2010: A Base Election With A Dispirited Dem Electorate

Kos writes:

With Independents potentially sitting this next election out (as the numbers hint at), we're in bad shape in a base election. Core Republicans are engaged and solidly home. Democratic constituencies are wavering (look at those African American numbers). The only key Democratic constituency to have moved more Democratic are young voters -- from +30 Democratic to +37, but only because they are abandoning Republicans at a bigger rate than Democrats. And even those gains are threatened by the (non) geniuses in DC seriously contemplating a health care mandate without cost controls (like the public option).

At current rates, any 2010 losses would not stem from any resurgence in conservative ideology -- Republicans are simply not making any significant gains anywhere -- but in a loss of confidence in Democrats. There's a way to change that dynamic -- deliver on the promises made the last two election cycles. . . . Seems pretty obvious out here, outside the Beltway, and the numbers bear it out, but there's no indication that Democratic Party leaders in DC -- from Obama to Reid -- are fully aware of how dangerously close they are to setting the stage for an electoral drubbing in 2010.

What Kos said.

Speaking for me only

< Richard Cohen Rides To The Rescue | Ezra Klein: President Still Irrelevant to Heath Care Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 11:58:56 AM EST

    Poll readers (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    I can't think of anything that invokes a nap in me quicker.  But Kos reads polls fairly well, BTD is better and so are you in my opinion...so with all three of you on board how can we not have a public option?  I don't think Obama wants a public option, I don't think he ever really wanted one.  I think he really does think that capitalism cures all eventually and he thought he could fix things by addressing only the insurance companies.

    Totally obvious (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    to even a non wonk like me.  I like policy, but electoral number crunching isn't something I'm ever confident about.

    It will be the economy, no matter what else happens.  That much I am sure of.


    And Obama's war....n/t (none / 0) (#6)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:40:46 PM EST
    At times it makes you wonder (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:02:18 PM EST
    whether in fact the GOP and Dems are partners in all this.  The GOP carries the standard until its outrageousness becomes obvious to the most casual of observers, the Dems are called in to mollify the angry mob but fail to deliver and real change,  their weakness then sets the stage for a GOP resurgence.

    If you look at US history objectively, this is pretty much the way it has worked with the notable exception of 1932-1968.

    They certainly are to the extent (none / 0) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:51:35 PM EST
    that they're all part of the same "Don't rock the boat too much" establishment.

    I'm passed wondering... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    it is the only explanation that makes any sense...two parties in cahoots.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:19:58 PM EST
    it won't matter if there isnt any resurgent conservative ideology in reality because everyone and most of all Obama are going to think there is.

    As far as Kos goes, well, this is what he wanted. He apparently isnt too sharp of a political analyst if he couldnt see that all of these things were going to be an issue especially health care. My heavens I knew from way back in the primary that Obama would botch healhcare miserably simply due to his own behavior back then.

    Kos, Huffington, Olbermann, Schultz, etc (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by AX10 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    all wanted Obama.  They are getting just what they  asked for, nothing less and nothing more.

    I consider myself an independent (as I am registered as one) who supports Democrats mostly to keep the extreme 13th Century reactionary Republican party out of power.

    The Democrats have the votes in congress and the popular mandate to pass a public option.  If they do not do it, they have given no reason to ask for re-election next year and 2012.

    Add that there will be no structural reforms to the financial sector and tighter restrictions on so-called "free" trade agreements, Obama is currently on course to one-term wonderdom.

    Origins of the so-called "progressives" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 05:35:09 PM EST
    Markos, Huffington and Schultz are all recently-former Republicans. Olbermann's a sportscaster.

    Not a group with which I want to align myself.

    But I haven't clicked onto either Huffpo or the Orange Place in over a year, so I can't assume to know what goes on there now.


    Wait (3.50 / 2) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    if you're going hold Kos time as a republican against him it should probably be pointed out that Hillary was a Republican at one time as well.

    She was what, 16? <n/t> (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:02:54 AM EST
    You'll have to (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 07:54:16 PM EST
    give an example where Hillary, as a Democrat, used right wing, Rush Limbaugh, talking points to slam a Democrat...

    Yes, that was... 1964? (none / 0) (#55)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:08:16 AM EST
    And back in 1964 I thought Gumby and Pokey ruled the world. But don't hold that against me.

    Full disclosure: I never registered or posted a comment at the Big Orange Top because I never liked the place. Somehow, that blog always gave me the creeps, and the dear leader's past Reagan-ism was the least of it.


    yeah (none / 0) (#87)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:26:27 AM EST
    when she was in High school being raised by republican parents... hardly the same thing.

