Is It Everyone's Fault?

(cross-posted at MyDD)

I'm going to get flamed for resurrecting the primary wars. Maybe I shouldn't, but with the recent influx of PUMA members, I figure it can't hurt - we're already back to attacking and arguing with each other, which is a real shame because we were doing so well for awhile there. Some of us - including myself - are being pretty rude to the people with whom we disagree, and I doubt it's helpful. Still, I'm disinclined to stop because I have little patience remaining for people who refuse to support (or even tolerate) Obama as Hillary so openly has.

The two warring factions - the PUMAs and the people who are supporting the nominee - tend to blame one another (and the other candidate) for the divisions within the party, but I've begun to think that everyone involved shares some of the responsibility for the rift. Hillary and Barack certainly contributed to it, and their supporters magnified each point of contention and kept it alive. Outrage fueled outrage, and somewhere along the line, everything spiraled out of control.

So how did we get here? Is Hillary partially responsible?

Absolutely. While I will never buy into the "Hillary is a race-baiter" meme (and please, let's not start that argument in the comment thread), I'll admit that she was very harsh sometimes. The "shame on you" episode comes to mind, though I agreed with her. She was occasionally unfair, and she hit below the belt - when she grabbed hold of bittergate and employed a Republican tactic by calling Obama an elitist, I shook my head in disappointment. When she released an ad invoking Osama bin Laden, I watched it with wide-eyed horror. When she piled onto Obama during a debate in which he was being attacked by the mods, I frowned and sighed in exasperation. She mocked him at one of her rallies. She contributed to the problem.

Is Barack partially responsible?

Sure. When he attacked Hillary's healthcare plan with a flyer that strongly resembled the Harry and Louise ad from the `90s, I was furious: I saw it as not only an attack on my candidate, but an attack on universal healthcare, which was my top issue. When his campaign sent out a memo about what they perceived as an "insidious pattern" of allegedly racially insensitive remarks, I saw red. When he called her "divisive" and said she would do anything to win, I clenched my teeth until my jaw ached. I considered his "You're likeable enough" joke mocking and rude. He contributed to the problem.

But here's the thing: They were both fighting for the nomination, and they were supposed to attack each other. It was inevitable, and though they both took it too far at times, it was not unexpected. It wasn't unusual, it wasn't unprecedented. So from whence do the vitriol and animosity stem?

I think the hatred comes from their supporters (though most people know nothing of the blog wars). For one thing, each of us supported either an African American or a woman, and we expected to see discrimination. Many of us were overzealous and hyper-vigilant - we were constantly on the alert for any hint of bigotry or sexism, and though both were unquestionably present, I think we began seeing them when they weren't really there. We manufactured our own controversies. We parsed every phrase, analyzed every word, and scrutinized every expression. Not everyone did, but enough of us engaged in it to create a great deal of division. We were cruel to each other. We stopped listening. Obama supporters ruled DailyKos, and Hillary supporters fled here and largely took over. We developed resentments not only against Hillary or Obama, but also against each other. We stopped communicating, and our dialogue often devolved into vicious ad hominem attacks. We called each other cult members, racists, Republicans, and sexists. For a long time, I was angry at Obama supporters in general and decided that theirs was a top-down mentality; my disdain for them was deeply ingrained.

But just as our candidates' supporters contributed to the division, in my case they healed it. On MyDD, I discovered quite a few Clinton supporters who had come somewhat unhinged - their vehemence disturbed me; as they offended my sense of fairness and moderation, they inadvertently helped me forget my anger. They accidentally opened my mind toward the decent and reasonable Obama supporters. Several of them listened to my concerns and treated me with respect, despite my loathing for their candidate. In particular, I began getting along with Student Guy, ragekage, brit, fogiv, thatpurplestuff, Kysen, Setrak, hootie, mady, Spacemanspiff, and map (pardon me if I forgot your name - there are a lot of you). Those people were always thoughtful and helpful to me. Ragekage did manage to shame me on one occasion, but he wasn't hateful about it. When I explained my anger to him, he listened and responded to me politely and intelligently. I remember thinking, "Brit supports Obama and cares about his candidacy. I must be missing something..." I believe he had a similar thought about Hillary. I came to like a lot of Obama supporters, and I got to know them better than Clinton supporters because our relationships required more compromising, talking, explaining, sympathizing, and sharing to maintain. As I got to know them, I began looking at their candidate differently; surely so many smart, funny, considerate people wouldn't be supporting a dud.

