Comment of the day
From FemB4Dem (emphasis mine):
I am a longtime Dem — a money sending, door knocking, phone banking, foot soldier dem. No way I vote for Obama. Not only that, if my state is in play in November, I vote for McCain. Otherwise, I will be guilty of agreeing to, and participating in, the greatest screw over of women ever by 1) a major political party, and 2) the mainstream media. And why am I supposed to vote for him? Oh yeah, because the Dems are better for women — especially for those young, Obama-swooning type women who might need to exercise that right to choose we older women have protected for them for so long. Not this time. Nope, I won’t be an enabler in an attack on myself. It’s really that simple. What’s not to get?
Seems like a good opportunity to post the big version of the PUMA video link I made for my sidebar today:
23 Responses to “Comment of the day”
-
Marie says:
Nicely put, FemB4Dem. It’s about time we get to be the screw-over-ers rather than the screw-over-ees!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:44 pm EST -
thebewilderness says:
People have been saying this stuff in blog threads for months.
I don’t get it.
If a person were a fem before a Dem why in the world would they pass up an opportunity to vote for a woman for preznit in favor of a misogynist like John McCain.
Can it be that they are neither a Feminist nor a Democrat, but rather a McCain supporter?
There seems to be as much ratfucking going on in the Feminist Blogosphere these days as there was in the 1972 Nixon campaign.
Carl Rove worked on that one too.
If you want to get mean, go Green. -
hysperia says:
Disclosure: I’m a Canadian; I was never happy with either Clinton or Obama and even less so with McCain. I was infuriated by the sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton during the Primaries, especially the stuff that came from Democrats.
But what I’d like to know now is, instead of pulling support from Obama in favour of McCain, why don’t Hillary’s women consider supporting Cynthia McKinney? I say that because it’s what I think I’d do. If neither the Republicans or the Democrats are doing it for women, why not get out of the two-forked river entirely?
-
hysperia says:
P.S. I LOVE the Puma!
-
Thomas says:
Let’s do this the right way. Force a roll call vote in Denver.
Hillary in August. Nothing less.
Spread the word.
-
kenoshaMarge says:
I’m right there with ya FemB4Dem. I live in Wisconsin and I believe that it will be very close here. Kerry barely slipped through.
That being so, and fearing Obama’s hostile takeover of my former party more than McCain, I will be voting for McCain.
My vote belongs to me and if I have to use it to poke my former party in the eye for it’s corruption then I will do so. In fact, unlike when I voted for Kerry, I won’t even have to hold my nose. That’s how pyst off I am!
-
DarthVelma says:
Hysperia, I totally agree. I do not understand the people saying they’ll vote for McCain. There is a truly feminist option this time around…vote for Cynthia McKinney. Voting for McCain won’t really send a message to the Dems…or if it does they won’t get it. They are just that clueless. But a mass of votes for an African-American woman representing a party that puts support for feminist ideals front and center in their platform…that just might get through some rather think skulls.
-
Violet says:
My personal plan is to either write in Hillary or vote McKinney, but I don’t think women who are looking at the McCain option are ratfucking Republicans in disguise. I’ve seen and heard from too many of them, including in real life. It’s just a pragmatic decision: if the goal is to deal the Democrats a staggering blow and wrest the party from Opossum’s grip, we need to make sure Opossum loses. Ergo, vote McCain.
It’s not that anybody (at least that I know) actually likes McCain or is unaware that he’s a freakazoid.
-
Violet says:
By the way, those of you who are new: we’ve discussed the Green option at length in threads throughout this blog. A lot of us plan to vote Green, and a lot of us have talked about infusing the Greens with new energy to create a viable third party.
-
hysperia says:
Thanks for the response Violet. I’ll do a little more looking around in future before entering the conversation. I think I did it in an earlier thread as well.
-
Violet says:
Oh, no problem, and I hope you didn’t take offense.
Actually the question remains as to why more Hillary supporters don’t plan to vote Green. It’s just because third parties are such non-starters in American politics. Most people consider a third-party vote a complete waste of time. (Whether it is or not is another thing, but I’m just pointing out that most people regard it that way.)
-
FemB4Dem says:
Violet — thanks for making my post your Comment of the Day.
For those of you asking about voting for Cynthia McKinney, as I said in my comment, I intend to vote for McCain only if my state is in play. More on that below. If it is not, however, I absolutely will consider voting for Ms. McKinney if she gets the Green Party nomination. As I understand it, right now she is one of four candidates running for that spot on the ticket. Since the third parties are not set yet, there will be time to address that later.