    True. (none / 0) (#24)
    by AX10 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 05:42:28 PM EST
    These former Republicans were at the forefront of brutally assaulting the Clintons during the 1990's.
    With Huffington and Schultz, their contempt of Bill and Hillary is clear as the noon sky.
    Both were early backers of Obama.
    Schultz made it a point to villify Hillary (with Limbaugh's slanderous talking points) at every turn.

    Cause meet effect (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by SeaMBA on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    Sorry.  Kos is one of the causes of the very problem he is describing.  He is a day late and a thought process short.

    As things are going (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    , I think 2010 and 2012 will both be the "not[insert incumbent]" elections, just as 2008 was the result of the insurgency of "not Bush".

    As people realize more and more the hypersimilarity of the parties, more people will vote anti-incumbent.

    Duh (4.60 / 10) (#9)
    by goldberry on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    What did Kos think the primaries were for?  Let me rephrase that.  What kind of outcome did he expect from the botched primary process?  Over half of the party was sragged, kicking and screaming against its will to vote for a man they had no confidence in because they felt he a.) wasn't ready or b.) didn't really believe in core Democratic principles.  And that more than half of the party whose votes were deemed inconvenient were right about Obama all along.  Now, they're not so keen on the Democrats after the finance bailout and the reluctance of Obama to take a firm moral stand against violations of our Constitution and his hideous handling of the health care mess, etc, etc.
    I mean, really, what did Kos expect?  

    We warned the party but would they listen?  It's the Pottery Barn rule all over again.  You broke it, you fix it.  Or is that, you buy it?  Whatever.  It's a mess.    

    Well said (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:50:25 PM EST
    With the way the primaries went (and the general not all that much better, IMHO), Obama went into office with a built-in sinkhole ready to fall out from under him if he didn't follow through at least on his very modest promises.

    By the time inauguration day rolled around, I was more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  If there isn't some dramatic turnaround in the whole health care reform thing, I honestly don't know where I'm going to go in 2012.  As you say, we got dragged kicking and screaming into this, but fool me once, shame on you, you can't fool me again, as the Dauphin once so memorably exclaimed.


    Lose Lose (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    The Dems botched the primaries, but they botched them even before they began.  The ONLY way for the Dems to have had a reasonable primary would have been for someone to have pretty much done a clean sweep through Super Tuesday.

    Once it was established that the game would be a game there would be no winner without significant damage.  

    To this day Obama and Clinton supporters don't forgive the others.  Neither Hillary nor Barack will ever live up to their potential IMO, due to the screw up by the Dems.  It's unfortunate that two of the most charismatic politicians of our time have strong enemies within what would be their base.  I don't think that feeling will ever go away for either of them.

    The one thing is the tone of your post makes it sound as if the DNC said, Michigan and Florida all go to Hillary that everyone would say, "Yeah, that's fair!"  I don't think so.  Someone would feel screwed over either way.  This time it was your team that lost.  But don't think for a second that the other team thinks you should have won.


    It would have been a darn sight fairer (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    than taking 4 of the delegates she actually WON and giving them to him. He made a political calculation and they negated the cost of it.

    Furthermore they added insult to injury by twisting the arms of her delegates on the floor.

    No I'm not going to forget that kind of behavior.
    As for forgiving it, they'd have to prove that they aren't ever going to repeat it again. I'm not convinced that is the case.


    What's wrong with arm twisting? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    This is hardball.  If Hillary could've kept all of the super delegates, that would have been fair and legit -- if she could've stole the nomination at the convention, I wouldn't be happy, but I'd have to give it to her... that's how you play the game.  This is big time politics, not little league baseball.  

    We love a fighter.  Someone who is scrappy, tough, pulls out all the stops.  Except when they do it against us.  Then it's cheating, not fair, not right.  

    I agree the DNC screwed up, but I think they screwed up before the primary rather than during it.  After they made their original decision, there was NO way to rectify it.  And Michigan and Florida also deserve a fair bit of blame for being short-sighted.  

    Heck, my hope is that Obama returns to that same person that beat Hillary and did the arm twisting.  We don't need the Obama that Clinton supporters wanted in the primary.  We need the Obama that the Clinton supporters hated.


    The problem with arm twisting in this (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:15:55 PM EST
    particular case is that the end result was not representative of what the people wanted.

    It's beyond absurd to suggest states that went 60 percent for Hillary be told "too bad and suck it" because we want Obama and their delegates to be told toe the line "or else".