So who can we blame for most of the division in the party? It's hard to say, though at the moment I tend to blame PUMAs the most, but to some extent, both candidates and their supporters are at fault. I don't know how to go about unifying the party; I've tried to reach out to several Hillary holdouts, but they've universally rebuffed my efforts. I lose my patience with them quickly, so here I sit, unable to do for the PUMAs what so many Obama supporters did for me. Maybe it would help if we all tried to put ourselves in each other's places. Maybe we should try to walk a mile in our antagonists' shoes, as they say. Unfortunately, I seem incapable of properly doing so, and if anyone should be able to understand PUMA, it should be someone like me, who once claimed I could never vote for Obama. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for long-time Obama supporters to see things from those people's perspective. Maybe it would help if we all admitted we were sometimes at fault, maybe if everyone accepted some responsibility.

Or maybe we should just ignore people who can't be reasoned with and hope they come around in their own time. Sadly, that may be the only solution.

We Miss Her, Too!

During the primaries, Beth Fouhy was embedded with the Clinton campaign for the Associated Press. She wrote a column today that begins with three words many of us have been saying: "I miss Hillary."

Here's a snip:

While covering the New York senator's White House bid for 18 often-exasperating months, I never imagined writing those words. But now that she's gone, I miss Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Puzzling, infuriating, electrifying Hillary.

I miss her story: the former first lady, freighted with baggage, trying to return to the White House in her own right. I miss watching her morph from entitled, inevitable nominee to scrappy underdog and how much better a candidate she became with her back against the wall.

I miss having a woman in the race and the excitement so many women felt at the prospect of electing the first female president. I miss seeing those women on the rope line at Hillary's campaign events, embracing and whispering to her as though she were their long-lost girlfriend.

Read the entire column here.

Saturday Night Open Thread

Wazzup, everyone! Have you had as crazy a week as I've had? I know, it's been tough.

So go ahead. Let your hair down. Relax. It's an open thread tonight, so anything goes!

I had an interesting day today. Today was my first day out since I became violently ill this past Monday. And of course, for my first day back out... I went to exciting Democratic/Obama volunteer leader training! I know, I know... I'm crazy.

So anyways, most of the folks there were die hard "Obamacans" who were happy to shout out "Yes We Can!" and talk everything Barack. And moi? Oh, I just wanted to figure out who was on my regional team so I could start working to elect Democrats! OK, OK, and I was also spotting out my friends and gossiping with them while the "Obamacans" were all chirpy. Yes, believe it or not I'm not altruistic all the time!

So anyways, what's happening with you? Talk to me. I don't want to talk about moi all the time. ;-)

Uproar and Trolls

Cross-posted at MyDD and at Obama--Criticism and Support.

Apparently the term "troll" originated in the 16th century to describe political debate and insult in London coffee houses. The term is thrown about too loosely. When I was active in bipolar listservs in the mid-1990s, a troll was a despicable person who joined the group pretending to be bipolar. He often set people against each other, preyed on the vulnerabilities of achingly vulnerable people, pretended to be in crisis, etc. We all knew what the word meant. Who knows what it means in political debate? In my first weeks on mybarackobama, I was accused of being a troll daily. Anyone capable of rational debate is not a troll. We all get intellectually lazy about explaining our principles and policies. It does us good to be challenged.

Parents learn to ignore obnoxious toddler or preschool behavior rather than to make a big fuss about it. Why don't you ignore the people that you consider trolls, don't bother rating their diaries and comments, don't comment on their diaries nor respond to their comments, don't impose timeouts. Concentrate on writing your own diaries and blog posts.

When my oldest daughter was 1 and 2, she pulled hair and dumped sand on people's heads. I finally realized that she wasn't inherently vicious; she just adored uproar. Her criminal behavior only occurred in the presence of parents absolutely guaranteed to go round the twist. She stopped eating sand when her pediatrician looked her in the eyes and told her how important it was to eat enough sand daily to stay healthy.

Real trolls love uproar. If you enjoy the insult game, you can't complain about your comrades in insult being trolls because you obviously relish uproar as well.

Here is what the devil child is doing now. She no longer eats sand, although she has spent a suspiciously long time in African deserts unobserved by me.

There might be hope for trolls and the troll accusers. When I was in high school and college debate, we addressed our most cutting remarks to "the honorable gentleman or lady of the affirmative (or negative) team." Listen to how Senators do it. Mixing politeness with insult is more effective.