McCain. Ugh. What can I say, he’s the best of a very bad lot. If I have to vote for him I will be voting for two things — 1) split government; 2) recovery of my formerly beloved Democratic party.
As a general rule, split government is a LOTE* choice, and I believe this is a LOTE election. There is a lot not to like about McCain, no doubt. Obama? He scares me. He is such a cipher because our rotten mainstream media has utterly failed in its duty to cover issues, and instead simply swooned for the thought of Obama early on. I just recently read his speech from 2006 about a “Call to Renewal.” Read it yourself, it’s on his website if you can stand to go there. The part that hit me hardest was this:
“You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”
Hmm. The very last thing this country needs after 8 years of “I talk to my higher father” Bush, is another arrogant, untested young man who thinks he’s been called by god to greatness, and is convinced his judgment is superior to everyone else’s. Is that Obama? On arrogance, see Violet’s post above about the Great Seal of Obamaland, and Obama’s own comment about how he “is absolutely confident” that he knows more about foreign policy than Senator Clinton or McCain because he lived in Indonesia when he was 7 or 8 years old. On being called by god? “I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth” worries me — and his reaching out to evangelicals and the so-called Joshua generation? More worries. On “superior judgment” — that’s the underpinning of his entire campaign. Just thinking of all the harm an unfettered president can do makes me willing to settle on split government as the LOTE precisely because I don’t know, and I would suggest no one knows, enough about Obama to trust him with that kind of power.
Recovering the Democratic Party — If Obama wins, it’s gone. The man is a walking, talking personality cult. If you doubt that, when you go on his website to read his speech, check out some of the comments on his blogs by his groupies, or the creepy graphics of him in the clouds. The DNC is now in Chicago, all money for the party comes through Obama — it is not my party and I want it back. The only way to accomplish that goal is to defeat the illegitimate nominee selected by the party insiders interested only in his ability to raise tons of money from his cultists. Campaign finance reform, public funding of elections? Forget about it in the “new” democratic party, Obama just shot public financing in the head, and the party insiders applauded.
In order to accomplish the goal of recovering the party, IMO those of us in swing states will need to hold our collective noses and vote against Obama by voting for McCain. Ugly, I know, but I don’t see another way. While I understand and respect the choice, voting for a third party in a swing state is not really a vote against Obama the way voting for McCain is. So, that’s where I, reluctantly, find myself, staring down a LOTE election in which I may have to vote for a republican for the first time ever in my life.
The only way out of this is if the Democratic Party regains its sanity and the Super Ds all vote for Clinton at the convention in August. That is my own, personal, audacity of hope. Voting for the LOTE is my Plan B.
*LOTE = lesser of two evils
-
donna darko says:
party insiders interested only in his ability to raise tons of money from his cultists
For all the talk about his ability to raise money, he only raised 270 million to her 220 million and only because she asked for it in February. He can’t raise money now because their whole motivation up to now was to beat the woman. And who knows how many were Republican donations who wanted Clinton out of the race because Obama is the weaker candidate? Now he has the nerve to ask her fundraisers for her money. He also refuses to pay more than 10 million of her debt when a month before she dropped out he said he’d pay off 20 million as an incentive for her to drop out. Unreal.
-
Ann Bartow says:
I’m an Obama supporter but not here to troll, I promise. I heartily apologize for the Obama supporters who throw abortion up as the reason women “have” to vote for Obama. Yes, I know Justice Stevens is very old, but I can also count to five: Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy. Five conservatives, all male, all observant Catholics (not dissing Catholics per se, but opposing abortion is one of the tenets of the religion). When the Republicans are ready to pull the trigger, they will, even if Obama is President. Maybe especially when Obama is President, actually, as that would be a good way to freak people out and derail his Presidency. But we can’t control those five men, no matter who is president.
But I do think Obama would do a better job appointing judges at every level than McCain, and he would do a better job with the DoJ (he could hardly do worse, see: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf )
Nothing I’ve said suggests Obama is a better candidate than Clinton, I know. And I understand the anger at the way Clinton was treated because I feel it too. I’d just ask that you consider the many good people Obama could bring with him to DC, in a variety of capacities. Thanks for listening.
-
FemB4Dem says:
Ann,
See, here’s the thing regarding Obama and McCain on appointments. McCain has all but promised he’ll be a one-termer. I see no evidence he has an agenda, other than to be president and add that kudos to the McCain family legacy (two admirals, etc.). He will also be controlled in important appointments (including all judgeships) by a Democratic Senate, which hopefully will grow a spine. This is the concept of split government. It has given us many of our best Supreme Court justices, from moderate republican presidents (e.g., Warren and Brennan from Eisenhower; Stephens from Ford; Souter from Bush I). Does it always work? No. But what is the alternative?
