Many of our 'friends' at DU seem to be having trouble understanding why we silly GLBTers won't 'get over' the Warren insult and trust Obama to do the right thing (even though he's never said he'd do the right thing by us), so I'm introducing Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to maybe help explain why we're so pissed off over this 'little slight'.

Maslow stated that there is a hierarchy of needs that must be met with the basest needs coming first, followed by more intangible needs after. Without the needs of the previous tier being satisfied, it is impossible to fully achieve the next one. Pretty simple theory, really, but also very accurate.

Now that everyone should understand the concept, look at where "SEX" comes in. That's right, its in the first tier. Our need for sex is one of the basic necessities for moving forward toward self-actualization. Rick Warren and his circle of hate mongers is trying to stop us from experiencing a need that in many ways in on level with breathing and eating.

Of course, most of us ignore Warren and do have sex - for now that's not quite illegal for us (anymore), so we get to move to level two. But what do we find there? Ah yes, a need to be free from the fear of physical attack. I understand that most straight people don't think much about the fact that GLBTers ALWAYS have to worry about showing too much affection in public. They don't realize that all it takes is one ignorant thug in a crowd of thousands seeing a simple kiss or a held hand to create a violent scene in some darkened street. Then there is the security inherent in marriage, a right forcefully ripped from us by proposal 8, legislation spearheaded by Rick Warren.

Still many of us learn to live with the possibility of stalkers and gay-bashers to move onto tier three - Social needs. Once again, Warren and his hateful ilk work tirelessly to keep us from being part of the social fabric of this country. We are called perverts - no better than child rapists and animal molesters. They say we're not to be trusted with our nieces and nephews because of our 'predilections'. They work to make you fear us, or at least have doubts.

Some, but not nearly many as should, can find a home with family and friends who have resisted Warren's hate filled message so they get to move to tier four. Self esteem and reputation are tricky for any teenager but for a GLBT teen who hears constant reinforcement of the fundamentalists' beliefs when their called fags and dykes is incredible. When they are threatened for being too effeminate or for 'looking at me funny' they lose their self esteem and often their public reputation is taken with it. This works the exact same way at work in adulthood. Homophobic co-workers and bosses who can't promote you because of the 'sensitive' work environment effectively pushes us into the closet destroying our self esteem.

Very few are ever allowed past tier four to experience the benefits of the other levels because people like Rick Warren work night and day to ensure that our lives are kept as basic and primitive as possible. They want us to suffer, they want us to live in fear. We are an example of their power over others and they want everyone to see the public face of their hatred. They want everyone to view our humiliation and helplessness and shining a spotlight on Warren at the inauguration has shone a spotlight on his power over the GLBT community.

Barack Obama has honored a man who just worked to successfully take a basic human right - a tier two need - from us. He will begin his administration with words from a man who wants to take away, by force, our most basic needs. That is so unacceptable to us that we must speak out - loudly. It is our very survival.

Now, I know many of our 'friends' here will come in with the usual talking points - "It's just two bloody minutes"..."You're being intolerant of other people's beliefs"..."You need to trust Obama to do the right thing"..."It's a plan by Obama to prove he's not a Muslim"... - but I hope there are at least a few who can look at this chart and see what people like Warren are trying to take from us, where they're trying to keep us, and how Obama's invitation plays into their hands. I know I'll be subject to the usual flames, but perhaps a little understanding will happen as well.

I've been angry these last few days. Angrier than I remember being in a very long time. I've said some very harsh things to fellow DUers who have, either knowingly or unknowingly, said some very harsh things to me. I've taken some time to think on what has been debated here since Thursday, though, and I find I'm not so much angry any longer, but embittered.

You see, in a moment caught off guard, our president elect said that those without hope turn to religion and guns out of bitterness because they see no real way out of their situations. I agreed with him then and I still do. The only difference is that we in the GLBT community are turning to each other and away from those who want us to 'wait just a little while longer'.

We're doing this because most of us don't understand how we can 'respectfully disagree' with those who truly hate us. We don't know how to say "I disagree" when someone tells us that we are no better than child rapists and dog fuckers, and we don't know how to celebrate when our president gives people who tell us this a position of honor at his inauguration.

