It’s not about Obama vs. McCain
The central issue of this election is not Barack Obama versus John McCain. The central issue is the future of the Democratic party. For PUMAs, the election is about choosing between the Obama version of the Democratic party — misogynistic, sexist, corrupt, pseudo-Republican — and a Democratic party that represents women’s rights and progressive values.
Of course, there’s nothing sacred about the Democratic party itself; PUMAs are not motivated by nostalgia or sentiment. What matters is that there continue to be at least one major political party in this country that stands for what we term “Democratic” or “progressive” values. We must not have the equivalent of two GOPs.
That’s why the Obama movement is a cancer that must be excised. The best way to do that would be to reject Obama now and make Hillary Clinton the nominee — a strategy that would also have the benefit of ensuring our party’s victory in the fall — but that’s not going to happen. The only remaining option is for Obama to be defeated at the polls in November, just as McGovern was in ’72.
Do you know that history? Do you know that back in ’72 the McGovernites were the ones who were going to take over the party? They were the bright young things swarming everywhere, the functional (though not ideological) equivalents of today’s possums, chomping at the bit to replace the old party machinery.
The old party machinery had other plans. The big-time Dems sat on their hands that year. The usual election rigmarole was not rolled out. Checkbooks remained closed. So you don’t need us anymore? Fine then. Get yourself elected without us.
You know how that went. McGovern was defeated in the mother of all landslides (though there were many reasons for that, only one of which was the lack of support from the party machine), and that was the end of him.
Those anti-McGovern Democrats in ’72 were practicing long-range strategy. The Republicans did a similar thing in ’64, when they sacrificed Barry Goldwater.
Most of Obama’s young possums don’t understand this kind of thinking, in large part because they are so young. For many of them this election is only the first or second time they’ve been eligible to vote, and at that age every election feels apocalyptic. They believe that unless they vote for the candidate who is better (however marginally) than the other candidate in a head-to-head match-up, civilization as we know it will end. The notion of temporarily casting a contrary vote to swing the long-term path of your party in a strategic move that will pay off down the road…oh man, that’s just…what?
That’s why the possums typically can’t get past the “but do you really think McCain is better?” level of argument. Young feminists, for example: they say things like, “but don’t you know that Republicans are anti-choice?” Yes, dears; that’s the point. Republicans are anti-choice, which is exactly why it’s so important that Democrats continue be pro-choice — and pro-women’s rights, pro-Fourth Amendment, pro-separation of church and state, pro-health care, pro everything that the Republicans are against. That’s why we’re trying to keep Barack Obama from taking over the party. I’m willing to lose one election if it means ejecting him and getting our party back to its values.
It’s important to spell this out clearly, because DNC officials are studiously pretending that they don’t understand what the PUMA movement is all about. Surely this is nonsense; by now they’ve heard enough that they must understand perfectly well what’s going on. They’re just playing to the gallery, pitching their rhetoric to an audience of possums and media twits.
That’s what the letter from Don Fowler and Alice Germond was about; it was leaked because it was designed to leaked. Donna Brazile’s recent column is in a similar vein, with Donna suggesting that PUMAs are simply bitter and/or confused about our electoral process (“There are only two choices now: Barack Obama or John McCain,” Donna writes helpfully.)
Or is it possible that the DNC really doesn’t understand what’s happening? I tend to assume that career politicians understand career-politician-type stuff, but that may be a rash assumption these days.
67 Responses to “It’s not about Obama vs. McCain”
-
Red Queen says:
Exactly right in every line. I think the DNC knows exactly what they are doing when it comes to screwing over women (and the poor, and Latin@s and the working class and and and). We need to show them for the future of our party and our country (and according to many of my friends in other parts of the world- the entire planet) that the politics of (subjectively) less evil is not good enough.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:52 am EST -
Andrew F says:
I don’t wish to be pedantic, but the next man to sit in the White House will set long term energy policies, will have to deal with the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and – after 8 years of a globally hated President – he will define the relationship between the powerful country in the world and the international community.
So, in what sense is voting in the wrong guy not an ‘apocalyptic’ mistake? By an selfless measure, the long term future of your party must be come second.
-
Violet says:
When is “the next man to sit in the White House” not the person who’s going to set long-term energy policy, deal with nuclear threats, and define the relationship between the most powerful country in the world and the international community?
And what you don’t seem to grasp is that I believe Obama IS the wrong guy. I don’t think we can afford to have the most powerful and dangerous country in the world ruled by TWO right-wing parties.
-
Nadai says:
So, in what sense is voting in the wrong guy not an ‘apocalyptic’ mistake?
When they’re both the wrong guy.
By an selfless measure, the long term future of your party must be come second.
Like many women, I’ve been selfless (what a telling word) far too long. From here on out, my priority is what’s good for women long term. Not the Democratic Party. Not even the country. Women. And if you don’t like it, too bad for you.
-
BettyBoondoggle says:
“Like many women, I’ve been selfless (what a telling word) far too long. From here on out, my priority is what’s good for women long term. Not the Democratic Party. Not even the country. Women. And if you don’t like it, too bad for you.”
Exactly. Every. Single. Time. women start talking about standing up for themselves, some fauxgressive swoops in to tell us that there’s so many other MORE IMPORTANT things to worry about and wouldn’t we girlz mind getting to the back of the line again? It’s not to much of a bother to wait for the DNC to get around to your silly little special interest group again, is it?
Screw that. No more.
-
propertius says:
Andrew,
You raise some interesting issues, but what do you do if *both* major party candidates are the wrong candidate? Yes, energy policy is probably one of the most important issues facing us. Obama voted *for* the Cheney energy bill. McCain voted *against* it. By that measure, McCain is more progressive than Obama. Obama has strong ties to the nuclear industry – both he and McCain favor increased reliance on nuclear energy. In what way is Obama’s energy policy (to the extent he has one, which is always the problem with Obama) superior to McCain’s?
It would certainly be preferable if Iran could be dissuaded from pursuing the nuclear option. Do you really think someone with no foreign policy or military experience is the one to do it? Given that Obama has already publicly threatened an unprovoked act of war against the only extant Muslim nuclear power (when he said he would bomb the tribal areas of Pakistan), do you really trust him to deal calmly and reasonably with a nuclear Iran?