    In a democracy what the people want matters, unfortunately what was done was more along the lines of an oligarchy.


    You don't know what percentage went to Hillary... (none / 0) (#42)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:19:11 PM EST
    as they never had a real primary.  As someone else suggested, you would need a revote with ample time for campaigning and such.  Until then you have a statistically invalid sample.

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:11:25 AM EST
    I am a NJ voter.  This state went for Hillary over Obama by 10 points.  10 POINTS.  
    Wanna know how many delegates she got from NJ at the convention?  
    Yep, Jon Corzine gave every one of them to Obama.  No, he didn't ask us if this was OK.  
    Guess who I am NOT voting for governor of NJ this year?

    New Jersey... (none / 0) (#81)
    by BigElephant on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    has WAY bigger issues than how standard procedural voting is done.  It really is sad when the mafia is the most ethical body in a state.  

    Using that logic (3.00 / 2) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:44:53 PM EST
    we should redo Iowa too. After all we have no way of knowing what Hillary's political calculation to not pander to the Iowa caucus crowd cost her.

    Political decisions should have consequences. It isn't any wonder Obama doesn't believe that though since basically he was given a free ride on his decisions during the primary.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 11:21:02 PM EST
    That makes no sense.  Iowa was always in play.  Everyone knew that.  

    By your logic we should also count 17 year old voters, since they weren't counted, the rules said they shouldn't be counted, but why not?


    Are you saying there (4.00 / 4) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:08:22 AM EST
    was no political cost to choosing to stay on the Michigan ballot? Your candidate VOLUNTARILY removed himself from that ballot. In return the party said no problem we'll just award you all everyone else's votes AND 4 of the delegates that she EARNED for fair measure. What was done was something you'd expect from a banana republic, not a democracy. It was my final straw.

    It was unfair... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BigElephant on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:27:35 AM EST
    None of the votes should have been counted.  
    I really don't care how the DNC counts their votes (the primary/caucus system is stupid as it is), but just let me know the rules upfront.  Otherwise how am I supposed to know which votes count.  

    Do the votes of 17 year olds count?  Canadian citizens?  Dead people?  What if I vote twice?  I don't know.  But if you do change them, make it known at the beginning of the election.  Otherwise, if you tell me X and then after the election say, "Just kidding, it's really Y" well I'm going to kind of think you just screwed me.  If you want it to be Y you better make sure the rules say Y.  

    And if Hillary was such the fighter, where was her big fight for Michigan and Florida before the primary began.  I heard very little from her.  I would have expected a full press attack.  Didn't happen.  


    Hillary's mistake (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:14:15 AM EST
    IMO is being loyal to a party that quite frankly doesn't deserve her.

    I suspect that she and Bill have very wide pragmatic streak.


    Florida was controlled by republicans (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:13:35 AM EST
    its moronic to blame the Democratic Floridians for something they had no control over whatsoever. But hey, that little bit of "hardball/cheating" got him the election along with the 4 delegates he managed to pilfer by arguing "awwwww shucks, they woulda voted for me if I hadn't of pulled my name off the ballot(and Iowans wouldn't have cared that I dissed them and the importance of their caucus)."

    Whatever helps the part of the party that's left sleep at night. As I said earlier as far as I'm concerned they can just go right on creating more Indies.


    Well, now you've got it (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:04:54 AM EST
    You got hardball and a divided Democratic base.  We told the Obama campaign that this would happen.  They pursued a scorched earth policy not against their enemies but their friends.  That was a fatal mistake made by amateurs.  
    They have lost us.  Maybe forever.  This was the path they chose to pursue and they wanted us to know we had no choice.  Where else were we going to go?  Well, now we can stay home.  After all, if all we're going to get is Republican lite rather than a real Democrat, what's the point of voting?  
    Time for a third party.  The country is beyond disgusted.  
    BTW, in all of the personal power courses I've taken here at work, the "take no prisoners" hardball strategy that Obama used was the one most likely to result in negative blowback.  And he's got it.  Congratulations!

    they have lost you, not "us" (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:52:30 AM EST
    Please take your third party, Hillary laments elsewhere. This is the third warning to you today. Your agenda is apparent and it's in conflict with this site.

    Frankly, (3.66 / 3) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:27:14 PM EST
    I neither want or need him at all. He wants to be irrelevant. That's peachy with me. I neither expect a man who stated giving poor people health care would be asking them to choose between rent and health care or aired Harry and Louise ads to represent me at all regarding health care reform. It's a darn shame you suckers weren't paying attention to that particular stuff and now are busy playing "color me shocked" that your guy isn't really for a universal plan. You shoulda paid more attention before you bought your bill of goods.