For the PUMAs

A way out of our impasse:

McCain Watch: Ten Campaign Fiascos

Last week, I wrote about McCain Watch:

The Huffington Post and Moveon.org have launched a joint project called McCain Watch. To recieve presidential news about John McCain that you won't find anyplace else, sign up at McCain Watch.

Today's issue of McCain Watch is The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes. Max Bermann at the Huffington Post analyzes ten events and missteps by the McCain campaign that would have ended his campaign, had the media been paying attention.

1. McCain unambiguously called Social Security "an absolute disgrace."
2. McCain's top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of "whiners" for being worried about the slumping economy.
3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop.
4. McCain's economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable.
5. McCain's deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop.
6. McCain campaign misled about economists support.
7. McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians.
8. McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics.
9. McCain distorts his record on veterans benefits in response to a question from Vietnam Veteran, who then proceeds to call McCain out on it.
10. McCain demonstrates he knows nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Visit the Huffington Post to read this important article. To sign up for these email alerts, click here.

Why Does John McCain Hate Our Children?

(Cross-posted at MyDD)

I think some of the PUMA people in particular are making the mistake of giving John McCain the benefit of the doubt. By now, everyone has borne witness to his frantic appeals to the fundies of the far Right; I've rarely seen such outrageous and blatant pandering. I get the impression that McCain doesn't necessarily agree with everything he's saying, and that's the problem. McCain makes it easy for some of us to think, "He's just pandering during the election - he doesn't believe that stuff." Maybe some assume he won't hold to all the hard-line GOP positions once he's in office. Fortunately, there's one thing which can dispel this notion, and no one can it excuse as harmless pandering: his voting record.

If children's issues are any voter's top priority, McCain is the worst choice possible. I'm not talking about the choice between Obama and McCain - I'm talking about a hypothetical choice between McCain and any other US Senator. In 2007, the Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst Senator for children's issues. Obama and Clinton both have a history of child advocacy and scored well. This is a pattern which has held for three years. In 2005, the CDF rated Clinton 100%, Obama 100%, and McCain 22% based on their votes on bills addressing children's issues; in 2006, McCain's score deteriorated further, falling to 10%, while Clinton and Obama scored 90% and 100% respectively. Assessed by his votes on ten bills pertaining to children's issues, the CDF found that McCain's score held steady at 10% in 2007. Last year, voting on bills affecting children was not something he considered sufficiently important to show up to work for; he missed eight out of ten bills pertaining to children's issues, including but not limited to, ignoring or voting against a bill to increase funding for education for children with disabilities (absent), a bill designed to protect children from unsafe medications (absent), a bill which would extend health coverage to 3.2 million more uninsured children (nay), and a bill which supported education for children of immigrants (absent). McCain has also gone out of his way to agree with Bush's decision to veto children's health insurance expansion.

The bill, which would cost $35 billion over five years, is meant to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to provide coverage to an additional 10 million children. . . .Bush said he vetoed the bill because he considered it a step towards "federalizing" medicine and an inappropriately expanding the program's goal beyond its original focus on helping poor children.

During an interview onboard the CNN Election Express in South Carolina, McCain said he agreed with the president's decision.

Not only are children's issues unimportant to Senator McCain, but on the occasions when he deigns to discuss them, he reveals unsettling positions, including supporting school vouchers and an intention to reinforce Bush's failed No Child Left Behind Act. Senator Obama recognizes that NCLB is ineffective and has vowed to reform it:

In 2008, researchers at Rice University and the University of Texas-Austin found that,

. . . Texas' public school accountability system, the model for the national No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), directly contributes to lower graduation rates. Each year Texas public high schools lose at least 135,000 youth prior to graduation -- a disproportionate number of whom are African-American, Latino and English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students.

[. . .]

"High-stakes, test-based accountability doesn't lead to school improvement or equitable educational possibilities," said Linda McSpadden McNeil, director of the Center for Education at Rice University. "It leads to avoidable losses of students. Inherently the system creates a dilemma for principals: comply or educate. Unfortunately we found that compliance means losing students."