I don’t want either of them in the White House – and I reject the “lesser of two evils” argument, because I can’t tell who the lesser evil is. That’s a hell of a situation for a life-long Democrat to be in, but that’s where I find myself – and I refuse to be bullied into voting for an unscrupulous, incompetent, misogynistic, narcissist. If the Democratic Party doesn’t want to see a McCain presidency, then we ought to pick a better candidate (or at least not rig the process to favor someone else).
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Go over to Alegre’s Journal and see what Brazile is saying to “us” who she includes herself in
-
Andrew F says:
I’m an impartial I honestly don’t understand what he’s done that can be construed as ‘mysoginistic’. And that’s not me dismissing the possibility, but I read a fair few blogs, and as much as people throw the term out, I’ve honestly never seen a concrete example.
When is “the next man to sit in the White House” not the person who’s going to set long-term energy policy, deal with nuclear threats, and define the relationship between the most powerful country in the world and the international community?
Um, never – which is probably why you should never vote for the Republican.
And what you don’t seem to grasp is that I believe Obama IS the wrong guy. I don’t think we can afford to have the most powerful and dangerous country in the world ruled by TWO right-wing parties.
But your inital justification for not backing Obama was that he was a sexist who attacked Clinton in the primaries.
Calling him right wing is just inane. He has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. The other day I saw a piece about him having voted in a more leftist manner than the Senate’s actual socialist, Bernie Sanders.
I just don’t get how you can call someone proposing universal healthcare coverage right wing. I’m scrolling down a list of Obama’s positions on various policy areas, and I haven’t yet come across a single thing that could be described as “right wing”. The death penalty, the environment, stem cell research, civil liberties, minmum wage, school vouchers. It goes on and on.
Oh, and, look! He supported the ‘Ledbetter Fair Pay Act’. Did Mccain? Er, no – he opposed it. I’d say that’s more than a marginal difference from the feminist point of view.
Given that Obama has already publicly threatened an unprovoked act of war against the only extant Muslim nuclear power (when he said he would bomb the tribal areas of Pakistan), do you really trust him to deal calmly and reasonably with a nuclear Iran?
Seach youtube with the words “Bomb Iran” and you’ll probably get a clip of John Mccain some less-than-reasonable lyrics to the Beachboys. Obama, by contrast, has said he’ll hold talks, that’s he’ll engage diplomatically. I certainly don’t want someone who supported the disastorous foreign policies of the last eight years at the helm.
Like many women, I’ve been selfless (what a telling word) far too long. From here on out, my priority is what’s good for women long term. Not the Democratic Party. Not even the country. Women. And if you don’t like it, too bad for you.
Imagine if Jeremiah Wright had come on the TV and said, “My priority from here on out is black people. I don’t care about the country. Just black people”. Being a woman doesn’t give you anymore license to abdicate the moral responsibility that comes from choosing the most powerful person in the world. I’m a teenager from the UK – what you do in November affects me, just as it affects people right around the planet.
-
Perry Logan says:
It would be far better to have another bad Republican as President than to have a crooked Democrat in the White House.
Obama has already severely damaged the party. An Obama Presidency would finish us off for sure.
-
Violet says:
Okay, Andrew, I’ll explain a few things to you and then you run along.
1. The reason you’ve never seen a “concrete example” of misogyny is because you’re blind to it, as the rest of your post shows.
2. You seem to think that “sexist” is different from “right-wing” but in my view they are the same; men who are sexists are not true progressives by any stretch. We call them fauxgressives.
3. Yes, Obama is very right-wing for a Democrat. The idea that he’s the most liberal Senator is absurd — that’s pure propaganda from his inane followers. He stands with the Republicans on spying on citizens, late-term abortions, faith-based programs, liquid coal, nuclear energy, school vouchers, and so on.
4. He didn’t propose universal healthcare; he’s the only one of the 3 major Democratic candidates who opposed it. He ran Republican style attack ads to discredit Hillary’s plan.
5. Women ARE the world. We are more than half the population. If all governments on this planet were dedicated primarily to solving women’s problems, that would solve the WORLD’s problems.
6. Either the news coverage in the UK is horribly unreliable or you need to read different papers. Obama is a Republican in Democratic clothing. -
Greenconsciousness says:
I posted this on the honor killing thread but want it here also for Andrew. Andrew there are many videos you could watch if you were honest. Obama is a liar. He lies about every position he has and the media will not cover his roots, his past activities and their results or his financial backers to expose his lies before the election. So we are left to do it ourself. On my blog today I have posted his support for Kenyan politicians who campaigned on the return of Sharia. Here is his latest clue as to his actual beliefs.
From Politico, July 21 “Obama campaign hires Muslim liaison,” :
“Obama’s campaign has created a Muslim liaison, according to two sources familiar with the move.
The sources said the job was likely to be filled by Haim Nawas, a Jordanian-American who filled a similar role for the campaign of General Wesley Clark in 2004.
The job is complicated by the fact that Obama has been forced repeatedly to deny that he is Muslim, a situation that grates on some Muslim-Americans.
Nawas wrote in 2005 that the Bush Administration should take a more nuanced approach to public diplomacy directed at Muslim women.
“We need to recognize that the social structure in the Muslim world is very different from America’s,” she wrote. “American women need to understand that what is best for them is not necessarily what is best for Muslim women. Advocacy of women’s rights in the Muslim world must show sensitivity to local political realities.” “
Posted by Raymond
Natasha wrote:
We in (or having been in) the far left recognize this strategy and rhetoric and its NOT good, its a means to force intimidation and clamp down on women’s human rights activists when confronting Islam.The Apostate has a great post on this
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Violet
McGovern did not have the media. If BO is who I think he is, nothing can stop him. Women need to become an army to support one another. We need to build the underground as we did when abortion was illegal. Regardless of which one wins, we are on our own. -
Mark says:
Thanks, Violet, for keeping the drums drumming loudly!
You point out many of the pitfalls of Obamacrat thinking. However, I think us PUMAs and No Dealers may not be getting their “message” out for more reasons than they are being misrepresented in the media.Although there should be a large amount of effort devoted “educating” delegates and superdelegates and opposing the DNC and MSM’s propaganda, the No Dealers are, in my opinion, clearly missing an opportunity to turn up the volume on primary reform by, so far, NOT working hard to get Feinstein to keep her promise about hearings on primary reform THIS MONTH (which is on its way out…).