Even more, we don't understand how we can stand shoulder to shoulder with people who advocate our destruction. We can't easily forget when these people work to take away our humanity. We lash out when someone tries to rip our families apart and denies us the basic foundations of freedom.

So when we are told to wait just a little longer or to merely think of the Warren invocation as a door being closed on homophobia, we cringe. When people tell us to trust a man who has given so much honor to someone who works to harm us, we get angry. And when we are told by our DU 'friends' that our humanity is nothing more than a single issue and that we have to look at the bigger picture, we become embittered.

We do this because we see the hatred that comes from Warren and people like him. We see it when a loving couple is denied the right to marriage because it's 'unnatural'. We see it when that couple is told they cannot adopt a baby because it would be 'unhealthy' for the child. We see it when we are told we can't give blood because our 'lifestyle' is too dangerous. We see it whenever we hear of another friend being beaten or killed for being 'a dirty queer'. We see it in sitcoms and commercials that make fun of 'those silly fags'. The reasons are all around us every day. We see it every time another friend or loved one passes from AIDS. There is no let up and there is no sanctuary from it.

So after all of that I ask you, how do you respectfully disagree with hatred?

You know, I've been thinking about the proposed loans for the auto companies and how Congress is dealing with the situation and it made me think about that old saying. You can't blame the fox if the farmer leaves the henhouse door open. That's just life on the farm, the fox's instincts will always draw him to the coop so its the farmer's responsibility to make sure to close the door so the fox can't get in.

Now, I'm reading here at DU and other places that people are mad at GM, Ford and Chrysler for shipping jobs overseas and I agree. We keep losing jobs to India, Mexico and China while these CEOs and upper level management rake in extra bonuses for putting Americans on the unemployment lines. Post after post is filled with angry comments asking why should we buy American when the auto companies aren't willing to invest in Americans, themselves? Great question, really, but is it the right question if we want to get to the bottom of the real issue?

Corporations are driven, instinctually, toward profit. Its the nature of the beast. If a CFO sees a spreadsheet that compares the average wages of a Chinese worker to that of an American worker he smells the scent of extra profit and must follow it because that is the nature of survival. A corporation that does not maximize profits will not be able to build up a nest for the lean months to come, just as a fox who does not take advantage of an open coop door won't see the next spring.

So the question isn't why does GM take advantage of low wage workers in other countries, it's who left the door open that gave them access to those workers to begin with. The answer was in front of each of us as we watched the auto company hearings - Congress. That's right, the farmer who carelessly left the door open for the fox is now trying to sanctimoniously pretend its all the fox's fault. Instead of looking to himself and castigating himself for his own failures, he threw his hands up in the air and cried "what are we ever going to do about these foxes?". Was it the fox's fault the farmer gave him such easy access to the hens? Is it GM's fault that in an extremely competitive market, Congress opened free trade agreements that punished those who paid living wages?

Meanwhile, the hens - also known as the American workers - are left to run around the coop desperately trying to avoid the sharp teeth of the fox. We keep dodging and clucking at the top of our lungs but the farmer is off to the town pub to tell everyone about the fox in his coop. But he still hasn't even bothered to shut the door and his chickens are getting worn out!

So who's going to shut that henhouse door? I'm afraid it's going to be left up to us poor chickens to make sure the farmer knows what happens when he doesn't uphold his responsibilities to the coop. We need to make sure that every farmer *ahem* -member of Congress- knows that if he doesn't protect us from the fox, he's not going to be getting many eggs *umm* -votes- come election time.

After all, you can't blame the fox when it's the farmer who's not doing his job. The fox is always going to want to eat.

That's just the nature of the beast.

To give the complete Amendment:


For over 140 years we have taken this Amendment to the Constitution to mean something only for ex-slaves, but please read it again. This Amendment says nothing about skin color; it is all inclusive. Every citizen is equal and no state shall abridge or deny us our rights.

I keep reading that the only way to change the laws is to change the hearts of the majority. This is called mob rule, something that has no place in our society. The base majority does not have the Constitutional authority to grant or deny us our basic rights gained from the 14th Amendment.

This is why it is necessary for the courts to rule on marriage equality using the Constitution for guidance. It is also the reason Proposition #8 and all similar laws passed by the states must be ruled unconstitutional because anything else violates the oath every judge is sworn to uphold.