    Excellent... (none / 0) (#43)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:20:14 PM EST
    So you are not complaining.  And nor am I.  I guess we're all happy with how things wound up.  :-)

    I can positively (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:47:35 PM EST
    feel the happiness emanating from Obama's poll numbers. Yeah, the electorate is beyond thrilled with the bang up job he's doing. Heh.

    Nope (none / 0) (#45)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:41:25 PM EST
    I'm not complaining at all. I knew straight up what the Dem party was doing and chose to dissociate myself with it as a result. If they fail, it'll be no skin off my nose.

    I've got great health care anyways. It's just a darn shame to watch some of my neighbors struggle. That's okay though, I figure by 2012 Obama's numbers will look quite similar to his GOP counterpart and predecessor.


    stole the nomination? (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:32:08 AM EST
    More people voted for her.

    We all lost (4.00 / 4) (#18)
    by goldberry on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    As for Florida and Michigan, the fair and honest thing for the voters would have been to allocate the votes as they were cast.  Had Hillary won the primaries, she would have been obligated to make Obama her VP.  Win, win for everyone.  

    What do we have instead?  

    Stupidity on a grand scale.  

    BTW, my team is the same as the other hypereducated, middle class creatives.  But I got lumped in with a bunch of Reagan Dems and got called racist, Republican, old, fat, middle aged and uneducated.  I have more in common with Princeton than West Virginia, though I completely identify with the working class.  

    Ahhh, that's it.  The more you identify with the working class, the more screwed you were last year.  And now the party is going to suffer a potential collapse because it wrote us off last year.  

    If Obama's team "won", it was a phyrric victory.  


    In your opinion.... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    And that's the point.  I personally disagree.  I still think that the DNC should have followed the rules for this election, but every member of the DNC should have had to resign their position.  No matter how you slice it your being unfair to some set of people.  Actually our whole primary system is unfair to a large set of people, but that's a different post.

    Frankly, I don't know if you're racist or not.  I don't know who you were lumped with, but I can say that both sets of supporters in the primary were doing a lot of lumping.  It's unfortunate, but it's life.  

    Myself, I was on the team that "won".  Of course I was accused of being sexist and a woman hater -- although oddly I wasn't when I contributed to Hillary's run for Senate.  And accused of not being a hard working American.  

    BTW, Obama as VP would have been a slap in his face.  I think a step and fetchit moment.  That would be like Williams making Woods his caddy.  I'd fully expect Obama to turn it down, although I don't think Hillary would have been stupid enough to make the offer.  


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 07:57:11 PM EST
    Obama as VP would have been a slam, just as Hillary as SOS was a slam.

    But women have taken second position to men since time began.


    But... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:16:18 PM EST
    white women have always walked ahead of black men.

    Oh really (3.66 / 3) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    Black men got the vote before us, they were integrated into the military before us.....so where in this revisionist history are you getting the idea that they walked behind us?

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:41:42 PM EST
    Black men were in slavery later than white women.  Black men were not allowed to read later than women.  Black men weren't allowed to live in several cities and towns later than woman.  Black men have held fewer congressional positions (absolutely and proportionately).  Black men had to sit at the back of the bus longer.  Black men had to attend inferior schools longer (still do).  Black men had TV shows and movies later.  Black men owned major professional teams after white women.  Black men became billionaires after white women.    

    And yes, Blacks got the right to vote before women, but in terms of the actual ability to vote, that didn't come until the Voting Rights Act, which was 45 years after white women had the right to vote.

    And the right to join the military is one thing Blacks got early and the shaft on.  Blacks are more likely to be on the front lines and killed than their white counterparts.  I think many Blacks would happily have white women take their place :-)

    I could literally go on for weeks on this.  Although it is good to hear that there is someone who actually believes that white women have had it harder in the US than black men.


    They still (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:04:43 AM EST
    have a law on the books that allows my husband to beat me on the courthouse steps if I'm in Huntington, West Virginia. Of course without that law my gender still experiences one death every twenty one days as a result of domestic violence. I also don't remember them legislating your reproductive organs recently either so spare me. Like you, I can go on  and on for hours about the indignities heaped upon my "priveleged" gender.

    No offense... (none / 0) (#61)
    by BigElephant on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:46:11 AM EST
    But there are a lot more deaths of Black Men than 1 every 21 days as a result of the death chambers created in the inner city by the oppressive policies in place by this country.  Domestic violence is horrible, but I'd take my chances on that over being born as a black male in Watts.