I feel that by being so personality and policy oriented, that the important message of the illegitimacy of Obama’s alleged nomination victory is NOT getting the attention it should get. For instance, when PUMAs talk about Clinton winning the popular vote, they don’t link to data to support that claim, and, thus, the claim can be dismissed as “just a claim.”
I see PUMAs and No Dealers going pretty much down the same road when it comes to focus as the Obamacrats — it’s the person or the policy. What about the process? PUMAs and No Dealers have a great opportunity to stick it to the Obamacrats with hearings that would necessarily highlight the most recent problems with the Democratic primary process and would likely be an embarrassment to the Democrats, including rehighlighting the fraud of Obama’s alleged nomination.
It is interesting that Senator Feinstein would suggest such hearings, and promise them to the New York Times on June 8, since it could be politically inconvenient, but she has, and we should jump on it. Want more credibility? Although PUMA and No Dealers are definitely doing things, many of those things can be conveniently mischaracterized as “bitterness,” etc. Getting Feinstein to keep her promises for primary reform hearings could not conceivably be characterized as bitterness or anything other than taking the high moral ground.
Comments?
-
Violet says:
Mark, I agree that primary reform is important and it would be good to jump on that. No argument from me.
But I would like to suggest that no matter what PUMAs do, they are going to be characterized as bitter and irrational. I refer you to this post: A note on PUMAs and sexism. Note especially the part in the middle about how a woman-identified movement is bound to be dismissed, and what a shock this is to male PUMAs who aren’t accustomed to being treated this way.
Still, though, I do agree with you that it would be good to jump on primary reform. Given that PUMA is a real grassroots movement with no overarching organization, though, it’s probably more feasible to aim for some huge brightly painted target that everyone in the country can see (like, say, the convention in Denver, or Opossum himself).
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Violet
Mark’s last 5 posts at Democrat in Exile are research on Democrat Primary Reform –wonderful work. The PUMA concentration on Denver WITHOUT several months about how the primaries were cooked is a loser IMO. All it will do is show disunity but had we focused on the flaws in the primary process, we might have had a chance to win for Hillary.
What I would like to see discussion is: what we do as opposition, as feminists, if BO wins the election — What do we do if Bo loses the election?
I certainly hope we do not accept the Dem machinery that has operated to disenfranchise us since the Clintons left office.
I hope progressives do not continue to accept whatever the left tells them is politically correct policy because that does not work for women, at home or abroad.
I hope women begin to shape and insist that policy actually reflect a total acceptance of women’s equality and autonomy over her own body. I hope women insist that foreign policy follow a human rights agenda including secularization, women and worker’s rights.
I hope we urge Clinton to form a third party for the working class, eventually, after the honeymoon is over. I really have nothing to hope for from the dead Dem’s who represent the corporate left.
-
ea says:
propertius says:
Andrew,
You raise some interesting issues, but what do you do if both major party candidates are the wrong candidate?”
Here is a suggestion: Green Party
-
Mark says:
Hi All: Thanks for the comments, Violet and Greenconsciousness. I agree on the issue of “mischaracterization” no matter what you do as a Clinton supporter. I saw that being manifested so clearly that that is the reason I have stayed very anonymous and private, and started out that way… the mobbing was clearly evident by end of 2007.
I am not shocked at existence of sexism, but quite shocked at the level, and very dismayed…. and angry. I didn’t think it would rise to the level it did and at which it continues. I knew it was deeply embedded, but did not expect it to be so blatant and manipulative.
I have never gotten around to it yet, but I will as I continue to do some “reflections” on the primary season — an article called “Circling the Wagons — Buddy Bonding and Bromance in the 2008 Primary.”
I keep trying to find research on empathy and gender, but haven’t really found any good studies. Intuitively, and anecdotally, it seems to me that men identify with “men’s pain” much more easily and frequently than they do with “women’s pain” and that women identify with anyone’s pain fairly equally.
Thus, IMHO, men identified heavily with Obama’s “racism pain” and essentially buddy bonded because of that identification with “male pain.” Then, when Obama was not treated “properly” (you know, negative campaigning), men clearly circled the wagons and got protective and “counterattacked” primarily using sexist diminishment techniques.
Anyway, back to primary reform. I wrote to the NY Times to ask them to make sure Feinstein keeps her promise to them of June 8 to hold primary reform hearings. Of course, they have not written back, indicating that they care or not… whether she lied to them or not…
-
Violet says:
Intuitively, and anecdotally, it seems to me that men identify with “men’s pain” much more easily and frequently than they do with “women’s pain” and that women identify with anyone’s pain fairly equally.
Thus, IMHO, men identified heavily with Obama’s “racism pain” and essentially buddy bonded because of that identification with “male pain.” Then, when Obama was not treated “properly” (you know, negative campaigning), men clearly circled the wagons and got protective and “counterattacked” primarily using sexist diminishment techniques.
Good analysis. Sounds right to me. Men are socialized to be so contemptuous of women that it seems impossible for many of them to empathize with us.
On primary reform and Green’s comment about taking that with us to Denver — what the hell is going to happen in Denver, anyway? I can’t get up to D.C. for the PUMA conference to discuss plans, and I’m hoping they’ll fix up some way for people to blog in/call in/mentally intuit the proceedings via telepathy — something.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
So far Denver is dueling bloggers. BO has 400 fired up and ready to go. PUMA is trying to get a room tent and generators. The floor action is about putting Hillary’s name in nomination instead of just “on” the first ballot. The actions are about lobbying delegates to do it and then vote for her.
Many of the actions to date have been done with the ostensible purpose of showing how many PUMAs there are. The letters we are to write are sent with orders to be civil and not show anger which is why I am not a little worker bee for PUMA anymore. I am angry and intend to show it every chance I get.
It is hard for me to believe the “PARTY” people/delegates will revolt against their bosses. The WI party removed a delegate who threatened to do so. The delegates will salute with a stiff arm and do what they are told as always.
I think ultimately the best campaign we Hillary supporter people can do is to publicize a write in campaign for Hillary. The McCain Puma want to mess up the Dem’s to secure an edge for McCain but serious Hillary PUMA people could, if organized, do a write-in campaign state by state. It is not inconceivable that we could win the presidency that way. There are some states that do not allow write in and the people in those states should change that now.
-
julia says:
Here’s news: This is the first time two women of color are on a presidential ticket. Cynthia Mckinney and Rosa Clemente. Hear their exciting interview at DemocracyNow. org.