This is why the Congress must use its power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th Amendment. To do less is to violate their oaths of office.

And lastly, it is why President Obama MUST use his powers of enforcement to declare all measures that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States illegal and void.

To do anything less is unConstitutional and unAmerican.

I'm seeing quite a few threads expressing sympathy for B-Girl but not a whole lot for the man who could have been wrongly charged, prosecuted and imprisoned for assault with a deadly weapon and attempted rape if this woman had been a better liar.

So I'm going to express my Official Sympathy for every American in prison today for a crime he did not commit.

I'm expressing my sympathy for every black man who has been wrongly accused merely on the basis of his skin color.

I'm expressing my sympathy for that 6'4" black man in dark jeans and black tank top shirt with the 4"-5" knife who really did exist but would never have dreamed of assaulting Ashley Todd. He was lucky this time, but the next time the accuser may lie better than she did.

And yes, kick and recommend this if you feel the same. It's time to let these apologists know that there was a real man in danger yesterday who, only by the grace of a bad lie, may have escaped with his very life.

My wife just got back from a family reunion in Alabama and that was what one of her aunts announced at the dinner table one night. Apparently, much of the family from the south agreed as they nodded and began discussing the evils of abortion, stem cell research, affirmative action, etc..., while the family from the north sat there in near silence (I didn't go strictly because I knew this kind of thing would come up and I've never been good at holding my tongue in these circumstances). It sounds like a common example of the political conflicts that happen all over the country but there are two things I got from that story that I just can't get over.

First, it seems to be commonly accepted, not just in the south but in many evangelical churches around the country, that demonizing the Democratic party and any other group the fundies hate is fair game, legality and morality be Damned. These churches know the sway they have over their congregations and use that to affect government policy by drawing lines between what they desire (good) and what they don't (evil). They know very well that when faced with an eternity of Damnation, many of their members will eschew logic for salvation and they exploit this for their own moralistic and financial benefit. Worse yet, they know they will get away with it.

Second, one of those northerners who sat there listening to these people talk about the evils of stem cell research couldn't stand up and argue her views - she's quadriplegic, living in a specialized wheelchair that assists her breathing via a tracheotomy tube due to an accident when she was 14 years old. My niece is now 19 years old and the doctors have told us she is not expected to live much longer. Nearly every expert agrees that stem cell research has the potential to repair the damage done to her spinal cord but that with little to no funding, advances are very limited. What galls me is that she had to sit there and listen to these people tell her that God says that the medical procedures that could save her life are evil. These people have created a death sentence for her because of the teachings they learned from their pastors.

I don't like to post maudlin threads but I want everyone here to know what we're up against. My wife's family aren't purposely cruel, they're maliciously misguided. They believe what the pastors of their churches tell them but those pastors are preaching hatred and death. My niece's story is just one example of the real life repercussions of allowing churches to break the laws separating church and state with impunity. It is most likely too late for stem cell advances to help her but there will be another young girl, or boy, who might have a chance at a future from the research done today - a chance that fades a bit with each day that we allow these fundamentalists to control our policy on stem cells.

I support freedom of speech, even the speech of those who advocate the cruelty I've just mentioned. If the pastors of these churches want to support repubs and call Democrats evil, that is their Constitutional right. However, I do not support enabling this kind of hatespeech at the taxpayers' expense. We subsidize these fundies by allowing them to remain tax exempt because of their claim of religious organization, but they have broken their tacit agreement with the People and they have broken the laws of the nation that preclude churches from advocating for a political party. It is long past time to stop this demonization of political parties and beliefs. We must demand that these hatemongering churches lose their tax exemptions for politicking as an example to others to discontinue their policies of affecting political races.

Sometimes it isn't just a matter of politics, it's a matter of life and death.

7:00pm: Barack's going to kick mcloser's ass!!! GOBAMA!!!

8:00pm: This isn't even going to be close! mcASS is just a doddering old idiot and Obama's going to obliterate him!!

9:00pm: HERE IT COMES!!!!!! THIS IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR SMACKDOWN!!! WHEN DO YOU THINK BARACK IS GOING TO USE HIS LASER BEAM EYES TO DESTROY mcIDIOT?!!!!