    But I can still one up you.  In every city in the US a white person can beat a black male anywhere they want.  It's called being a member of the police.  

    And about reproductive organs... not sure what you're referring to.  I'm guessing something related to abortion, but not sure what specific piece of legislation you're talking about.  You've probably heard of the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment.


    Funny how you preface your comment, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:12:12 AM EST
    "No Offense" and then careen right into blatant offensiveness. That's a real talent.

    You can "take your chances" at being a woman if you like, but don't bore us with your denials about domestic violence. 1 in 4 women are abused by husbands or boyfriends every year in this country. Rich, poor, middle class, white, black, latina, asian, muslim, jewish, christian women. Many of them die.

    And if you really don't know what is meant by reproductive rights, you can always go to the library and get some books on it.

    No offense.


    You got everything wrong... (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BigElephant on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    Wow, how is it that you got every factual statemetn in my post wrong.  

    First, there is absolutely no denial of domestic violence in my post.  It's a huge issue worldwide.  But my point was clear.  Even with domestic violence leading to the deaths of many women, more black men die of violent crime in the inner cities of this country than women die of domenstic violence.  

    On the second point, she was referring to specific legislation regarding reproductive organs.  I assume it was passage of some specific requirements around abortion, but she didn't say.  I'd certainly prefer her to state her position to construct a strawman that wasn't her real argument... which is exactly what you just did.


    Why don't you just come clean (none / 0) (#84)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:35:07 AM EST
    and tell everyone here why you are so obsessed with creating a competition between women and blacks and who has it worse in the ol' U.S.A? Because I can smell your b.s. all the way from here.

    You ain't nothin' but a troll and you will be treated as such.


    I don't have that interest... (none / 0) (#85)
    by BigElephant on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    In fact if you actually read (I know hard for you to do), but I was originally responding to another poster who started the "competition".  If she didn't bring it up, I wouldn't have challenged her on it.  

    I know, shame on me for challenging a white woman, especially one who speaks truth to power (and since Obama is the president, we all know that black males run this country -- just incognegro).  I should have known better.  Half the posters are still upset about the last time a white woman was challenged.  I'll do 20 Hail Hillarys to make up for it.  Are you happy now?


    Birth control (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:05:38 AM EST
    pills are considered "abortifactants.(that's right still)" According to the Supreme Court insurance companies don't have to carry them. Pharmacists and doctors don't have to write for or fill prescriptions for them if they happen to disagree with birth control.

    Thanks to changes in Medicaid the cost of pills went up substantially and we all know what happened to the low cost birth control provision in the stimulus package don't we?

    Women who happened to find out late in their pregnancy the fetus they carried had a deformity now have an increased risk of hemorrhage or a preforated uterus so some of the male dems could score political points. I'm sure that's no big deal to you but for a women it could mean the difference between life and death.

    In 1986 I joined the Navy. My ASVAB scores were high. High enough for the recruiter to remark that it was too bad I wasn't a male. Why? Females weren't allowed on subs. I couldn't apply to be a nuke. The first women to make it on a sub did so in 2008. When was it again that the AA male got the short end of the stick in the military? I'm guessing it wasn't during this century.

    Here's commentary from an enlightened male on it? My commentary on his commentary is in CAPS in parentheses

    Chief Petty Officer Doug Wilson disagrees. "Close quarters with mixed crews produce romantic relationships. Our culture has given up on sexual purity, so why do we expect people will magically become `professional' and abstinent once they are crammed together inside a 350 tube?"(AND WE ALL KNOW THAT BECAUSE WOMEN HAVE UTERUSES THAT THEY SHOULD BE THE ONES PENALIZED THANKS TO THAT LITTLE FACT.) He shakes his head. "I went to submarines to get a breather from my wife and her mother.(THE NAVY IS SUPPOSED TO BE A BOYS CLUB WHERE WE CAN READ OUR PLAYBOY SUBSCRIPTIONS IN PEACE) Especially her mother. Now I have to spend 60 days underwater with women? You know how long they take in the bathroom.(HA HA i'M A WITTY CHAUVINISTIC MORON.)"

    That was a little more than a year ago. By the way, a potential reason they actually went ahead with allowing women? One woman filed a lawsuit because limitations on how and where someone is able to serve affects their advancement.  


    Good points... (none / 0) (#77)
    by BigElephant on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:45:13 AM EST
    The statement about birth control is a good one.  Of course, there are equal travesties against the black community, but they take the form of under funding research on "black" diseases.  