Women are the invisible majority. This country has become so used to our second-class status (or slavery) that they do not see it. I just read that women bring home one-third of their husband’s salaries, then do more than half of the housework/childcare. A man rapes a woman every 2 minutes. 99% of all people who murder women are men. Many of the murderers are spouses, boyfriends, and sons.
Isn’t this a war on women?
-
Ciccina says:
“I keep trying to find research on empathy and gender”
Mark, allow me to be of some assistance while expounding at length on one of my favorite topics. !
The following link will take you to the publications page of NYU professor John Jost, an expert in the field of political psychology (and a man I have never met). He seems to have more data on these sorts of questions than anyone. One of the many things I love about his work is that he collaborates with social scientists in a number of different countries and is able to compare findings cross-culturally.
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/
I might start with “Stereotypes in Our Culture” if you are unfamiliar with System Justification Theory, because that’s one of the keys to the situation we find ourselves in.
System Justification Theory addresses the social and psychological processes by which people maintain relatively favorable views of the social systems that affect them, with particular attention to the justification of oppressive systems by members of low-status groups. A key point from one of the articles: “people, especially those who engage in system justification, derogate others who are perceived as complaining about discrimination and injustice. Thus it appears that there are social norms that serve to uphold system-justifying responses and punish system-challenging responses. Furthermore, women and others who defy stereotypes and otherwise threaten the status quo face the persistent prospect of backlash.” Okay, we know that already from experience, but here we have it measured, all scientific-like, with controls and everything.
Don’t miss:
“Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification.” Also “Sour grapes, sweet lemons and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo” includes data from a study conducted during the 2000 elections measuring the impact of election outcome scenarios on participants’ assessments of the candidates.
All this is directly relevant to what we’ve experienced over the past year, particularly “circulating the wagons” and “buddy bonding”, Donna Brazil etc.’s use of stereotypes against PUMA and progressive dissenters, and so on.
You might also check out:
Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President. http://americandemocracy.nd.ed.....bPaper.pdf
This doesn’t explain the anger provoked by Hillary’s candidacy, but it does provide some measure for it.
Thread hijack over and out.
-
Happenstance says:
“Being a woman doesn’t give you anymore license to abdicate the moral responsibility that comes from choosing the most powerful person in the world.”
Oh, where was such talk when fauxgressives announced that Al Gore and George W. Bush were “exactly the same” and the only true “progressive” alternative was to toss one’s vote for Nader or just stay home? Where was it four years later, when the fauxgs joined hands with their counterparts on the right to scream “Kerry’s scary?” and push for Nader again?
The fauxgs didn’t put Bush into office for eight years on their own, but they certainly did their part, knowingly and proudly. Now they tell us, we have to vote for the party candidate or fear the consequences? Psh. These sniveling twits were lining up behind Nader for a third round of abject stupidity until Obama went on Oprah and it all went wishful-thinking-bandwagon.
Genuine progressives (you know, “liberals”–who don’t need the extra buzzword to set them apart in their own little clique) and genuine conservatives have been pushed into the middle, caught between fauxgs and neocons–psychotic, obstructionist, my-way-or-die extremists who have more in common with each other than with anyone on the side they purport to represent.
It’s well past time to take the game back from them.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
PUMAs,
All roads are beginning to lead back to Hillary.
It is looking more and more like it is -she- who will ultimately have the power to allow her name to be placed into nomination.
Hillary is now reaching out to us, asking us what issues matter the most to each of us:
http://www.hillpac.com/action/.....m_medium=e
This is how -I- chose to respond:
“What is the issue that matters to -me- the most?��That you, Hillary, be the 44th President of the United States… from 2009-2017.��Please, Senator Clinton, allow your name to be placed into nomination… for the 18,000,000 of us who gave you our vote and our voice.��
Thank you, Respectfully,��Will Bower
It is now time that *every* PUMA voice be heard by Hillary.��We must *all* reach out to her… with our heads, our hearts, and our experiences.��She needs to know that we are here… and *why* we are here.
There will be many more Calls to Action in the days to come:��Delegate Outreach.��PUMA Gatherings Nationwide.��The Pre-Convention PUMA Conference.��All of these are -very- important… but all of these are secondary to letting Hillary know that we still want — and need — her to be our next President.
http://www.hillpac.com/action/.....m_medium=e
Thank you, PUMAs.��We can do this.��Hillary can do this.��
Let her know.�
Will Bower
PUMA / Just Say NO DEALhttp://www.pumaconference08.com/
http://JustSayNoDeal.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/justsaynodeal
http://www.puma08.com/2008/07/.....delegates/If the parties won’t uphold democratic principles, who will?
If the voters don’t hold the parties accountable, who will? -
GRL says:
And now we see Obama healing the world…..
Off topic, but worthy of a post..
Here’s a useful guide I finally got up!!!
…hopefully, it will help people stay informed more easily (and help keep track of any more Obama road trips)…I accumulated these links while doing the World Media Watch for B…z…
..hThe “International Press Library” is Up and Running! (Useful Links to the Foreign Media)
Get what the “local press” is saying, not what is filtered through our media!!
-
vbonnaire says:
Hi Violet & Greenconciousness…(ps green, you and I know the maxgreen stuff — Romanyshyn teaches where I got MA!) I wish you hadn’t left Confluence, but?)
Violet? Were those the Abbie Hoffmans (Yippies) Ayers types in 72 who were pro Mondale? I was a little kid — but those were heady and rad times with anti-Nixon and anti-war. You are correct in this piece. We are going to pull the lever, and flush this. The Green Party isn’t big enough yet, greenc…(unforch) –but these Dems need that lever pulled — they are poisoned. In fact, I read yesterday how they stressed an anti-Dem vote just to blow Hillary off the page. They aren’t Dems. Not as we have been Dems.
We all want this war over! I don’t think McC will do that in a wrong way. O’s coverage? He has just met with ? over there? NQ has the story. Scary, beyond belief. Plus did you see that plane he did? With the logo? This is Despot? Not dem and look:
-
Greenconsciousness says:
vbonnaire
Yes we are comrades – i copied your comment and was going to post it on my blog but abuse stuff took over – so perfect you understand about Romanyshyn – still i am going to publish your comment one of these days. I do not think the Green Party comes even close to expressing any of it — it seems like left opportunists taking over a grassroots movement appropriating the name, like they did with the word feminist.I think we have to get with the write-in movement.