9:30pm: McLIAR isn't telling the truth! Who knew that would happen?!!

10:00pm: WHY ISN'T OBAMA HITTING HIM BACK?!!! WHY DOESN'T HE WALK OVER THERE AND PUNCH HIM?!!!!!

10:30pm: That's it, the election's over. McLAME won the debate and Obama just can't deliver.

11:00pm: The M$M called it for McTRASH! WE'RE DOOMED!!!! DOOMED I TELL YOU!!!!

11:30pm: The post-debate polls are coming in and it looks like Obama kicked mcLOSER's ass!!!! I KNEW IT!!!!

12:00pm: Yes everyone agrees with me that Barack wiped the floor with mcCORPSE!!! I don't know why everyone was so worried?


Mind you, this could be the condensed form of DU just about any day that a news story comes out and all the Chicken Little's come out of the woodwork to tear their hair out and cry that it's all over. Of course everyone has the right to to bitch and moan but it really does get tiring reading the the same posts from the same Doom & Gloomers day in and day out.

Personally, I think this negativity comes from those who either don't understand Obama's policies and beliefs or just really don't have any confidence in him. Or perhaps they just don't have the confidence of their own convictions and every time a repub talks they begin to doubt themselves.

Either way, it's time to stop the drama and become part of the solution. If you're that worried about us losing then volunteer to phone bank here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/callerint...

That way you can do something positive with those negative feelings and help this country instead of bringing down this board.

Remember, the sky can only fall if you don't do your part to hold it up.

It's been a whirlwind week with decimated financial institutions creating suspended/not suspended campaigns, last minute deals/deal breakers, canceled/not canceled debates, productive/non-productive white house meetings and an entire repub ideology, gasping for oxygen, flopping around on the floors of Congress.

Yes, the dying fish of republican ideology is lying there with no one willing, or able, to pick it up and put it back into fresh water. The ambush that was supposed to break a hole in the dike of the Democratic dam has instead seen the mighty river of republicanism philosophy dry up.

Now to quit with the worn out analogies, it's this simple. The repubs had nothing to run on this election cycle but dirty tricks and racism. And while racism is (or isn't) a factor that we can not know until the actual election, we have seen that the dirty tricks just won't work this time. Our candidate has knocked every one of them back and shown himself as a true leader. Even the M$M is using the word "Presidential" more and more to describe Obama.

The financial collapse isn't a trick, we now find. If it is then it's the worst planned ambush in political history, leaving those who orchestrated it looking small and helpless while the Dems take on the role of leadership. Mcsame has been relegated to Hail Mary passes and kicking for field goals on his own 20 yard line.

Sure the M$M wants a horse race and they will try their best to prop up the cadaver that was once mcsame, but there is little they can effectively do when the repubs are fumbling so outrageously. They'll try to make it close, but in the end, they know that repub ideology is dead and rotting.

So, to the janitorial staff at the Capitol Building, please send out a custodian with a mop, bucket and deodorizer, there's something on the floor that's beginning to stink.

Here we go folks, we're about to bail out the top 0.1% with over $1,000,000,000,000 (yes that's $1 Trillion) of our working class taxes to shore up an economy that left us behind eight years ago. Now I keep hearing that if we don't do it there'll be massive job losses and foreclosures, but I keep wondering why they didn't bother to do anything for all the previous years of massive job losses and foreclosures. It seems to me that there wasn't really a problem in these people's minds until the ultra wealthy started to feel the pinch.

So I guess we're stuck with this plan to pay off the the Rockefellers and the Trumps for their own failures to the tune of $3500.00 each (that's man, woman and child) but if that's the case then I want to know a few things that I'm worried about being hidden down in the fine print.

***Are the CEOs and the directors of AIG, Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, etc... going to get "retention bonuses" and "golden parachutes" for their hard work in staving off failure with our money?

***Will these corporate executives take a pay cut in line with the massive layoffs that they will inevitably force upon their workers?

***Now that the US government will own 80% of AIG and who knows how much of all these other corporations, can we, the taxpayers, expect to receive our own dividends when/if these companies return to profitability? Or will the government ignore us and sell back our shares at heavily discounted prices to "help the flow of the free market"?

