Perspective from a Jaded Old Democratic Feminist Person

[Sparkly]

I can see DU is all in a lather about the primaries, and I've seen it all before.

Philosophically, I am as "lefty" as left can get, but defined by "who you support" -- like a Tiger Beat FAN thing -- I can understand that you (especially if this is your first rodeo) might declare that I'm "third way" or "DINO" etc. I've heard it all before.

(For the record, I've also been called a Commie Pinko Feminizi Socialist Hippie Libtard, but enough bragging.)

The first vote I could make was for Jimmy Carter, but I wasn't great at picking winners. I was fierce about Mondale/Ferraro, I loved Michael Dukakis, and Paul Tsongas was my preference over Bill Clinton -- but I voted the straight Democratic ticket always, and doubt that will ever change.

I was dumbfounded that Reagan could win twice. I could not BELIEVE Bush II managed to get into office in 2000 over Al Gore, and 2004 is beyond explanation -- history will take a long look at that one.

That's the election that brought me to DU. I was a regular at MWO ("Media Whores Online&quot and a "Clarkie" who didn't dare join DU until he bowed out. We had a lot of primary candidates that year, and a big, nasty brouhaha happened here on DU arguing over the TRUE leftist liberal who'd take the fight to the rightwing vs. the pragmatic "electability" approach. Did I mention that it got nasty?

There was a lot to learn that year, and no way to unlearn it.

A few observations:

1. Democratic candidates, at least, are neither as perfect nor as horrible as they seem from any perspective.
2. The distance between policy positions of Democratic primary candidates are microscopic compared with their differences with Republicans.
3. It shouldn't be a game, but IT IS. The media is on the side of ratings, not truth. The RNC machinery feeds the media sensational "scandals" with tidbits that add up to "narratives," like "Al Gore is a serial liar" and "John Kerry faked his wounds."
4. In the primaries, you can count on the media to drum up drama for the same reason, happily echoing anything the rightwing drums up. The front runner is always AWFUL, and someone better is always right around the corner.
5. The front runner is the front runner for a variety of reasons, and will always be the target of the RNC as well as the other Democratic candidates. That can create bitter fights within the party, and I am so PROUD of Sanders and Clinton, as our front-runners, for staying focused on issues and not getting into the mud. This is the most civil primary season I can remember.
6. For the same reasons, the RNC will always attack the person they don't want to run against, and stay silent (or feign "Let's hope he/she doesn't get into the race!&quot in regard to anyone else. They propped up John Edwards to the bitter end, as an example.
7. We want to believe THIS candidate is really different; THIS one is starting a movement, a revolution, a grassroots campaign of the people that will change everything about politics as we know it!!! THIS one at last knows what has to be done, what we need to fight, how to win that fight, and how to get young people energized and engaged!!! I've seen it over and over again. Guess what. In Washington DC, where we have this messy mix of representatives with so many strings attached, it just doesn't happen. It can't, it won't, it's not where the battle is really fought. And I am as sorry as you are.
8. There is money in politics. Money and fear of death basically rule the world, and that won't change. All we have as a country, when you get right down to it, is a few people in black robes who are SUPPOSED to uphold basic principles above all else.
9. Pragmatism might seem like "compromise," which equals "going over to the dark side!" I understand that -- it feels really good to fight for your convictions with a strong commitment to what's right vs. what's wrong, imagining a clear line of battle. That's also the reason it's so easy to impugn the motives and characters of your fellow Democrats. Been there, done that. "THIS time" it's different, every time.
10. As I write this, it just seems I should have a "10." I will just share an opinion here about a dimension of this election nobody really wants to talk about -- after all, it's playing a "card," it's being a "victim," and it's very, VERY unfashionable. And that is the long history of Hillary Clinton as a woman.