BTW, the war is the only thing that with the women themselves is going to bust up the slave status of women in the middle east. You cannot reason with an ethno-religious theocratic patriarchy which uses deceit and manipulation as well as force against infidels. They understand force and then they will understand other things if we bother to stay and help and build and insist on secularization and equal rights as in Japan and Germany.
And I know, the uranium, yes and all the rest, the torture, the CIA torture, but now it is exposed unlike Viet-nam, and we can begin to regulate it IF we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Not that we have the time or the movement. Yet busting up that theocracy is part of it -overpopulation is the key and women must be freed everywhere or the planet is doomed. The middle east is the belly of the beast – war was the only way. The icebergs disappeared THIS summer.
-
Violet says:
The McGovernites were good guys, and I have no political sympathy with the old-time Dems who opposed them. My analogy was just to the strategy.
-
Violet says:
BTW, the war is the only thing that with the women themselves is going to bust up the slave status of women in the middle east…war was the only way.
I completely and utterly disagree. This is not the thread for this and I don’t want to get into it here, but I just want to say for the record that I completely disagree. War just solidifies the opposition; war has fed the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the concomitant loss of women’s status.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
I know you disagree Violet and I also know you have no proof for your statement. None of you anti war people said anything about the status of Muslim women before the war. Their life stories were ignored.
Now many of these women have the space to come forward and write their own stories. And there are women’s centers and girls schools in Afghan. All of this is because of the war. Do you have any idea of what is was like for women under the Taliban? What kind of blinders do you have to say it is worse now? For who? You? You want to quote leftist BS about how bad it is now without any reference to how bad it has always been.
Continue to deny it, use the tired left talking points and I can refute every one of them. Yes, it has been ugly but not because of the invasion. Because of the theocracy. Because of the tribal patriarchies.
No one could travel freely before the invasion so just because you ignored Muslim terrorism doesn’t mean it wasn’t a huge threat to everyone who traveled outside the US. But the real threat is was/is to Muslim women.
You did not help – you have no answer – so when you have, then you can say the war was not the way to free women from the Taliban.
And BTW, there never is any place I can have this out with the women who are anti war without being dismissed. The status of women as slaves is just not that important.
-
Violet says:
I know you disagree Violet and I also know you have no proof for your statement. None of you anti war people said anything about the status of Muslim women before the war. Their life stories were ignored.
Do you have any idea who you’re talking to? It’s amazing, you read my blog and I would have thought you’d have picked up by now on the fact that I’ve been involved with the intersection of religion and feminism and with the plight of Muslim women for 30 years, especially since I’ve said so more than once.
But now I’m just part of the amorphous “anti war left” who “never said anything” about Islam — it’s bizarre. Who are you talking to? My blog is not the place for you to go off on some rants against the voices in your head. I’m sick of this.
If you actually are interested in the women of Afghanistan, I’d suggest you tear your eyes away from whatever women’s shelter you think proves the war was a success and actually read the reports from the U.N. and Amnesty and every other human rights organization. War “liberated” the women of Afghanistan for about 30 seconds, and then the rapes and murders and sex trafficking took over, and then the Taliban came back and now the Islamic repression is worse than ever.
But if you really want an example of how war breeds Islamic fundamentalism, look at Iraq. You know, Iraq? The nation we invaded 5 years ago? The nation we were going to bring democracy to? Before the invasion women in Iraq enjoyed a higher status than in most Arab countries. Anybody who knows that part of the world could have predicted exactly what would happen when Saddam fell: the jihadist and extremists would rush in, try to create a fundamentalist state, and start making women wear bags. Which is exactly what happened. Women who five years ago were bankers and teachers and graduate students, now have to hide in their houses. They can’t go outside without a rag on their heads. If they’re seen driving they’re attacked. If they break the rules then they’re raped and murdered and their bodies dumped.
That’s what war brings. And every bomb, every tank, every U.S. soldier just makes those Muslim men more determined to fight off everything they associate with the West, especially women’s rights.
You know jack SHIT about the Middle East.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
No you know jack shit –point to one post on the actual status of Islamic women before the war – show me where you had a plan toward liberation – what actions you organized. I’ve been working on these issues since 1972 and can prove it. I know all about the UN and their efforts on behalf of women. Please spare me their “reports”. I will leave you to your comfortable illusions because I know you don’t really want a discussion. There ARE complexities about Iraq -if you ever really want to discuss this instead of being such a diva come over to my blog and let me know. I will be happy to oblige.
-
Violet says:
I started this blog in 2006. The war in Iraq started in 2003. So, kind of hard for me to point to any posts before the war.
Besides, this blog is my hobby, not my real life, which I rarely discuss. I’ve had this conversation with you before, and what happens is that when you get angry you completely forget everything I’ve told you and start yelling about the “anti-war male left.”
-
Happenstance says:
“No you know jack shit”
OMG U WIN TEH INTERNET ARGUMENT
BCAUSE “NO U” IZ UNSTOPPABUL LOL -
ginmar says:
Greenconsciousness, you’re an asshole. Feminists have been covering the state of Muslim women for quite some time.
I saw the status of women in Iraq quite early in the war because I fought in Iraq and I saw it fall as a result of the anarchy let loose by American mismanagement of the war. So go fuck yourself.
-
ginmar says:
Well, actually, it should be, “No, U know jack shit.”
-
propertius says:
Andrew,
You seem like a serious young person, and I’d like to give some serious responses to a few of your statements:
1) “I just don’t get how you can call someone proposing universal healthcare coverage right wing.”
Obama hasn’t proposed universal healthcare coverage. In the best case, his plan would leave 18 million Americans without coverage. Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich all had proposals that would have provided universal coverage – Obama doesn’t, and he was highly critical of both Clinton and Edwards because their plans “mandated coverage”. Furthermore, Obama’s plan relies on some very peculiar budgetary assumptions which are very unlikely to come to pass – the New York Times had a rather troubling analysis of this yesterday (July 22). I recommend you read it.
2) Obama not only supports the death penalty, he supports use of it in cases which the Supreme Court recently ruled unconstitutional. His position on this issue is, in fact, to the right of several of the “conservative” Republican-appointed justices on the court.
