Tuesday, July 22, 2008
BAA BAA BLAH
Today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans: might makes right backed by money. The former staunch advocates of democracy in Liberal Talk always claimed that Democrats allowed free speech and allowed differences of opinion. Now Thom Hartman, who often said movements came not from the leaders but from the people, refuses to even hear anyone who is not full of the BO kool-aid. And of course, he avoids any mention of The Denver Group or PUMA, unless it is to derogate them.
It isn’t just that they consider us “poor little sheep who have gone astray” that “will get over it” and come to genuflect at the feet of their holy one. Oh, no, it goes deeper than that. We are being removed from more and more so-called Democratic Blogs and Lists because any OPINION adverse to BO is forbidden.
As you may have noted the BO campaign and supporters accuse any group, person or article that is critical of him with racism. Freedom of speech in America is on the way out. Magazine covers and articles that portray Hillary Clinton in hideously mutilated and sexist ways were and are just fine; but BO is not to be treated as anything less than a divinity.
Nonetheless millions are speaking out against the Democratic leadership that purged the Party’s laws and values to assure BO of the nomination and freeze out Hillary and her 18 million from the nomination process. There are still Democratic/Liberal Lists and Blogs that allow discussion and differences to be expressed.
And now there is Liberal Democratic Talk Radio available to us. Check these URLs for info: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/morningq
Deserving your attention is the latest ad from the Denver Group we have told you about before. Remember that all they are asking is for a fair Convention with Hillary’s name to be placed in nomination too, just as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s was in 1932 when he was 90 delegates short of the 2/3 needed to win.
Don’t be fooled by Howard Dean’s statement that of course, Hillary would be on the ballot – it means nothing to “be on the ballot” UNLESS HER NAME IS PLACED IN NOMINATION.
Dem Superdelegates Rule After All
By Craig Crawford | July 14, 2008 6:00 AM
“There was a time months ago -- when Hillary Rodham Clinton led the Democratic nomination race -- that party superdelegates were the bad guys according to the rhetoric coming out of Barack Obama's camp.
Obama supporters trashed the unelected, automatic and unpledged delegates as undemocratic autocrats when it looked as though they might put Clinton over the top. Not anymore.
With the dust settled on the primary season, one thing is clear: Obama is the presumed nominee thanks only to superdelegates. He never did win enough pledged delegates to reach the winning number, falling about 350 votes short. His expected victory stems from beating Clinton among superdelegates 463-257, according to a tally on Real Clear Politics.
All the more reason for Obama to make sure that there is no roll call including Clinton's name on the ballot at the national convention -- which a few die-hard fans of the former First Lady are still clamoring for.
Why highlight just how close the Democratic contest really was? And there is certainly no gain for Obama in dwelling on how he had to depend on super delegates to win the nomination.” Crawford writes for CQPolitics
If you do not like Obama and are conflicted about who to vote for that will not hurt women, here’s an excerpt of, and a URL for a must read article by Melissa McEwan:
“Even before the primary had ended, feminists/womanists (hereafter FWs) who had become disenchanted with Senator Barack Obama as a result of worrying rhetoric on reproductive rights, his and his campaign's use of sexist dog whistles, and/or his silence in response to an appalling onslaught of misogyny unleashed upon his opponent, were being bullied at any indication (real or imagined) that they would not vote for him. The usual cudgels were brought out to browbeat them -- Roe (to which I'll return later) and the ominous accusation that if McCain won, it would be their fault. As ever, it was the people calling out sexism and/or anti-FW policies who were charged with creating division among progressives, as opposed to the people engaging in sexism and their defenders.
Given Obama's most recent flub on abortion rights, first stating he doesn't "think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother" regarding late-term abortion exceptions, then clarifying by reiterating the same thing and fleshing out the pregnant straw-woman who wants a late term abortion just because she's "feeling blue," plus more of the "pastor and family" rhetoric -- a veritable symphony of rightwing talking points, infantilization and mistrust of women, and hostility toward their autonomy -- one might expect the bullies to realize that perhaps the FWs who had concerns about Obama also had a point, but if bullies were rational, they wouldn't be bullies. And so the drumbeat to cast FWs with legitimate complaints as the root of progressive discordance has only intensified.
How many Obots does it take to screw in a light bulb?
(by Joseph Cannon at Cannonfire)
Two. One does the screwing, while the other beats your face in if you don’t see the light. http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: email@example.com
Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm
GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:
http :// www.gendergappers.org