I know, I know!! "The Clintons!!" I've heard it for so many years now, I'm too old to count them. (All together now: "The Clintons think there are different rules for them and everyone else.&quot It has become fashionable and "smart" to echo rightwing memes and malign her, accuse her, paint her as a greedy, dishonest, corporate shill warmongering beast. To the extent life in politics makes anyone a beast, okay -- she's earned a strong shell. And yeah, she wouldn't make the best talk-show host in the world. (Who among them would?)

She's not been my favorite person on the political scene, but I do know that she is smart, strong, hardworking and pragmatic. I have seen her fight back against rightwing attacks since she first appeared on their radar in Arkansas. She is smarter, feistier and more liberal (oh gasp!) than her husband, and she has had to harden her shell as she's fought back against bogus attacks, one after another -- How dare she have a career and accomplishments of her own? What does she have against baking cookies, against women who stay home? What's with her hair and outfits? And her annoying habit of having a mind, and speaking it!!

The nature of human psychology makes it easy from there to gather together, point at her and decide, "We don't like her." "She is a warmonger." "She is all about money." "She lies." Hating her is the smart, fashionable, popular thing to feel. It's easy to overlook how deep the social prejudice goes, so soon after her arrival as the dreaded "liberated woman" target in DC, and not so long beyond the time we got the vote.

(I can hear it now -- "I'm a woman and I hate her." "You're playing the 'sexist' victim card." "It's all about the issues." "He's just better." "Warmonger!" "Goldman-Sachs!&quot Spare me. It is simply easier to hate -- and I mean HATE -- women, and this woman in particular, because she's pushed against it for decades, on her merits alone.

I LOVE Bernie Sanders and I always have. I have no big disagreement with anything he says. There is no conflict, in my mind, between cheering him and supporting her. She too is breaking ground -- it's just harder to see that, mired in this political culture.

If you skimmed this to see which flag I'm waving, mine is just DEMOCRATIC. (I also walked to school, uphill both ways... Someday you'll see.)

[ucrdem]

1. You can't hide the Hill

Mojo will out!

[djean111]

2. As a a Jaded Old Democratic Feminist Person (woman), myself - I do not see the Presidency as some

sort of prize for hard work. When I think of the TPP, fracking, war war war, cluster bombs, more H-1B visas - I just cannot support Hillary.

And I say bullshit to those who say she has to be tougher, to be taken seriously - over whose bodies?

[Sparkly]

3. You still think campaign rhetoric makes a difference.

It doesn't.

[djean111]

14. I don't listen to campaign rhetoric. I don't watch ads or listen to speeches.

I don't care about the family stuff, really. I just care about what have they done, and what does my gut tell me about what they will do. Don't care about gender or race or age. I would have been happy to support Liz Warren, so I consider that anyone who says I don't support Hillary because of some ridiculous woman issue are facile fools.

I just look at records. I was a rabid Hillary supporter in 2008, voted for her in the Florida clusterfuck.
Between then and now - I started looking stuff up. That is what I base my support on.
It has also been very instructive for me, listening to why my 20 YO grandson and his friends support Bernie. I am astonished at their ferocity in this, and also astonished at how they view Hillary and ALL of the other candidates.
They dislike the GOP candidates, and literally could care less about the other democratic candidates. No hate, no dislike, they cannot be bothered because the other candidates represent the same old stuff that got the country where it is today. Not really working for them. That kabuki theater "we must all vote for the "D"" thing, for better or for worse, won't fly for them. This will be quite the interesting primary season.

And, having decided on who I will support because of deeds and records, not rhetoric, there is literally nothing any candidate can say that would cause me to shift my support. The dirty tricks and smear things just let me know I am making the right choice.

[Sparkly]

16. I get where your grandson is coming from.

Remember George McGovern? Like I said, I know what that passion feels like -- "THIS one is really different."

Deeds and records -- it's all about what ends up in the papers. Anyone over 40 has a long record, with a lot of deeds, and the opposition will paint it any way they want to.