***Since the US will be the majority stockholders in these companies can we demand that the jobs they have shifted overseas be brought back to our shores to help offset layoffs?

***Lastly, will there be any changes in the regulation of business to ensure that this does not happen again or can we expect to go through this every few years after the pigs have finished feeding at the trough?

To be honest, until these questions are answered none of us should be supporting any sort of bailout for these corporations and their executives. They have spent years getting fatter and fatter at the expense of the middle and lower classes and now they want yet another handout. Yet, without safeguards we are doing nothing but abetting corporate irresponsibility and greed. This will only embolden the ultra wealthy to continue the cycle of corporate welfare and make the divide between rich and poor ever greater.

So this time it needs to be our turn to draw up the contracts, leaving out the fine print.

But you'll vote for him because someone on the Internet was mean to you.

He thinks calling his new wife a cunt is perfectly acceptable.

But you'll stand aside and let him take that view into the oval office.

Screw the policies he'll support like his anti-reproductive rights agenda and his hostility to equal pay, let's just think what McCain's total view of women is. To him women are little more than arm candy for his admirers to ogle at. He's a "show 'em off in public and beat 'em down in private" kinda guy.

Yet some of you think he'd be a better choice than the Democratic nominee because Obama beat Hillary in a fair race.

I've read thread after thread comparing Obama supporters to wife beaters, calling him a misogynist, saying that he stands for nothing, etc..., but what it all comes down to is that some are just angry that he beat the woman they've invested so much of their own personalities into.

I'm sorry you're hurt by all of this, but it's time to snap out of it and act like adults. Feminists are people who believe that women are equal to men in every regard and most of the women at DU have shown how true that is. Now it's up to the rest of you to understand that Hillary, the feminist, will take this loss hard, but she'll take it like an adult as well. She'll stand up and do what's right for this nation.

If you can't follow her lead in that then you are no feminist.

If you let a REAL misogynist like McCain win in November because you want to teach the rest of us a lesson, then you're no adult.

What a shitstorm this primary has become, just for the sake of two little old states...that could possibly turn the general election. Right now it seems like every other post is raging about these two states with opinions ranging from "count the vote! (but not for Obama)" to "Kick 'em the fuck out of the Union! (but make sure they vote for Obama in the fall).

The problem is that the vast majority of the people posting these messages aren't from either state and have no real clue, other than talking points, about what actually happened and how to best resolve it.

I won't speak for Florida, because they have their own idiotic politicians and their own set of circumstances, but I will speak for Michigan as a lifelong resident and someone who knows the politicians who caused this fiasco.

I'm not going to get into too many of the details of what actually caused this problem as I've posted it several times and you can find it in my journal if you want to read it. I am, however, going to talk about the best way to resolve the problem while still maintaining a chance to win the state in November.

First, if you don't think that the citizens of Michigan realize what a clusterfuck our primary was, let me assure you that we do. It was not our decision to do this; we didn't vote for it on a proposition and there was no mass mailing screaming for our chance to jump ahead of our posted date. This was all the work of our state party and their lust to play queenmaker for Hillary Clinton (this is not a dig against Hillary, I'm sure Obama would have done the same thing if he could have gotten the support).

Early on, the majority of the power brokers in MI rallied behind Clinton and began using the Democratic party political machine to drive her polling numbers up. As part of this push, they also decided to break with the DNC to bring the date of the primary forward for two reasons. First, Clinton's desire this entire season has been to break the DNC so that she can replace Howard Dean with a supporter (once again, not a dig. This is how politics work). If Michigan could move their date forward and get away with it, the Clinton faction could argue that Dean was unable to control the party so he should be isolated (and they would have been right). Second, Michigan has a very large African American population in key areas of the state. If Obama were to take off, he could swing those voters and destroy the work of the political machine. Bringing the date forward was a way of killing two birds with one stone.

Obama, Edwards, Biden and Kucinich all knew that Clinton had a lock on the state so they removed their names from the ballot when Iowa and New Hampshire asked them to (Kucinich messed up his paperwork and remained on). Clinton didn't because she wanted the talking point of winning the state if Iowa or New Hampshire fell through. Unfortunately, this left us without a viable primary. Most Democrats either stayed home or crossed over to help Romney win the state to set McCain back (ironic since we did the same in 2000 to hurt bush*). The others either voted for Hillary - 55%, Uncommitted - 40%, or Kucinich/Gravel - 5%.

