If you have "no place to go," come here!

1920* - 2008 Progress or pandering

twandx's picture

The Pennsylvania Primary results threw a scare into the BO campaign and its supporters. Before, callers to talk radio and TV programs warned of “trouble” if the Super delegates chose HRC over BO.

Then the Pennsylvania exit polls showed that more than a third of the supporters of HRC would NOT vote for BO. No threats here, no mob action – just a peaceful protest for good reasons.

But on hearing that, the Obambots went ballistic. There will be terrible repercussions if HRC is the nominee.” “We will leave the Democratic Party!” “Blacks will not vote in the General election” and so on, threat after angry threat.

Their point is that BO must win no matter what happens. Some callers threatened violence and anger permeated the airways. They insist that the coronation go forward.

Women are the majority of Democratic voters and have always been taken for granted. Most support HRC and most will not vote for BO, and they are angry. They differ from BO supporters in that they have reasons for their anger. You won’t hear much of this from the mean-stream media but it is all over the Blogs.

Reason # 1: Topping the list is Florida and Michigan where HRC won a majority in both Primaries. One can argue that the DNC did not allow these delegations to be seated or counted at the coming Convention.

However, Chairman Howard Dean has promised that once the candidate is chosen, he will allow the delegations to be seated and vote – but of course not for the candidate they want to vote for - HRC.

HRC was for a do-over of both Primaries but BO blocked this solution.
He knew that she would win both again and would tie him and he wasn’t about to let this happen.

Reason #2: The collusion of the media and the DNC to derogate HRC and ignore any deficit in BO’s experience and character. This bias also contributed mightily to the huge amount of contributions coming in to his campaign.

Thanks to Blogs that kept slogging out the truth, finally, some real light was shone on BO and he reacted by whining, blaming HRC and using more negative advertising while denying that he was doing this.

He sure had the money for PA and spent $10.63/vote. HRC won 55 to 35% and spent $2.40/vote. Who would you chose to manage the money of your country?

Reason #3: The many pejorative, sexists’ remarks from the media directed at HRC. They come at us all the time and most women feel the sting and unfairness of the continuous slams against our gender. It is directed at us, our gender and it angers us. Just to mention a few:

· Clinton "look[ed] like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court."
· "[w]hite women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that."
· "a scolding mother, talking down to a child."
· "trying to run away from this tough, kind of bitchy image
· "when [Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs
· "sort of alternately soppy and bitchy.'"
· Then there were the many times it has been said, by pundits to raucous laughter, that if BO took HRC as his running mate, he would need a food taster. They do not say this when commenting on a BO/HRC ticket.

But the final straw was a universal misogynist slap down of women when BO publicly flipped the bird to HRC, urged on by the roars of his supporters.

“The way Hillary has been treated and sexist language affect women deeply and they will write in Hillary on the ballot if she does not get the DNC nomination." – this is a frequent Blog comment.

Much has been written and commented on concerning the high regard and loyalty of BO’s supporters. But now the DNC and media-spawn-of-Cthulhu, will be forced to recognize the regard and devotion of women for HRC and face the consequences of their unfair treatment.

*1920 - The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Susan B. Anthony amendment, grants the right to vote to all U.S. women over 21.

No votes yet


myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

and Hillary was the frontrunner.

Then Barack Obama came along to "unify" us.

"McGovern - Mondale - Dukakis - Obama

The few, the lame, the losers

kc's picture
Submitted by kc on

(you knew the but was coming)I just read in the comment section on a Taylor Marsh post (the one on KO's latest stupid comments) that the apportionment of delegates, their weighting, was only begun in 2006. This, giving more delegates in some areas of states than in others, has certainly helped Obama with his delegate count.

This, in conjunction with Donna Brazile's rules are rules re Florida and Michigan, seem to be quite a coincidence in Obama's favor.

I know this may seem far fetched but nothing surprises me anymore.

scarshapedstar's picture
Submitted by scarshapedstar on

Fuck anyone who sits this election out. Threats of Naderism are the very worst form of wankery, whether from the Oborg or the Hilleviathan.

Think about it.

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

had nine choices, thanks to Idaho (No, you da ho!)NYC had two.

"McGovern - Mondale - Dukakis - Obama

The few, the lame, the losers

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I will of course vote in all the downticket races. But I honestly don't know if I can vote for Obama, I am a white working class woman, with some college education. He has informed me many times, that he doesn't care about my vote.

You can't scare me with Roe, because I don't trust Obama on it. You can't scare me with the economy, because I don't trust Obama with it. The only thing I could be scared with, is the war, because I want it over. And I don't even know if I could trust him on that. Clinton and McCain both understand that the CiC tells the military what to do(though they would tell them different things). I honestly feel that if a room full of military men, stood in the Oval Office with Obama, he could be "swayed"*, and the brass wants to save face in Iraq(which is of course why we have a CiC, and that colors their advice.

I am honestly flummoxed about what I'll do at the top of the ticket this year. I won't vote for McCain, goodness knows I'm a Good Democrat. But I am beginning to feel that my party may deserve to fail(the Republican party does as well, but I can't do anything about that, I like to believe we are more principled than them, too), so the Dem party can remember its ideals, because it used to be a good thing that it represented the hopes and dreams of the working class, women, and the elderly.

In many ways, the machinations of the so-called "creative class", have made me the that I am no more than a pawn in the complicated chess game, that the outcome of this election is all an "intellectual exercise" that will have no real consequences. But I believe that under an Obama Administraion, I will struggle no worse or no better, than I have under the past 7 years of the Bush Administration, or under at least 4 of a McCain Administration. And I will not be party to inflicting that upon myself.

*Obama, like it or not, has demonstrated a tendency to be drawn into the inner circles of charismatic men.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

A normal person would have been horrified to have their name associated with that, and would have called to apologize instantly. I know Obama wasn't responsible for it, but I also know that he didn't take any action to prevent it from happening again. Now, I don't see Clinton supporters getting together and laughing about what a fucking whore Michelle is.

If he doesn't have the minimal level of decency to tell his supporters that calling Clinton a fucking whore is out of bounds, then he go fuck himself. Women aren't going to do well under that administration.

As for Iraq - getting the troops out safely will be difficult and require a lot of people functioning at the very of their professionalism. Gettting politicians and defense industry professionals to SUPPORT getting the troops out of Iraq is going to be damn near impossible and is going to require a president willing to push as hard as possible non-stop for it to happen. I just don't see any evidence that Obama has the kind of backbone necessary to accomplish that backbreaking task. I don't think he can do it. I think he's gonna go all LBJ on us, hire McNamara and in four years Rick Santorum is going to be telling us about his "secret plan" to get us out of Iraq.

If he can't stand up to Randi Rhodes, how the fuck is he going to stand up to the conservatives in the Pentagon?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

is simply impossible when it comes to all important issues/problems--and that's what he's advocating.

We can't "come together" and get us out of Iraq, or get universal healthcare, or increase taxes on the rich--because some people and interests won't agree--ever. You have to be willing to ignore those who will lose money or status if the right thing gets done, and willing to be hated--and devoted to the cause.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

It's a key part of his coalition, especially the online segment.

"Where's the beef? - Clara Peller