[djean111]

20. I know you don't mean to, but

Remember George McGovern? Like I said, I know what that passion feels like -- "THIS one is really different."

sounds a bit condescending. The thing that stands out to me is that they don't care about the "political" stuff. They will likely not vote at all if Bernie is not the nominee, because they don't buy that lesser evil thing. They consider the system is broken, or, more to the point, that the system is geared towards the 1% anyway. They know the crazies are backed by the 1%. They know that Bernie cannot work miracles. They consider that the other candidates won't even try, and that most likely the other candidates don't even want to try.

Deeds and records - no getting around refusing to vote to stop using cluster bombs, for not only voting for the Iraq war - but actively shilling for it. Shilled for the TPP and fracking. And if those were just in service to Obama, then don't use the SOS years on the resume. All verifiable, transcripts, YouTubes, etc.

The sniper fire story bothers me a lot, because it was a fairly detailed lie, and so easily exposed. Hubris? The explanation of only being human - okay, (not really, others were actually under fire), but is this the person I want answering that 3 am phone call? The president does not get do-overs.

[Sparkly]

33. I don't mean to.

But really, I have seen this all before.

[artislife]

25. I was taking you seriously until you trotted out McGovern

You wrote a great OP. Then you showed your hand, which is simply. Get alright with H and vote for her so we can win back the White House.

I don't know why, but Lucinda Willaim's Get Right with God is playing in my head.

Get Right With God
Lucinda Williams
I would risk the serpent's bite
I would dance around with seven
I would kiss the diamond back
If I knew it would get me to heaven
'Cause I want to get right with God
Yes, you know you got to get right with God
I would burn the soles of my feet
Burn the palms of both my hands
If I could learn and be complete
If I could walk righteously again
I would sleep on a bed of nails
'Till my back was torn and bleeding
In the deep darkness of Hell
The Damascus of my meeting
I asked God about his plan
To save us all from Satan's slaughter
If I give up one of my lambs
Will you take me as one of your daughters?

[djean111]

30. Oh, lovely way to end the day.

Car Wheels on a Gravel Road and Essence - best CDs ever. Actually, all of Lucinda's music. Best ever.
And Get Right With God won her a Grammy!
Thanks again!

[artislife]

34. Well, this got me to Youtube and listening to Lucinda

Life is good...sweet dreams djean!

[Sparkly]

32. I don't understand.

You have a problem with McGovern?

[artislife]

36. No

Sorry....I am onto a Lucinda Williams jag now.leaving the debate to listen to one of the best song writers ever...sleep tight....

[canoeist52]

63. Right there with you djean.

[840high]

28. Thank you.

[smilingwen]

60. YA me too

Like you said. Me too, old democratic feminist woman that does not want war. Also don't like the continued corporate takeover. Bernie is hope to get democracy back on track.

[reformist2]

4. But she *is* a warhawk with ties to Wall Street. Just ask Dennis Kucinich or Elizabeth Warren.

[Sparkly]

5. Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...

... I haven't been around in a while.

I LOVE Kucinich and Warren.

AND Clinton is not a warhawk with evil ties to Wall Street.

[reformist2]

6. Then you disagree with Kucinich and Warren, who say she is.

[Sparkly]

7. If you say so.

I don't believe they do.

[840high]

29. She certainly is.

[Maineman]

42. She IS a warhawk. As Bill Clinton said, "It is better to be wrong and strong than right and appear

weak."

[Sparkly]

47. I do not recall that.

I do recall him saying that being "smart" and "strong" are not mutually exclusive.

In any case, one quote doesn't indicate a mindset, and they don't share a brain.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I liked her MORE when she was an icon of left-wing Feminism who had the GOP in a lather over cookies

...When she tried, admirably, to at least get some traction on health care, 20 years before Obamacare.

She lost me in the early 2000s, between the Iraq War Vote, and "The Sacred Foundation of Marriage is between a man and a woman" and her attempt to outlaw flag burning----speaking of flags.