While McCain insists on continuing the failed policies of the past, Obama has made education reform a key part of his platform. He has called education "the currency of the Information Age," and promised to support initiatives to provide critical support to young children and their parents ("Zero to Five" plan); expand Early Head Start and Head Start; provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families; reform NCLB; make math and science education a national priority; address the dropout crisis; expand high-quality afterschool opportunities; expand summer learning opportunities; support college outreach programs; support english language learners; recruit, prepare, retain, and reward America's teachers; make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit; and simplify the application process for financial aid. Senator Obama's has a strong and consistent record on improving education opportunities for America's youth:

Record of Advocacy: Obama has been a leader on educational issues throughout his career. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama was a leader on early childhood education, helping create the state's Early Learning Council. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leader in working to make college more affordable. His very first bill sought to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation to achieve that goal in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act. Obama has also introduced legislation to create Teacher Residency Programs and to increase federal support for summer learning opportunities.

And there's one more education issue upon which McCain is out to lunch: Sex education. Asked by a reporter whether he supported grants for sex education in the United States, McCain stumbled over the issue:

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"

McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception - I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."

Something about this exchange doesn't inspire much confidence in a potential President McCain. He either has no idea what his position is, or he can't remember what the GOP wants him to say. Planned Parenthood has harshly criticized his opposition to spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies, legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based, and comprehensive sex education. I've always found it ironic that Republicans generally oppose any form of government funded sex education in public schools, which might prevent unwanted pregnancies and the transfer of sexual diseases, yet they condemn abortion. The inconsistency involved in this sort of thinking is alarmingly short-sighted.

Obama has taken a far more progressive stance on sex education, advocating age-appropriate sex ed. Controversy flared when Obama proposed sex education for kindergarteners, provided the children were prepared. The GOP slammed him on this position, despite the potential benefits it could provide. Even David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network has supported Obama's stance:

"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators. . . . Obama doesn't want to hand out condoms to five year olds. He doesn't want cucumber demonstrations as part of show and tell. The legitimate reasonable discussion here is whether the federal government and/or local school boards should get involved in providing these five year olds information about inappropriate touching or should it be left up to families only."

Predictably, such considerations haven't occurred - or just don't matter - to McCain, who has clearly made children's issues one of his lowest priorities. For any involved, concerned parent, Senator Obama is the obvious choice.

If any of you managed to make it all the way through this dry, boring diary, thank you and congratulations. As a reward, I now present to you several adorable pictures of our candidates with cute little babies. Please, I know it's tough, but try not to faint from an overload of cuteness. I will not be responsible for any injuries you may incur from falling out of your computer chair.

Oh, dear. Is it just me, or do McCain and the baby look a little frightened?

Giving Credit

I've been hard on Obama for what I perceive to have been his weak outreach to Clinton supporters. There is a story in the LA Times about him reaching out to a Clinton donor, Jill Iscol. He called her personally to ask for her support.

Barack Obama told a potential donor to his campaign that Hillary Rodham Clinton is on his list of possible vice presidential running mates, but that her husband's status as a former president makes matters "complicated."

Jill Iscol, a faithful Democratic donor who was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, said Obama reached out to her because he heard she was unhappy about the way the New York senator had been treated by the Democratic Party and the media.

Iscol reports that she suggested he choose Hillary as his running mate and Obama indicated that she was on his list. However, he reportedly told Ms. Iscol that Bill is a "complication."

Senator Obama, I've given you a lot of grief, but I'm glad to see you reaching out. Keep it up!

mediaFail: Liddy Edition.

On the July 9 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a July 8 speech in which Sen. Barack Obama discussed the importance of learning a second language, G. Gordon Liddy claimed that Obama "wants you to be sure your child can speak fluent illegal alien." He added: "Sadly, with every legal and cultural step we take to make our life more immediately convenient for non-English-speaking illegal aliens, we merely feed the beast."

Liddy later stated: " 'Round here, let's see, I speak some French, some German as well as English. Franklin [Liddy's producer] speaks fluent French, fluent Italian, as well as English. But none of us here, so far as I know, speak illegal alien." He had previously said of undocumented workers from Mexico: "[T]hey want to speak Spanish, you know, and other varieties of illegal alien."

From the July 9 broadcast of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show:

LIDDY: And that, of course is the latest pander from Barack Obama. He says that Europeans coming over here can speak German and French. Well, yes, if you're from Germany I would suspect you would speak German. And you -- you would speak French and they do study English because English is the universal language. All aircraft communications and all the rest all over the world are in English. No, they're not in Russian or Chinese, or anything else. But think about that; he wants you to be sure your child can speak fluent illegal alien. Sadly, with every legal and cultural step we take to make our life more immediately convenient for non-English-speaking illegal aliens, we merely feed the beast.