3) School vouchers. He’s been on both sides of this issue – in this campaign, no less. Early in the campaign, he filled out questionnaires for the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association saying he was categorically opposed to them. On February 15, he gave an interview to the Milwaukee Sentinel where he said he was “open” to them. Five days later, his campaign “clarified” his remark, saying that he opposed them “in any shape or form”. I have no idea what he really thinks, or what he’ll do if elected.
4) Iran. In his Feb 29 speech to AIPAC (the same one where he proclaimed that Jerusalem would be the undivided capital of Israel, much to the distress of Muslims everywhere – only to retract ir a day later), he also threatened to use force against Iran if they continued their nuclear program. See the Chicago Sun-Times (Obama’s hometown paper) for this.
In the same prepared address (he took no questions – he seldom does), he referred to Iranian President Ahmadinajad as “reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive” and said his government was “a direct threat to us all”. Perhaps those personal insults were just a terribly subtle way of encouraging those “direct and unconditional talks” he mentioned during the debates.
On his whirlwind world tour, he also repeated his threat to attack, unilaterally, the tribal areas of Pakistan. As I’m sure you’re aware, Pakistan is currently the only Muslim nuclear power. It also has a recently-elected (and somewhat shaky) civilian government. Does he really think that threatening the sovereignty of a (nominal) US ally will improve our standing there? Let me put it to you this way: as a UK citizen, how would *you* feel if a US Presidential candidate threatened to bomb Edinburgh if you didn’t keep the Scottish separatists in line to his personal satisfaction? To see how the Pakistanis are reacting to Obama’s statement, you might want to take a look at this.
BTW: Perhaps YouTube is not the best place to be conducting research on international affairs and foreign policy.
Since (when I’m not impersonating an obscure 1st Century BCE Roman poet), I’m a 52 year-old man, I’ll let others deal with the sexism and misogyny. Suffice it to say that *I* found his campaign vile – I can’t imagine how someone who actually *has* a uterus feels about it.
There are a lot of other reasons why I find Obama objectionable:
5) He dodged Mukasey’s confirmation vote after publicly saying he’d vote against him. (Clinton actually *did* vote against him, BTW).
6) I don’t expect the words “Fourth Amendment” to be terribly significant to a UK citizen, but some of us around here take it rather seriously. Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, and Clinton all voted against the “FISA reform” bill that gives Bush and the telecom companies a free pass for the illegal wiretapping they’ve been conducting, in spite of massive lobbying by the telecom firms. Obama, of course, did a complete 180 on his previous pledge and voted for the bill. McCain didn’t vote on it.
7) Similarly, I don’t expect the First Amendment to ring any major bells with you, but some of us take our separation of church and state seriously, too (this might actually surprise the average European, who must surely think we’re all raving, snake-handling religious fanatics after 8 years of Bush & Co.). Obama not only supports Bush’s throughly unconstitutional “faith-based initiative”, he wants to expand it (this also makes me wonder where he *really* stands on vouchers). In Chicago, Obama managed to funnel large amounts of grant money (both public and private) to religious leaders (and others) who supported him politically. See this report in the Chicago Tribune (Obama’s other hometown paper).
Note that Rev. Michael Pfleger, the priest who gave the rather unflattering Hillary impression at Obama’s church, received a $255,000 state grant courtesy of Obama. IMO, this also ties in to item 10, below.
8) He’s singlehandedly destroyed campaign finance reform – and broken his word (not that this is anything new for him).
9) The whole messianic tone of his campaign is more than a little scary. I’m surprised he’s not holding a torchlight rally at Nuremberg, but maybe he was just disappointed that Leni Riefenstahl couldn’t be there to film it.
10) He has a long history of corrupt associations and dubious legislative activities in Illinois, and that’s not limited to Tony Rezko. For some examples, see this and this.
He’s not a progressive. He’s a corporate shill.
He’s also brazenly dishonest.Look, I sympathize with your antipathy towards the Republicans – which is why I don’t intend to vote for either of the Republicans who are running (not even the one with the “D” by his name).
-
propertius says:
I suspect the numbering in my last comment fell victim to some terribly clever automatic formatting. My apologies if that rendered it difficult to follow..
-
Violet says:
I went in and fixed it so the numbering would be what you intended. I wish I could turn off that automatic formatting. The key to defeating the formatting is to type the number with a ) after it instead of a .
-
donna darko says:
It’s not even about the Democratic Party. It’s feminism and democracy vs. misogyny and corruption.
I’ll be fair and say the way he campaigns is not the way he governs i.e. Alice Palmer vs. his progressive terms as Illinois and US Senator.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
gimar your an asshole and a coward – easy to call people names on line. You are not the only guy who fought in Iraq who didn’t give a crap about women but I know plenty who did and do. One of them gave up coming home so she can continue to run a woman’s center. You are one guy who doesn’t care and an asshole.
-
Violet says:
Ginmar is a woman.
-
ginmar says:
And a feminist. And a commie pinko liberal tree-huggin’, compostin’, recyclin’ hippie combat veteran, too.
Christ, would it kill you to at least make an effort with the grammar and spelling? And, you know, punctuation would be nice, too.
I started three different drives when I was there: school supplies for Iraqi kids, marketplace buying to help the shopkeepers, and, yes, publicizin
Fucking moron concern troll. I love fauxgressive guys—oh, wait, this sounds familiar—using womens’ rights to try and shut us up, when they ignore when we try and talk about….other womens’ rights. Fuck sake.
-
Violet says:
Greenconsciousness is a woman too.
-
ginmar says:
Then I foresee a whole buncha “Only I care about Afghani women.” How in fuck did we wind up here, anyway? Oh, yeah—-’you anti-war people didn’t do shit about Afghani women’—and then there’s this pearl of wisdom:
BTW, the war is the only thing that with the women themselves is going to bust up the slave status of women in the middle east…war was the only way.
Complete and utter bullshit. War hits women the hardest. No jobs, no safety, and they’re in huge danger from all sides.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
and here is the joke – I probably collected for ginmar – i did the school supplies (backpacks and supplies) for Afghanistan with a school here and the sewing machine project — I have all the links on my website.
The source of all my anger is that women would not organize here to help women there because they thought the war more immoral than the enslavement of women under the patriarchy. Please don’t give me that crap about how free women were in Iraq (that is the male left talking points that I rant about). The woman of Saddam’s tribe had privilege as long as they stayed clear of his sons. Kurdish and Shia women might as well lived under the Taliban. And don’t make me tell you the stories – they will be in your dreams for years if I do.