That said, I don't hate her. I want her to run a better campaign, one focused on issues and not crappy poll-tested pablum. To her credit, she's been doing a bit better lately.

So nice try, but no sale.

[Sparkly]

12. Yes, being a Senator was different.

Not sure you heard what she said when she made the IWR vote or where she is on gay marriage now. (Flag burning -- I can't say I know or care.)

She's been putting out serious, detailed policy proposals on issues for some time now, but you wouldn't know that from the media.

No "sale" intended. I respect your opinions.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Sure, fine, but it's worth noting that many Senators were able to vote against the IWR when it came

up.

Names like Boxer, Wyden, Wellstone. Durbin. Feingold.

Kennedy.

Of course I've heard what she's said lately- frankly, if she hadn't come around by now on marriage equality it would be a real problem, no? She gets credit for "evolving" but not a free and total pass for what transpired before.

On Flag Burning, it's worth a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html

(I'm someone who doesn't appreciate lawmakers fucking around with the 1st Amendment. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine)


I don't pay any attention to the media, these days. Oddly enough, I'm more informed than ever. Funny, that.

I agree that she has made moves towards more substantive policy proposals, there are certainly more issues she can (and hopefully will) address. I am uncomfortable with her taking private prison lobby money and would like to hear her specific plans to end- not rebrand- the drug war.

But I look forward to the Debates. Respect, back atcha.

[Scootaloo]

9. Can you present an argument to support Clinton, rather than merely settling for her?

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I think she represents something to some people- and it's not just about her being a woman, either.

I don't have a handle on it, psychologically, but for whatever reason as evidenced by discussions on DU earlier this year, Elizabeth Warren clearly would not have scratched that particular itch.

Maybe it's 'vindication' for 2008, maybe for something else...

don't quite grok it.

[Sparkly]

13. No, I would vote for Warren in a heartbeat.

She'd scratch my itch any day, politically speaking.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Me, too. I wasn't specifically referencing you or the opinions expressed in your OP.

More just a general sort of observation with some of the folks emotionally invested in Hillary's campaign.

I will have no problem supporting Hillary in the general, if she's the nominee.

[artislife]

26. Thank you for being you! Best request yet. nt

[RobertEarl]

10. I will vote for Hillary

If Hillary makes it to next November as our candidate, I will vote for her.

However, I can hear the opposition's long time complaints about her already ringing in my ears. Nothing I can say will stop that opposition, and I will hardly even be able to campaign for her, so it will be a campaign against the republican. That's about it.

OTOH, if Bernie is the candidate, I will have lots to say and do as I campaign hard for him. It will be real easy to say, with complete sincerity and truthfulness, that Bernie is not anything like the rest of the politicians. That he is the real deal.

[Sparkly]

15. I understand that.

I have supported many "real deals" who started from the back of the pack, and made a phenomenal showing from the grass roots, etc. -- not anything like the rest of the politicians, the real deal.

The opposition's complaints would come only AFTER someone else is nominated. Don't kid yourself that they don't have a ton of opposition stored up against Bernie, Biden, O'Malley, or anyone else.

[RobertEarl]

18. Who are these other 'real deals'?

As far as I can tell, I am the originator of the term 'Real Deal'; for Bernie.

There has never been anyone like Bernie so close to being elected as POTUS.

And... like I said, the Hillary opposition has been ringing in my ears for decades now. The worst I have heard about Bernie is he is a gun-nut. I doubt the republicans are gonna go with that!

[Sparkly]

35. Many "Real Deals."

Yes, there have been others as close and closer to being POTUS. I mentioned several in my OP.

I get that the opposition has been ringing in your ears, absolutely. The GOP hasn't shown its hand on Bernie at all.

[RobertEarl]

48. There has never been a Bernie, the Real Deal

Not McGovern, not anyone, ever before.