[...]

LIDDY: You've just heard Barack Obama insisting that we all teach our children Spanish. Well, not mine, no way. 'Round here, let's see, I speak some French, some German as well as English. Franklin speaks fluent French, fluent Italian, as well as English. But none of us here, so far as I know, speak illegal alien.

What a Douche.

Click here to hear the clip if you can stomach it.

Taming Trolls

If you don't immediately recognize this, you have a serious case against your parents for child abuse and cannot be held responsible for any untoward behavior on blogs. But you need to be in the children's section of your public library tomorrow morning.

"And when he came to the place where the wild things are, they roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws till Max said, "BE STILL!" and tamed them with the magic trick of staring into all their yellow eyes without blinking once and they were frightened and called him the most wild thing of all and made him king of all wild things."

Maurice Sendak, Where the Wild Things Are

Why I STILL Have No Thrill for the Drill

(Cross-posted at MyDD and Democratic PartyBuilder)

You know, I love Jerome Armstrong. I really do. When so many of us Hillary Clinton Democrats were being bashed around everywhere else, he provided us with a warm & welcoming home over at MyDD. I'll always appreicate him for that. Oh yeah, and he's wicked smart as well!



But you know what, Barack Obama is our Democratic nominee. I've made peace with that. Oh yes, and I really like his energy & environment plan. And while I agree with Jerome on many other matters, I just have to disagree with him on this.











Sorry, but I simply don't see the logic of agreeing to the Bush-Cheney energy "plan" of attempting to solve all our problems by drilling for more oil! It simply makes no sense. It's a fleeting political fad that will soon fade, and worse yet it will do NOTHING to solve our energy crisis.



Believe me, lifting the offshore drilling ban will NOT lower gas prices. No, it really won't.  Oh yes, and more offshore drilling would destroy our coastline. Do we really want to lose our beaches and our coastal wildlife forever to do nothing about the energy crisis? And no matter how much the Rethuglicans tell us how "stupid" we are to be "Dr. No", we don't have to cave into them... We already have the facts on our side!




So what can we actually do to relieve the pain at the pump in the near term while also focusing on real energy solutions for the long term? Well, we can simply encourage the oil comapnies to drill on those 68 million acres of federal land where they already have leases! There, problem solved!



And at the same time, we can begin investing in our energy future. Invest in better conservation measures. Invest in clean, renewable energy. This is our energy future. T. Boone Pickens, the Center for American Progress, and many more real experts now agree that our future rests not with the same ol' oil, but with new ideas.



Let's face the facts. We're running out of oil. We're in the midst of a dangerous climate crisis. We need real solutions, not political gimmicks.



And btw, let's all support those who are calling for real solutions... Just an idea! ;-)

Where We Can Go from Here

(Proudly cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama, Democratic PartyBuilder, and MyDD)

I know, I know. It's been a tough week for all of us who care deeply about our Constitution, the foundation of our republic. And yes, I know what's made this week tougher was Barack Obama's agreeing to this capitulation to Bush-Cheney. So what do we do now? Where can we go? How can we put this disappointment behind us?

Follow me after the flip as I discuss where we can go from here...

First off, I know some here have been uncomfortable seeing us argue over the FISA Amendments Act. But you know what? It's not always a bad thing when all of us don't agree with Obama on everything.While I strongly disagree with Obama's stance on the final FISA Amendments Act, I'm glad that there has been open discussion of this here and at other progressive/Democratic communities. Obviously, many of us ARE distressed & disappointed over this. While we all understand that sometimes we have to compromise to get at least some of what we want, I just think that the Constitution is something we should NEVER compromise on.

And no, I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way. That's whyit's important for us to have an open discussion on this. After all,haven't we all hated seeing how the Bush-Cheney regime has alwayscrushed dissent? And how the GOP "dittohead" footsoldiers neverquestion their own leaders on anything?

We're Democrats (and Independents, and Greens, and others, and even ex-Republicans), and we're supposed to be better than that. We're theones who are supposed to be questioning authority. We're the ones whoare supposed to hold our leaders' feet to the fire. We're the ones whoare supposed to strive to make things better for everyone.So are we all still united to elect Obama this fall? Sure. But will weall agree with everything he does? No. And are we supposed to blindlyaccept everything he says? I don't think so.