Iraq makes me angry because I think the failure there is because there was no feminist movement here to pressure OUR government toward secularization right after the fall and while the first votes were taken – they settled for a BS constitution where our blood bought us nothing and that is on Bremmer. Many tried to get him to grow a pair. The state dept women were desperate to find a women’s pressure group they could use to influence DOD. Condi tried to bring in feminists – I called them the day the constitution passed – we were all crying – it seemed like the end — on my birthday yet. But in truth the problems there are different — and there are big failures there for women and backtracking in Afghan – I admit this all and still after years of working for change I welcomed war and still think if BO does not fuck it up it is an opening for women there if we help here.–but already he appoints a Muslim liaison who says Muslim women do not want freedom –these are the complexities — also three times we armed Iraqi women and twice the Shia disarmed them – this time thanks to the boys over reaching it may work —
Look it took us 300 years here I am sure it will take longer there — without the war there was not a chance — even now we could organize for Iraq women if we had the guts.
-
ginmar says:
Er….Condi didn’t bring in feminists. Oh, and shut up about how Western Feminists didn’t do shit. It’s getting irritated. Just because you weren’t aware of it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It means you aren’t aware of it. With the internet, that’s really lax.
The group Condi brought in—which she’s a member of —-is the anti-feminist group IWF: Independent Womens’ Forum. It’s not independent, the leader is a man, and it’s not a forum. It was organized by Ann Coulter to defend Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas? Ann Coulter? Condi’s a member, and she’s no feminist. Can you stop blaming feminists for shit that you obviously haven’t done any research on? Condi? A feminist? I want what you’re smoking.
Oh, and the name and org that your ‘friend’ works for. I’ve got buddies over there.
-
Violet says:
Greenc, I agree with you that it has become almost impossible to mobilize Western feminists on this issue because of the dynamic that has been mentioned before on this blog, with the Third Wave more intent on “respecting” other (male-dominated) cultures/ethnicities than mounting a critique of women’s status or issuing a call for liberation.
But I’m not one of those feminists. I wish you would remember that. I am not an apologist for Islam or any other patriarchal religion. I do not believe that “culture” trumps women’s rights. I’ve never believed that.
I do believe, however — and this is based on long observation, not the contents of my ass — that the kinds of wars the U.S. has waged are not the way to raise women’s status. They are counter-productive. They harm women, terribly. What I’ve been advocating for decades is that the world elevate women’s rights to the same status as minority rights, with the same obligation on the global community to adhere and enforce. I think non-compliant nations should be ostracized the same way apartheid South Africa was.
Yet whenever I register my opposition to the oil-driven wars that rack our world (and whose perpetrators don’t truly give a damn about liberating anything but their pocketbooks), it’s as if you forget all that and start calling me the “anti-war male left” that only cares about apologizing for Islam. That’s what upsets me.
-
ginmar says:
“anti-war male left”
Um, Violet, is there something you should be telling us right about now? :)
-
Greenconsciousness says:
You know nothing about what is going on – have you been to her website? – http://www.state.gov/g/wi/
click on afghan or Iraq. Yes the repub women are there — they were the only ones who would work with her and me and about six other feminists – What was she supposed to do – sit at the window and wait? And I know everything about what feminists did and did not do during the war because i was trying to organize them – the one “feminist” group that grudgingly was guilt tripped into forming is linked on my website (funded by one woman which is why it exists) as are all the other women’s projects linked –work by RICH women (might be repubs I don’t know) who started projects on their own using their own connections to bring women here for education or start economic projects there. Blessings on their name.
As for giving you names? Code Pink got Marisa R. killed over there so we don’t give out names to anti war people. I never did. There are old posts on my blog – you can read them -no names no locations –too bad for you.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
‘But I’m not one of those feminists. I wish you would remember that. I am not an apologist for Islam or any other patriarchal religion. I do not believe that “culture” trumps women’s rights. I’ve never believed that.’
Where do you get this from Violet –if i thought you were like this I would not be here over and over –I TOLD you – I talk to you and a few others because i do respect you — I think if i could break through this war thing you will help me know how to do what must be done.
-
ginmar says:
Are you fucking stupid? Um, hello–Republicans! They don’t want women to have rights. Oh, yeah, and here’s the ugly truth: they have the power to keep people out of Iraq. It’s not like you can book a flight into or out of BIAP. No civilian airline flies in there due to the constant danger of RPGs and gunfire.
Christ.
No names. No locations. Too bad for you.
Too bad for your fucking story. That’s it for me.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Violet
I LOVE YOUR FEMINISM
I dont agree that this war is like those wars all of which I also opposed particularly the contra Nicaraguan thing which i got dangerously deep off into opposing and of course our favorite VN.
But this war is, brace for it, a war of liberation for my gender if we make it so — when in the course of human events…
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Violet
See all the stuff you say in your post about what we can do instead of war — that is what they are doing in Sudan now — (and what they did in the land of the silverbacks)– how’s that working out for the women?
-
Greenconsciousness says:
ginmar
We could not travel there free before the war either which is the whole point – my point — This is why we have to work for women through the soldiers – we needed the soldiers -people like you – there is no other way – and despite your lack of knowledge about what was going on here — how women from both sides but unfortunately mostly repub women were fighting for Muslim women’s rights (and losing) as you were fighting there – click on those links –just do it before you believe women are divided –I do honor your service and feel it was important for women. I hope someday through the mist you will feel that it was important and you helped those people. Go to Condi’s site -click on the links – you only saw a small piece but when you step back you will see more. What you did was good despite what it looks like to you now.
-
ginmar says:
How’s what’s going on in the Sudan the fault of other women instead of the MEN who are doing it, huh?
Wow, I can’t imagine why I don’t give a shit what you think. AFter all, you know everything about war, ignore everything you’re asked, and blame feminists besides! What a great bargain.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
ginmar
Sudan is not the fault of women but it proves that sanctions do not stop genocide against women.
-
ginmar says:
..Repub women….Okay, take your weird punctuation and your feminist-bashing and shove it. I wouldn’t be on your side if the only other option was blowing Rush Limbaugh repeatedly.
-
vbonnaire says:
Yikes!