Besides, Hill lost in 2008. Remember? Why? Because she voted to invade Iraq. Anyone who voted to invade Iraq is not anything like your supposed real deals. So there you have it.

[Sparkly]

50. How old are you?

I didn't suggest that HRC is a "real deal" groundbreaker dream candidate. But yeah, there have been even better Bernies than Bernie.

[RobertEarl]

54. Name one better than Bernie

Good to see you admit Hillary is not a real deal dealer. Or did you?

No one who voted to invade Iraq can be considered to be a Leftist. Bernie voted NO.

[betsuni]

17. I LOVE YOU WILL YOU MARRY ME?

These are all the things I want to say. My first vote was for Carter, too (reelection).

[Sparkly]

41. .

[AOR]

22. Nicely written but you need a few primers on leftism...

...it does not flow through the Democratic Party or the "two-party" electoral process and it never has and it never will. The most the Democratic Party will ever offer is "reform and regulation" of capitalism. The currently constructed Democratic Party is far away from even that long run fatal embrace. No sense avoiding the facts. No sense in people arguing about it and claiming differently. Why do people claim and insist to be leftists when they can't let go of capitalism ? They are not and it's that simple. One can't claim to be a leftist while holding fast to some illusion that capitalism can be incrementally changed into a benevolent good for the whole. It is what it is...the institutionalized theft of the labor, wealth created, and commons of the working class people for the profits of a minority ruling class who own the means of production and control the resources and the commons.


Misrepresenting the Left: We Are Not Liberals

by Ron Jacobs

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/misrepresenting-the-left-we-are-not-liberals/

(Snips)...

" Despite the current media-induced confusion, liberals are not leftists. This misconception is not only embarrassing to those of us who are genuinely leftist in our politics, it is also discrediting the Left. From the New York Times to FOX News, the portrayal of the US Democratic party and Barack Obama as leftist is creating a perception in the US populace that leftists are ineffective politicos who have no principles they won’t modify. Of course, the Left has not done that great of a job explaining the situation in any other way, thereby leaving the way open for the misconceptions put forth by the media to appear as truth. "

" If one wants to know what a liberal is, they need only to look at The US Democratic Party. From Hilary Clinton to Dennis Kucinich, that party is in no way leftist. How can I say that? To begin with, liberals differ from leftists in fundamental ways. For starters, liberalism is founded on the sanctity of private property. According to John Locke, who is quite possibly the godfather of liberalism, it is the possession of property that gives humans their freedom. Indeed, in its early days, liberalism only saw freedom as being deserving to propertied males. While not disparaging the positive aspects of liberalism’s early days–its opposition to monarchy and the role of the Church, to name two of the most important ones–it is crucial to acknowledge the shortcomings of a philosophy grounded in the ownership of property. Since the fact of private ownership was a qualification for entry into self-governance it obviously excluded many members of those societies where the politics of liberalism replaced the monarchy and the Church. Add to this fact the denial of political power to women and (in the newly created United States) the acceptance of slavery, and the shortcomings of liberalism as a philosophy guaranteeing liberty and equality become glaringly obvious. It is understood by those that utilize a Marxist analysis to understand history that liberalism is a bourgeois philosophy, primarily because it protects the dominance of that class in those societies where it flourishes. "

" The Left believes in justice. According to most liberals, so do they. However, the Left also believes that there can not be genuine justice for all unless there is economic justice for all. To put it briefly, human rights can not exist for all regardless of class until economic inequality is addressed and minimized. Ideally, this means that the motivation of profit is eliminated altogether. It does not deny the right of people to own their own property, but it does deny those who would profit from letting others use that property through rent. Unlike liberalism, leftists publicly acknowledge the fundamental nature economics plays in how political structures operate. This doesn’t mean that liberals don’t understand the essential role capitalism plays in maintaining the liberal state in all its guises, it just means that leftists know that to lessen the inequalities that exist under capitalism, it is necessary to change it with the eventual goal of ending its predominant role in determining social relations. In short, leftists understand that capitalism is a fundamental source of social inequalities, while liberals tend to believe that, if capitalism cannot cure those inequities, it can surely help lessen them. This belief exists despite the historical empirical evidence that the opposite is true. "