    The point about the military is a point I actually concede.  Women haven't had the luxury of having some of the worst jobs in the world, while whites have given blacks the luxury of giving up their life for the country, while getting little in return.  

    Why do you want to die for a country that has so little regard for you as a woman?  I don't get that?  Blacks have been shoved into working for the US govt as gladiators because of the lack of employment for blacks.  Women don't have that excuse.  

    It just seems contradictory that women have it worse off than anyone else in this country -- yet you want to give your life for it.  Blacks would empty the military if they had the career opportunities that white women did.  Unfortunately there are only so many spots in the NBA and on Rocafella Records.


    huh? (none / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:39:03 AM EST
    on what planet?  Black men earn more money than white women.  They got the vote first..... the list goes on and on.

    Facts speak for themselves (none / 0) (#69)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:49:21 AM EST
    You can disagree all you want.  The truth has a way of proving itself.  

    Oh totally (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 06:36:49 PM EST
    that would have worked out great- the Black guys ahead basically from day 1 (actual elections) then it all gets changed in comittee and he has to take a back seat to the white person, yeah can't see how that would turned out badly, I mean its not like African-American's have some sort of historical parallel about being asked to give up something for a white person and go back, something to do with bus's or what have you.

    You weren't paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    Hillary was ahead from day one.  Florida and Michigan overwhelmingly went for her but were excluded from the vote totals in order to give Obama the illusion of being ahead.  

    The Roolz were arbitrarily enforced or discarded depending on how Obama came out on top.  

    Given the outcome, it's a wonder you don't think about this more carefully.  I know I certainly did.  How is it that a one term senator with 142 days on the job comes out of nowhere with scads and scads of cash AND backed by the establishment press?  That right there should have rung your alarm bells.  The media was behind him.  You know, the CORPORATE media?  The one we all hate?  
    Add that to the fact that he didn't really have a voting record to speak of.  But that didn't stop stupid Kossacks from making $%$# up about what he might have done.  

    There's a lesson here if only people would see it: never vote for a blank slate, no matter how much hope and chznge he promises you.  And especially never vote for someone that Chris Matthews loves.  


    Goldberry stop (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    refighting the primaries here. They are over. Go do it somewhere else.

    Caucuses (4.20 / 5) (#51)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:42:12 AM EST
    Obama won due to caucuses, mostly in red states.  Not elections.  That was and is problematic, and although it got papered over, largely due to the efforts of one Hillary Rodham Clinton (I don't think I'm alone when I say that without her efforts I might well have stayed home), it never really got fixed.  

    I really wish to god, or whatever passes for one, that his supporters (and I mainly mean his white supporters - I don't know anybody that begrudges AA democrats for supporting him) hadn't been so quick to play the race card.  It might have made it easier to point out that he simply was not ready for the presidency.  It seems obvious now.  It was obvious then, but if you said so, you were a bigot.

    It's just infuriating to see the Obama administration caught completely unready for the partisan warfare that everyone knew or should have known would be required to enact anything resembling a Democratic agenda (and believe me, I got lectured on how mean I was to think so).  He was just dead wrong about reaching out and coming together and 11-dimensional chess "exposing the haters," as it was often put, as if the haters ever tried to hide themselves (it's their brand for god's sake).  Now his presidency is in a hell of a lot of trouble - and since our country is in crisis and our only other political party has gone insane, so are we all.  It's the stuff of nightmares, mine specifically, and it was entirely predictable.  Infuriating, depressing, frightening, and sad.  


    Bravo. Well said. I'm with ya... (4.00 / 3) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:08:15 AM EST
    Obama's (none / 0) (#68)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:38:47 AM EST
    post partisan shtick isn't going away.  But honestly I do not think Hillary would be doing that much better right now, even on the healthcare issue.  The issue is the Village, not Hillary v. Obama.

    Hey sher, thanks for the 1! (none / 0) (#83)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:11:20 AM EST
    The only thing that could make me happier is a zero!

    Oh (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:04:15 PM EST
    and women have NEVER had to play second fiddle to men. LOL! That's exactly what happened.  The woman is playing secretary even as we speak.

    The RIGHT PR where the reasoning that he won because the Demos broke their own rules and the rules have to be unbroken would have resulted in a fine outcome.  But the fact is that the Dems WANTED him, the guy who they could manipulate, didn't want Clinton from BEFORE the primaries ever began.  And the breaking of their own rules was about making sure that he was ahead from the beginning.  Had they not broken their own rules, Hillary would have been ahead from the beginning.

