the Dems and the media was hypocritical and insulting.

by trixta on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:25:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaving the church. (2.00 / 1)

I'm extremely sympathetic to the pain that you are feeling here. I hope you stick around this blog, we would be less than we are without your voice. I also hope that you can find a candidate in some race this fall that you can support wholeheartedly.

by GreenHills on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:47:41 AM EST

Go to KOS and See the Lunatic Fringe Bash Hillary (2.00 / 3)

Diary after diary dedicated to bashing Hillary, Bill
Lanny Davis anyone remotely connected to the Clintons. And this after the battle. I am now behind Obama, but the Obama fringe supporters don't seem to care about unity.

by hypopg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:51:57 AM EST

Re: Go to KOS and See the Lunatic Fringe Bash Hill (2.00 / 1)

I highly doubt there is "diary after diary" bashing Hillary. If there are, they are being troll rated quickly, just as Obama bashing diaries here are and will be.

by neonplaque on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go to KOS and See the Lunatic Fringe Bash Hill (none / 0)

Go to Hillaryis44 or TexasDarlin or Alegre's blogs... There is lunatic fringe on both side. The obama fringe seem to want her drug in the streeted and proverbially qu