" Like liberals, there are several varieties of leftists. All, however, share an understanding that capitalism is an essentially unfair economic system that rewards those who already have capital much more frequently than those who just work their tails off. They also understand that capitalism needs wars to survive and requires inequality to function. This is why they oppose it. As stated before, liberals have a much rosier view of capitalism and have historically been willing to do whatever it takes to save it. So, while they may be the Left’s occasional allies, they are not the Left, no matter how many times FOX News and the New York Times say they are. "

[Sparkly]

37. No need to lecture me.

But thank you.

[passiveporcupine]

39. thank you for your post

In short, leftists understand that capitalism is a fundamental source of social inequalities, while liberals tend to believe that, if capitalism cannot cure those inequities, it can surely help lessen them. This belief exists despite the historical empirical evidence that the opposite is true. "

[Sparkly]

43. And realistic leftists believe...

that their beliefs on capitalism are like dust in the wind. It doesn't matter one whit - not here, not now.

[AOR]

55. The responsibility of leftists...

is agitation, organization, and resistance against the prerogatives of capitalism and the ruling class. The responsibility of leftists is fighting for the working class over capital in all things. That is the only leftist reality at any given point and it has nothing to do with beliefs or personalities. Acceptance of capitalism as "the end of history" and the lesser of two evils as "pragmatism"... is not " leftist political realism"... it is political cowardice.

[Maineman]

49. This was informative to me. Thanks.

[RobertEarl]

52. Interesting

So here's an oddball take on this Left is not liberal and capitalism rules.

I own a penis. Because I am a penis owner, this society, indeed, even the government, bestows upon me certain privileges that non-penis owners do not receive.

But as a leftist, I don't think anyone should be judged by whether they have a penis or not.

[AOR]

56. I'm not all that bright Robert...

you'll have to break that one down a bit more so I can understand your point.

[RobertEarl]

57. It was an oddball take

First read the laborious post about the Left, not liberal, again.

Basically it centered on ownership being something which governments and society favor in the determinations for preferred persons.

Have not governments historically preferred penis owners over those not owning a penis?

[elleng]

23. You and me Sparkly,

Tsongas and Clark, and as you suggest, took a while to arrive at DU after that. Now, O'Malley.

[Sparkly]

38. I hear that.

I'm still thinking he could emerge after a debate or two!!

[elleng]

40. Sure hope so;

will certainly gain him more attention, which can only be good.

I keep thinking I shouldn't say or contribute to those I favor; seem to jinx things!

[Sparkly]

46. Really, you never know!

I really believe if people see/hear "Clinton/Sanders/Biden" for awhile, they might respond favorably to a good alternative, like "Wait, who is THIS guy?" People just don't know him.

[elleng]

51. Right, exactly,

and people have seen and heard A LOT from Clinton/Sanders/Biden.

[leftofcool]

27. Good post Sparkly. K&R

[Sparkly]

44. ty

[delrem]

31. That certainly does explain why you support Hillary Rodham Clinton. nt

[shenmue]

45. Remember when GD:P was about the primaries?

And not an endless stream of anti-Clinton diatribes?

Really, Sanders people, if you think you'll win by flinging poop and giggling, you won't.

[delrem]

53. quit flinging poop, shenmue.

for shame.

[DonCoquixote]

58. I can respect you

However, there are two things I would ask you to look at.