    In addition, the Obama campaign was run as if Hillary's VOTERS were those of a Republican challenger, and that was bound to result in very weak support in the general.  Good strategy in Chicago maybe, horrible strategy nationally.  Many Democrats despised the Obama campaign for that but voted for him as the lesser evil.  And that weak support is evident now as it craters when he breaks promises that we didn't think he'd keep in the first place.


    Yeah horrible (none / 0) (#86)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 08:19:34 PM EST
    man Obama's national strategy sure failed, I mean sure he was the first Democrat to break 50% in more than 30 years, what a failure.

    he wasn't ahead (none / 0) (#90)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:42:26 AM EST
    he only ended up with 17 more delegates in the long run and that was with only half of Florida and MI counted.
    The whole primary season was rigged for him by the DNC and by the media.  I am sure that if "they" knew NH would go for Hillary then that state would have been punished for moving it's primary too.
    Hillary was the choice of the democratic voters.  Instead we got nohopenchange. Because the super delegates like campaign cash.

    The second-most (none / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 07:55:49 PM EST
    fair and honest thing for voters would have been a re-vote.  Of course, Obama was against that because in the crooked course of events, he was ahead.

    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    But here's what I don't get.  How did Obama become the most powerful politician in the history of the world?  He himself could not stop a revote if that's what the DNC deemed as appropriate.  The junior senator from Illinois does not wield that type of power.  

    It's a bit of a fiction to pretend that Obama somehow did all this, while Bill and Hillary were helpless.

    The fact of the matter is that a revote would be almost impossible to pull off.  And frankly, if you do the math with the likely outcomes, nothing changes.  Even the bitter feelings from both sides remain.  


    Oh. My. God. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:13:39 AM EST
    Where were you during the primaries?  All he had to do was say "jump" and all the Dem. Party and Dem. elected officials would have jumped, as they did throughout. Instead, what did he do?  He fought like the devil to prevent anything resembling a fair process.

    But honestly, the process isn't even the point.  My anger and mistrust of Obama has very little to do with all that.  It has to do, as it does with a sizable number of Dems., with his refusal to campaign on anything resembling a genuinely liberal platform, commit himself to much of anything, and his flat-out refusal even to identify himself specifically as a Democrat, most visibly in his direct mail pieces, which never once even used the word.



    He fought it (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:29:26 AM EST
    because the late part of the campaign showed her as having the momentum. They kept saying she has to win this to stay in and she kept doing so.

    Her reward was to be insulted in a way no man ever was by having her delegates co opted in such a way to make it appear that she didn't actually win those primaries and those electorates decision to support her didn't matter. All because the Democratic leadership was afraid of a floor fight where debate could be invited on who was the better standard bearer.


    There were options (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:59:36 AM EST
    A mail-in primary would have been easy to pull off.  I never really heard any objections except that time was of the essence and the Obama camp kept dragging its feet.  Remember Carville and friends offering to put up the money for it?  If Obama were that popular in Michigan and Florida, you'd think he would have jumped at the chance to prove he had a mandate.  But he didn't.  Because he wasn't.  And anyway, when you have the media carrying your water, there's nothing to prove.  

    Goldberry (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 10:00:11 AM EST
    you've come back here to refight the primary wars. They're over. Can you please bring yourself into the present? I have no intention of letting the threads here devolve into that argument again. Or into a bashing of the Democratic party based on the what happened in the primaries.

    These discussions are not about Hillary v. Obama.


    Pssst (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    It's "you break it, you bought it."

    The half of the party(The New improved Dem party) that insisted that Obama be the nominee now pretty much has the responsibility for what is ocurring(and that includes kos).

    Frankly, I'm no longer concerned with Democratic branding. The only thing I care about is comprehensive policy that can improve the life of my family and my children as well as the lives of my neighbors and their children.

    Kos can thank himself and the Democratic party for that growing number of Independants that include people like me that are finally standing up and saying "Don't bother asking me to vote for you if you aren't going to be an improvement over the other party."


    I'm a new independent (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by mexboy on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    and I never felt more free. I no longer feel the need to buy either party's bs and no more phone calls and emails for money.

    The usurpers of the Democratic party, now in power, deserve to be tossed out and the people who are responsible for the underhanded tactics need to make amends. Yes, that includes the bloggers at the orange site.

    I feel like I divorced the party I loved...Irreconcilable differences.


    Yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:08:02 PM EST
    it most certainly opened my eyes.