Obama, on the other hand, will be running for reelection from Day One. His agenda will be to get re-elected. How will he accomplish that? He’s already shown us what he thinks will work, pandering to the right. In the last 24 hours he has signled his willingness to ditch the 4th Amendment and privacy (FISA), and he has just now announced he thinks the death penalty should be applied to crimes in which no death occurs. If his agenda is to get re-elected with the help of rightwingers, what makes you think he will appoint liberal judges? Remember, here is a guy who was ready to vote for John Roberts, and voted against a filibuster for Roberts and Alito.
Sorry, no sale. In reality, Obama is the proverbial pig in a poke. Thanks to our rotten press, no one can really say they know what he will do. What we do know is that Bush has created a true Beast of an executive branch with staggering powers. Are you really ready to turn the reins of that beast over to an untested, first-term senator with no one to apply the brakes other than a Democratic Senate of the same party that has already proved its willingness to sell itself out for Obama’s purported fundraising prowess? I’m not. Why don’t you join us? PUMA!
-
Ann Bartow says:
The Dems have only successfully opposed a handful of judges in my lifetime, even when they had control of both the Senate and the House. I have no reason to believe they would suddenly grow a spine if McCain is President.
I do not believe for a second that McCain would be content with one term, and even if that was the case, being the President even for four years would give him four years to stack the judiciary, DoJ and administrative agencies etc. with right wingers.
I agree that Obama is imperfect, and he certainly holds positions I disagree with. But I am confident that he will choose many of the same people that Clinton would have chosen for a lot of key government positions. He has already done some outreach to a number of people I respect and admire.
I really hope Obama will pick Clinton as a running mate. But even if he doesn’t, I think he will do a better job with a lot of things that are important to me than McCain. I also think “unified government” would give the Dems a great opportunity to improve the country. Yes, they may well screw it up, see for example the Carter Administration and the first years of the Clinton Administration. But having control of both branches of government can potentially facilitate a lot of progress; or at a minimum, prevent a lot of badness.
I want to see women become more powerful politically. I just have a different idea of how that might be accomplished. If this is a “derail” please ignore, with my apologies.
-
Violet says:
Ann, I am 100% committed to defeating Obama. That’s not going to change. I see him as far more dangerous than McCain. A McCain presidency, in my mind, would be like one of those interim popes — old dudes who are expected to only last a few years while the Church figures out what direction it needs to go in next. Obama, on the other hand, would usher in a whole new era of Imperial Presidency, with a slavering Congress and millions of batshit crazy supporters backing him up.
Opossum needs to go down.
-
FemB4dem says:
Violet — love the “Old Pope” analogy. That nails it perfectly!
-
donna darko says:
I don’t think it will be McCain. There are already murmurings from Rove et al. It will be someone much worse and we will adjust accordingly. Obama would bring down the Democratic Party. Look at what he’s done already. This is a nightmare.
-
Violet says:
You mean you don’t think McCain will be the nominee?
-
donna darko says:
Republicans think he’s too moderate. They may pick someone more right-wing.
-
FemB4Dem says:
Donna darko — Nah. Repubs realize McCain is their only shot. This is a Dem year. Unnammed Dem has been consistently running 15 to 20 points ahead of unnamed Repub in the Gallup polling. Obama vs. McCain? Tied today, tied yesterday, within the margin of error or close for weeks now. Repubs may not love him, but they know McCain is it for them. Plus, remember, repubs don’t have super delegates. They run an actual delegate counting, mostly winner take all, primary season contest. Pretty much a real election, which McCain won. McCain has the delegates wrapped up from actually winning the vast majority of the primaries, and he has no one challenging him, not even Ron Paul anymore. He will be the repub nominee. McCain has no repub problems — Bob Barr and the Libertarians, now that’s another issue …
-
m Andrea says:
Google is censoring comments on anything _which is less then high praise_ of Obama. In case you haven’t noticed. They turned comments off.
I noticed that months ago, when I left a comment which ONLY said “people in other countries would like to see a brown face representing our country, and people here are in dire need of hope”. That’s all I said, and google wouldn’t post it. Every day for a week I went back and posted the exact same thing at a different Obama vid, none were posted.
Yet the vilest things about Clinton were just fine.