That big fight shows how bad we all feel! I think I ‘m very concerned with US women right now. I have a theory — could the rise of porn images on internet — broadcasted globally since? Have caused the men to shroud the women over there? Just a thought.
Anyway. WE are not going to wear those, no way and so — that LEVER STANDS because “not wearing green” in the news of late is a despot deciding & he can f off.
My focus is for here, for us, so that we have no more eroding of rights we got in 70′s. We are the last free ones. Hard to believe. We are. Anyway, Violet, thank you for these columns, whew.
What times these turned out to be. -
Violet says:
The threadjack is over. I won’t be approving any comments in that vein.
If anyone wants to comment on the subject of the post, that’s fine.
-
MountainSage says:
“It’s important to spell this out clearly, because DNC officials are studiously pretending that they don’t understand what the PUMA movement is all about. Surely this is nonsense; by now they’ve heard enough that they must understand perfectly well what’s going on.”
If they pretend to not understand it’s easier to paint us as hysterical, selfish, bitter women being led to ruin by Republican operatives.
Mountain Sage -
ea says:
for Happenstance
Please, sir or madam, get a clue. The people who voted for Nader and LaDuke in 2000 were not the fauxgressives, but the real progressives. Also, Nader/LaDuke did not cost anyone any election. If you are upset that Bush was awarded the presidency, take it up with the Supreme Court. If you are upset that Gore chose not to pursue a state-wide recount in Florida, which he would have won, take it up with Gore. If you are upset that Gore did not win be enough votes to make sure the election did not come down to one state, TAKE IT UP WITH THE DEMOCRATS WHO COULD NOT BE BOTHERED TO VOTE FOR THEIR OWN CANDIDATE! Gore did not even win his own state! Or, here’s a thought, go after all the people who VOTED FOR BUSH!
Oh, BTW, the false and ridiculous cries of, “A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.” turned out to be completely wrong. What really happened? A vote for Gore was a vote for BUCHANAN. And it is funny, the Democrats conveniently forget that if you propagate the lie that Nader cost Gore the election, you have to accept that Bill Clinton would not have been president if not for Ross Perot. GROW UP DEMOCRATS!
-
ea says:
Just went back over the long list of posts. Wow! Lot’s of passion here. I like that this is a generally calm place. Personally, I try to avoid the comments at places like NoQuarter–too much invective and vitriol for my tastes.
Paz–if we want it, we have to practice it.
-
Sam-I-Am says:
Hi Violet. I loved you during the primary, but now you seem to have jumped the shark. I’m removing RL from my reader…I’ll check back in after the election.
Best wishes, SAM -
Violet says:
Now that’s a first. So far I’ve only seen men do that — write to perfect strangers on the internet just to inform them that they suck. Some kind of futile yet compulsive male dominance thing, I’ve always thought.
I don’t mean hate mail and insane troll comments, because women do that too. No, I’m talking about this kind of “I find you inadequate and will therefore cease to read you.” That’s such a guy thing to do. Most women just stop reading blogs they don’t like.
-
Ciccina says:
Violet – for some reason as soon as I read your post at 3:05, I got a mental image of Andy Kaufman on ‘Taxi’ going through the divorce ritual with Simka: “I break with thee, I break with thee, I break with thee!” At least that’s how I remember it. I loved Carol Kane in that role. Also her small part in Annie Hall – fabulous.
I’d much rather think about that, “ea”, than cast my mind back to 2000, when Nader was running around using the euphemism “gonadal politics” to dismiss reproductive rights, telling people Planned Parenthood and NARAL were just tools of the Democratic party (well, he was right in the latter case) and the Democratic party was scheming to keep Roe in jeopardy so they could trick simple minded women into voting Democratic; when feminist advocacy pacs, including the one I ran, shifted hundreds of thousands of dollars away from Florida advertising and into Oregon and Washington to push back Nader’s last minute momentum; and when Nader did, in fact, take away enough votes from Gore in Florida to have affected the outcome.
2000 and Nader have almost nothing in common with 2008 and PUMA / No Deal. Obama does not equal Gore. If anything, 2000 and Nader resembles 2008 and Ron Paul.
So please – Simka, yes; Nader, no.
-
ea says:
for Ciccina
I did not hear any such talk from Nader, but then again I did not listen to every speech he made. That Nader was more focused on issues other than reproductive rights in that election did not mean he did not support them. He actually answered, as I recall, some criticism that he was not strong enough for reproductive rights and responded that his positions were in line with those of organizations like PPFA and NARAL (pre-Obama, obviously). Recall also, Wynona LaDuke was his running mate. I believe the “gonadal politics” line was more about the election being about more than a single issue. I am not going to disagree completely with the notion of PPFA and NARAL being tools of the Democratic Party. NARAL is an advocacy group. PPFA, however, is an organization that provides real and needed services to real people. PUMAs are now accusing the Democrats of doing EXACTLY what you criticize Nader for pointing out–playing the fear card with respect to Roe v. Wade.
Having typed all of the above. I completely agree with your final paragraph; however I do not see what it has to do with my argument. I have never seen any analysis that actually included people saying that if Nader/LaDuke were not on the ballot, they would have voted for Gore/Lieberman. Personally, I can say that I would not have voted for Gore and Lieberman without respect to other ballot options. One assumption some people make, I think anyway, is that every voter is automatically a Democrat or a Republican. Not true. I do not have the numbers with me to back this up, but I believe that both parties’ numbers have declined over the last thirty years. People CHOOSE to be unaffiliated with these two parties or affiliate themselves with another party. Democrats, from my perspective, have a sense of entitlement in that, somehow, the votes of everyone who is not a Republican automatically belong to them. This is simply not true. Also, I have no intention of voting for Nader/Gonzalez this year: I will vote for my party’s nominees: McKinney/Clemente
Paz y gracias por la discusión cortés.
(Peace and thank you for the civil discussion.) -
ea says:
correction
Ciccina,I misread your paragraph about the Nader-Paul comparison. I do not agree with that assessment. In 2000, the final polls showed Nader polling around 8%, IIRC. Ultimately, he received less than 3% of the vote. I think this actually supports my claims that the true progressives voted for Nader, and that Nader’s presence on the ballots did not draw from Gore. Those Nader supporters who were willing to consider Gore DID vote for him. The Democrats play whatever fear card they want, if they think it suits their purposes.
« Tulipomania | Home | One Perfect Sentence »