OK, so now we all understand the value of open discussion. But hey, open discussion doesn't get Democrats elected! I know that. That's why it's also important that we move on to working hard to ensure we don't see any more disappointments like this in the coming months and years.And how can we do this? We can get involved with the Democratic Party in our communities. By electing more & bettter Democrats, we're doing our part to ensure we won't see any more massive failures to protect & defend our Constitution. So by volunteering and contributing, we can do a whole lot to take back our country.

Also, why not reward those who have been fighting the good fight all along? Help the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation fight this horrid FISA capitualtion in court. Believe it or not, we still have a chance to have our say in court. And since this bill is NOT a Constituional Amendment, we have at least a decent chance of overturning this heinous violation of our Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Oh yes, and let's also remember to reward the great Democrats that stood with us the whole time? Remember Chris Dodd. Remember the Blue America candidates. Remember Russ Feingold. Remember Barbara Boxer. Oh, and remember Hillary Clinton! She didn't have to stand with us, but she did. She's showing her true-blue colors now as a progressive warrior. But hey, if you don't want to give there, give here.

And finally, let's not forget about our nominee. While he disappointed us on the final vote, Barack Obama did support all the important amendments that would have improved the bill. And as President, he's promising us that he will work to improve this legislation. So yes, let's hold him accountable & make sure he keeps his promise. And at the same time, let's all work our patooties off to ensure he becomes President so we can actually hold him to that promise! :-)

North Dakota? I mean, c'mon, North Dakota?

So we're 116 days out before we start counting electoral votes, and that is a lifetime in politics, but if you're the Republicans' Apparently-Not-Ready-for- Prime-Time Presumptive Nominee, you have got to be noticing some distressing things. Like, say, North Dakota. If I were John McCain, I might be annoyed, or worried, or maybe just a touch suicidal about Rasmussen's poll for North Dakota (7/8/08 - 500 LV, 4.5% MOE):

Obama 43
McCain 43

See, the problem here for Mr. McCain is that in 2004, North Dakota went this way:

Bush 62.9
Kerry 35.5

And let's not forget everyone's favorite tune, the 2000 race:

Bush 61
Gore 33

I could keep going backward, but I think you get the drift. Everyday Mr. McCain needs to spend in a place like North Dakota is one more day that he doesn't get to spend in a place like Pennsylvania or Ohio.

Mr. McCain's problem is that there are a surfeit of states where he needs to win handily but he's on the brink of losing--places like Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina. A way to look at what this means is to think about the places the candidates are campaigning. Since June 20, Obama has made 23 campaign stops, and 13 of them have been in red states. He's been campaigning in places like Montana, Georgia, North Dakota, Colorado, and Nevada. Meanwhile, Darth McVader has also been campaigning in places like Indiana, Colorado, and Nevada.

I mean, c'mon. The Republican nominee has to campaign in Indiana? If the Republican faithful need some razor blades, I'll be happy to set them up for them.

Stop Squabbling and Build the Nonviolent Revolution

May 2007. I take care of my toddler grandson 3 days a week, so people under 2 are my peer group.

Crossposted at MyDD and Daily Kos. Thanks to my fellow bloggers on Clintonistas for giving me the courage to do it.

I am new here, and I am trouble. Perhaps the Obama and Clinton supporters should stop squabbling with each other and concentrate on me. I do believe that she who laughs, lasts, so humor might temper my elder arrogance. My name is Mary Joan, and I am far more a Joan than a Mary. Imagine how much more fun Western art would be if Mary, the mother of God, and Joan of Arc had exchanged wardrobes.

I am one day older than the atom bomb, born the day after Trinity (I expect birthday greetings very soon if you know your history:) I was a 1960s radical nonviolent pacifist and am a card-carrying member of the War Resister's League. I can go spectacularly limp if you try to drag me from the demonstration. I have not changed as I raised 4 daughters, took care of my dying parents, worked as a public librarian and social worker. I am not a dried up old crone. My English husband, 16 years younger, gave up job and country to swim the Atlantic to marry me.

We need a nonviolent revolution to transform America into a children-friendly, family-friendly, elder-friendly, human-being-friendly society that is not the disgrace of most of the world. If you want to have children or take care of your aging parents, you would be better off moving almost anywhere in the world.

I supported Hillary and I am now supporting Obama by holding his clay feet to my progressive fires. I am a million percent sure the US will be better off with him as president than McCain as president. But I have no illusions he is a liberal or a progressive. He will only be as liberal as the country forces him to be. I have known that from the beginning, so I don't feel betrayed.