    I was always a reliable Democrat, and a reliable voter, and will never be either again.

    Yes and it's freeing.  I got to the point while Bush was in office that I couldn't even listen to country music, because of the ridiculous pro-Bush message there.

    Now that it is perfectly clear that there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans, I've taken my hyperpartisan blinders off.

    And I enjoyed the country music festival on CMT last night.


    Country music is horrid... (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:23:53 PM EST
    but it has little to do with George Bush.

    I will say that supporting a party rather than ideas is ALWAYS a bad thing.  To this day I don't support the Democratic Party.  I have my own ideas and vote for who i think is best.  

    There are some positions for which I've voted Republican every election, e.g., County Prosecutor.  

    It's good to hear that some of you are beginning to realize that your allegiance should never be to a party... even if it's a party of one.


    It's not... (none / 0) (#63)
    by mexboy on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:02:32 AM EST
    ...that some of us are beginning to realize anything. It's that the party has abandoned the ideals "some of us" believed in, to cater to big money.

    Your statement would put us in the kool aid drinker category, and frankly I resent that.


    Whoa... (none / 0) (#78)
    by BigElephant on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    What old party are you referring that changed their ideas for big money?  The Democratic party has always been about big money, business, etc... Now with the internet it is easier to see, but don't be naive and think that it "suddenly" happened.  You just weren't paying attention before.

    I can't stand pedantic bloggers! (none / 0) (#82)
    by mexboy on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    but don't be naive and think that it "suddenly" happened.  You just weren't paying attention before.

    If you have an opinion state it without trying to  diminish someone's intellect to aggrandize yours.  It reflects poorly on you.


    Really? The GOP is morally bankrupt (none / 0) (#74)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:14:33 AM EST
    As far as I can tell, their motto is "There's a sucker born every minute and it is our job to extract as much from those suckers as possible."
    We new independents are more liberal than the old independents.  A lot pickier too.  

    LOL (none / 0) (#62)
    by mexboy on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:53:48 AM EST
    I do love me some country western dancing, and the lyrics are the way songs are supposed to be written, okay, maybe without the talk about honky-tonk and stuff.

    That was inevitable (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 06:30:23 PM EST
    The other result would have had over half the party dragged kicking and screaming for a woman they thought a) wasn't in keeping with core Democratic principles or b) Wasn't trustworthy-- its not like there was some other solution either one side or the other was going to been angered and disappointed don't try and pretend that had the primaries played out differently it would have been all good.

    Which core principles would those be? (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton was the more liberal of the two during the primary and I must of missed the part where she praised Reagan as transformational......oh wait, that was the guy who we have now.....you know the guy who ran Harry and Louise ads against the universal health care plan she was offering.......Doh.

    The difference is ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:04:39 AM EST
    ... HRC had a much better idea what to do if she had got there.  That would have made a difference.  

    Really? So you admit (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:19:29 AM EST
    that that half of the party would have had to be "dragged kicking and screaming" if the votes had been fairly counted?

    Interesting.  It's what I suspected, but I haven't seen it admitted so frankly before.


    if the primaries had played out HONESTLY (none / 0) (#91)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:02:14 AM EST
    no one would have a problem with that.  More people voted for Hillary and that is how democracy is supposed to work.  Obama was never really ahead and if the kool aid drinkers couldn't live with a smarter harder working more liberal more populist president then they can stay home from now on or vote republican.

    Way lots of time left in the game. (none / 0) (#5)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    Just have to start making better use of it.

    Trust (none / 0) (#7)
    by waldenpond on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    Is there any trust on healthcare?  People are angry for many reasons.  Just keep reading how bank consolidation has INCREASED under Obama....  Obama appears to be on the side of big business.  If the Republicans hit on this and  healthcare 'reform' passes with no public option and a giveaway to insurers and deals with pharma, voters are going to be p1ssed.  I know I am.  I was going to work and vote for Obama next time around with a strong public option.

    Has Kos been publicly (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    Supporting a strong public option or feds imposing a limit on increases in medical care and pharmacy costs?

    I dunno (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 02:46:25 PM EST
    I've tried to stay abreast.  I've popped in and out of there and didn't see anything like that with his name on it.  I'm no regular though.

    No (none / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    he's been letting others do the heavy lifting - you missed the pie fight over slinkerwink and nyceve not posting prominent disclosures that they are now paid bloggers on health care reform. It was ridiculous because the community agreed that plain, unambiguous disclosure was proper and various entities were all:"Why are you attacking these loyal hard working people?" and "This is just an attempt to derail the public option!".