One: many of the people who support Bernie or O'malley in the primary will indeed vote for Hillary if she wins. We have seen Hillary supporters outright say that we deserve to be THROWN OUT OF THE PARTY because we like someone else. You yourself do not sound like the coronation types, but go to a place like hillarysupporters.com and you will see pure hate. This is what will cause damage as many fo us, especially in purple states, know that the GOP will be out there with everything from corrupt cops to "gunmen with a history of mental illness" to red tape types trying to make sure that voting democrats is as difficult as it could be. When you will need nothign less than every vote counted, telling people that they will be thrown out of the party does not help.

again, if Hillary wins, I will vote for her, and I will say that I am thankful that we are not putting up someone like a Joe Liberman or Evan Bayh. However, now we get to point two:

Two:There are people already putting LOTS of pressure on Hillary to turn right. From the Lloyd Blankenfelds, to the Alice Waltons, there are big money people trying to ensure that vices on the left are ran over, not talked to, ran over. These are the people who WANT to cut social programs because they are "entitlements" They are the people who want Keystone, who want to destroy teacher's unions. We understand that Hillary is trying to get money, but for us, the only means of making sure she leans left to place pressure, and yes, that involves messy activism and reminding her she has to earn our votes. Take Keystone, for months, she wavered, finally speaking on it. Would she have done that if we on the left did not keep beating the drum? If we do not want the oligarchs to make us strangers in our own house, we have to set the rules, and apply pressure, because you know THEY are.

and last Three: Even those of us who at least like Hillary are seeing her make the same mistakes she did in 2008, mainly because many of the people who ran her campaign, and indeed the campaigns that helped turn congress into the GOP Fortress that it is, are still calling the shots. I live in Florida, and I can tell you, Debbie Wasserman Schulz has been a bane of democrats for a long long time. Right after the disaster that was the Charlie Crist campaign, she wants to run another former GOP for senate. She is also playing with the debates, which ensures that while the GOP GETS PRESS, Hillary stays in the background. Even if you think, as I do, that trump will crash, that only means that he bought them valuable cover, the Jebs, Rubios and Fiorinas can show up fresh as daisies, using their pacs to launch attacks that, as tried and stupid and sad as they are, still play to the choir. This is a double tragedy because, contrary to what many think, SNL showed she CAN show wit. I truly believe that Hillary's own staff are the worst thing to happen to her.

The point is, it is easy to demonize people, and sadly, many people that think they are helping Clinton (or for that matter , Sanders) are undermining the very iron unity we need in November. However, just because some fo us are not on the tran for the primary does nto mean we will not be in the general, but for many, that seems to not be good enough. That is like throwing out the entree an dessert because an appetizer annoyed, especially wrong because the people who will be hurt are those of us who are lucky to afford dollar hamburgers.

[liberal_at_heart]

59. no, sorry. Just doesn't work for me anymore. I have voted straight Democratic ticket for 20

years now and have seen the gap between rich and poor grow exponentially and our public services being privatized. We now live in an oligarchy where a handful of rich people own not only the economy but also our government. I just will not do it anymore. You are of course free to your opinion and to your vote and so am I. I will vote for Bernie in the primary and in the General even if I have to write his name in.

[kaiden]

61. Thank you, Sparkly.

[planetc]

62. Thanks, and if we are competing on first votes cast, ...

My first vote was for Robert Kennedy for Senator from New York. I, too, have seen them come and seen them go. I kept faithfully voting Democratic, and when Bill Clinton hove over the horizon, it was such a relief to finally be able to vote for a winner. I was overcome with fatigue at noble losers. I shall not name names.

One thing that bothers me about our current crop of young Turks is that they are ambivalent about the MSM. On the one hand they scorn its works and ways, but on the other hand, they talk incessantly about whatever factoids it gives them that fit with the arguments they want to make. Above all, if the NYTimes says anything at all about the Clintons, reach immediately for a large, fresh box of salt.

And I am taking the heretical position that Mrs. Clinton's campaign is doing just fine at presenting the candidate and presenting her policy positions. And keeping their cool in the face of the rabid press corps, who have been snidely slandering her for decades, and now find her wary and cautious around the press. DUH, I wonder why that would be?

Let the games continue!