Since Obama became the presumptive nominee, I became very active in mybarackobama , and in a month have amassed 867 points and am in 7416 place. Joining lots of groups, making sure my blog posts land on their group page, then deciding they are worthless and leaving are the keys to my point total. I feel like a first grader bragging about the gold stars on my forehead. I have been asked to leave two groups, but I started 3 groups of my own, which I control absolutely. My blogs posts can be sent to 10 groups at once. Mybarackobama seems remarkably open to Obama criticism. I hope it continues after he wins the election. I feel I am having a much more positive impact than if I was feeding my resentments on Puma blogs.

Let's stop squandering the ideas, energy, passion needed for the revolution on destructive family squabbles. I thought the feminists of my generation would change things so that our kids could combine careers and children and elder care. I intend to dedicate the rest of my life to making sure my grandchildren can. I have a 14-month old grandson with a granddaughter due in August and another one due in December.

If you think managing careers and child care is difficult, wait until a phone call in the middle of the night plunges you into the nightmare of combining elder care and your career. And no, Medicare or Health Insurance does not pay for custodial care and help with the activities of daily life for failing or demented elders who are going to die of their illness. Medicare or Health Insurance might spend hundreds of thousands on death bed heroics. but they won't pay for an aide willing to change adult diapers. I hope you all are practicing. I suggest wrapping the use diaper in a plastic bag and tossing it out the bathroom window to a garbage can outside the window. But you need to live in a house for that.

I have been a feminist since my brother was born when I was 18 months old. Having 4 more younger brothers reinforced it. The culminating moment was when I was preparing for First Communion and the nun informed me that boys went up first because they could be priests and were closer to God. !6 years of misogynistic Catholic education guarantees radical feminism for life.

I was the only girl in my political science classes at Fordham and I especially love to argue with men. I don't do tact. So when is my birthday and why do I call myself Redstocking Grandma? If you can't answer those two questions, you undoubtedly need to read more history and do less blogging and commenting. Ask me for a reading list. I give lots of homework.

In addition to this blog, I blog as restockinggrandma at Feminism in the 2008 Election and Beyond and Obama--Criticism and Support: Progressives and the 2008 Election Time will tell if I moderate my blogs, censoring people who can't pass my history test:) That is a joke guys. I am the proud owner of a red sweatshirt that says "Never love a man who doesn't love Jane Austen, Doris Lessing, and Margaret Drabble." More homework again. It actually should have said, "Never Be Treated by a Psychiatrist Who Never Heard of Jane Austen." After 8 years of trying, that shirt got me an English husband. We met on a Jane Austen online listserv.. A nonviolent revolutionary who loves Jane Austen, what's not to love?

Cutting Your Nose Off to Spite Your Face:

It’s a really bad idea.

I’ll freely admit that I don’t like PUMA. I think it’s a terrible idea to work against the Democratic nominee, especially since PUMA members believe in most of the values Hillary believes in. I don’t fully understand what they’re trying to accomplish. Are they punishing the party, or do they think Hillary has a chance to win the nomination? I agree with them on many things – caucuses are undemocratic, the process was unfair, Hillary was treated like sh*t by the media. So I concur with them in a lot of ways, but in weighing my choices, I’ve come to the conclusion that supporting Obama is the only logical path to take. From a purely selfish point of view, if I want to protect my own rights as a woman, he’s the only option for me. While I understand the PUMAs’ pain, I do think they’re being somewhat irrational, and I’m furious at a lot of them for working against Hillary and harassing those of us who are trying to do what she asked us to do.

And yet, on some fundamental level, I understand them. They’re hurt and angry. They worked hard for a woman I love and invested a lot of their time, money, energy, and emotion in her campaign – just as I did. I respect that. It’s painful when people I used to get along with call me a faux Clinton supporter because I’ve been open-minded about Obama. It’s painful because what I’ve done – what all of us have done – has been hard. No one is enjoying this. There was a time when my excitement and happiness about the 2008 presidential elections was nearly rapturous. I couldn’t wait to see Hillary rip McCain to shreds in the debates. She’s a fighter, a scrapper, a champion, and I couldn’t wait to see her take on (and take down) the GOP. Whenever I felt sad or distressed about anything in my personal life, I used to close my eyes and imagine watching Hillary being sworn into office; it never failed to bring a smile to my face. I gave her more money than I could afford, and spent hours upon hours making calls for her. It didn't work out. The dream died. But I’d do it all over again in a heartbeat.

Despite the hurtful things they’ve said, I hold out hope that most of the PUMA people, particularly alegre, will return to us.

The people for whom I have no sympathy, however, are the purity trolls who are accusing us of being concern trolls. In attacking C4O, they’re attacking linfar, who has given her phenomenal support to the Democratic nominee, and who was arguably the strongest advocate for Hillary on MyDD, aside from alegre. They’re attacking atdnext, who’s gone SO far out of his way to build this group and work for Obama. They’re attacking canadian gal, who I consider a cherished friend, and who was consistently the most polite, fair, and level-headed Clinton supporter on MyDD. They’re making a special effort to harass psychodrew, who has made many sacrifices and is fighting to defeat John McCain, despite his anger and pain over Hillary’s loss. Naturally, they’re also attacking me and disregarding the fact that I’ve been defending Obama for over three months, much to the annoyance of other Clinton supporters I respected. I was loathe to do it, too. A lot of Hillary supporters learned to have little tolerance for me. CG and I always got along, though we sometimes disagreed, and I got on well with aurelius, Denny Crane, and a couple of others. Beyond that, I was not well liked by the people with whom I agreed; I was often ignored, and sometimes faced outright hostility.

Other than the C4Os and a handful of Clinton supporters who never spurned me, most of my friends on MyDD are Obama supporters. For months, I’ve been friends with people who were thorns in the side of the majority of Hillary’s advocates. I listened to Obama supporters’ grievances, and then I told them mine in reasonable (most of the time), measured tones. We got to know each other better than I’ve ever gotten to know most of the Clinton supporters, and it was because we were forced to talk in order to work out our differences and come to a mutual understanding. I didn’t get to know Hillary supporters as well precisely because I agreed with them – I read their comments, nodded in silent agreement, and uprated them; there was little need for dialogue between people I agreed with. Maintaining friendships with Obama supporters involved a good deal of compromise and a lot of talking, explaining, sympathizing, and sharing. Those people helped me see Obama in a new light, and I helped them learn to look at Hillary in a new way. I adore the people who showed me that Obama has many admirable qualities, and I owe them a debt of gratitude. Because of them, I’ve probably had a much easier time giving my support to their candidate than most of the other C4Os have had. We’ve all made sacrifices in the name of our candidate, and in the name of the Democratic nominee. For people to accuse us of being trolls is beyond the pale. Forgive my melodrama, but…

How. Dare. They?

How dare they demean and denigrate our efforts? How dare they attack us when we’re doing more to elect the nominee than they are? You will notice that they haven’t written any pro-Obama or anti-McCain diaries lately. They may have written a few hit pieces on Hillary, but that’s about it. Hardly a contribution to MyDD. I’ve rarely seen more divisive people, and their antics are dangerous because, quite frankly, they help dampen my enthusiasm for Obama, and they reinforce the idea that Obama supporters are impulsive jackasses. I know that most Obama supporters are good people, but a lot of Hillary supporters still haven’t realized that basic fact. That’s NOT what we want PUMA people to see. We don’t want them to see Obama supporters attacking us for supporting their candidate – why would anyone want to help him if they know they’re going to be attacked by the people who should be working alongside them?

I’m sick and tired of these people. I don’t really know why they get under my skin so much. Maybe it’s because I think we all deserve a little civility, considering what good sports we’re being. That’s why I’m taking a short break from MyDD. I’m tired of fighting a two-front war: An influx of PUMAs and purity trolls doesn’t make for a pleasant environment. I know I’ll be back soon; people are asking me to return, and I know it’s somewhat cowardly and immature for me to abandon a site I like because I’m avoiding inconsiderate trolls. Still, I need awhile to get my head on straight. I don’t want to lose my cool. In the meantime, we have several Obama supporters defending us, and that makes me happy. It makes me think I should return as soon as possible so that I can stand up for them, too.

But for just a short while, I’m going to sit back and watch the destructive purity trolls damage their nominee. If they want to cut off their own noses to spite their faces, who am I to stop them?

[EDIT: BN finally wrote a diary attacking McCain and the MSM. It's a miracle! Wonder if it had anything to do with some of us pointing out that we were doing more work for the nominee that s/he was? Doesn't matter, though: s/he's still a lying, useless, divisive sack of crap.]