Now here's where the really dirty part comes in. Most would think that by voting uncommitted the delegates from those votes would be giving to Obama at this point, but that's not the case. Remember the queenmakers I spoke of earlier? They're the ones who get to decide who to appoint as those "uncommitted" delegates and they would be very willing to give them in great numbers to Hillary. So, in Michigan, voting specifically against Hillary would be effectively casting a vote for her. Can you see why so many didn't bother?

So what do we do when the state Dems have screwed things up so insanely? There is no real fair way of handling it because there was never a real vote. However, if the DNC decides to leave Michigan unseated, the repubs will turn the state red come November and now matter how angry all you Obama supporters are with us that would ensure McCain's victory. On the other hand, if our delegates are allowed to be seated without punishment there will be six or more states jumping ahead of their scheduled dates in 2012. In reality, we could end up voting for our nominee in the fall of 2011. It would be the end of an effective Democratic party.

Anyway, what I would suggest is seating ALL of Michigan's delegates but splitting them 69-59 in Hillary's favor. This would maintain the illusion that Michigan's vote counted without allowing it to affect the actual nomination. The state legislature has already voted on and approved this solution. This means Obama would be the Democratic nominee and would have the support of the state of Michigan in the GE.

As a side, I would also like to see the state's super delegates lose their votes or at least see them halved. They're the ones who caused this problem, they should be the ones to suffer.

Hopefully the other 48 states will learn a lesson from this not to try using power tactics to bully the party or swing elections.

There is no way to be fair because no matter which way this is decided someone will be disenfranchised.

Scenario #1: No votes count and Michigan is excluded from the process. If this happens then Michigan gets no say at the convention. It's like we never existed.

Scenario #2: Votes are counted EXACTLY by the original vote. This would silence every voter who did not vote for Clinton because there's no way of telling who each of the "uncommitted" votes were for.

Scenario #3: 50-50 split of delegates or any compromise split: This turns the Michigan delegation into little more than a heap of scraps for the dogs to fight over. The dog with the biggest teeth wins.

Scenario #4: Revote. It's far too late for a revote if the Democratic party wants to have even the slightest chance of winning the election. It would take at the very least a month to put everything in place and get the word out to the voters. Besides the physical logistics, there would be the time wasted in deciding exactly WHO gets to vote. Hillary wants only those people who voted in the original primary, ensuring her win, Obama wants a full vote letting everyone who didn't vote the first time a chance to vote. The DNC wants a caucus so that it can be done quickly and inexpensively. Realistically, it would be nearly impossible to hold a new primary or caucus before the convention due to the wrangling of each camp.

Personally, I'd suggest giving splitting the total delegates and SDs into a 55-45 split in Hillary's favor, or somewhere around there. This should give her the "moral" victory she claims to want without skewing the results enough to alter the dynamics of the race.

The one thing I'm most opposed to is Scenario #2 which would only serve to embolden rogue states in the next election to do the same thing Michigan has done. One of my greatest issues with the Hillary camp is that if she succeeds in breaking the DNC, she will have also broken the Democratic party. Can you imagine what would happen in 2012 if six or more states decided to push up the date of their primaries and used this election as precedent? No court in the land would be able to block them from deciding to hold their contests in December or earlier. We could literally be voting for our nominee two years before the election if things ran this way.

To every action there is a reaction. Anyone who supports the breaking of the DNC needs to remember that.

Since the media and some very worried DUers have been expressing their "concern" over Obama's weakness in claiming the white vote, I thought I'd do a little checking on some of our past presidential elections to see how our other nominees did in claiming this all important demographic.

Oddly, it seems John Kerry had his own problems in getting the whites out to vote:

Kerry 41%
Bush 58%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...

But that's just an anomaly, right? I mean Kerry lost the popular vote. So let's check on the last Democratic popular vote winner, Albert Gore.

What? It looks like Al couldn't quite do it either:

Gore 42%
Bush 55%
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections...

Amazing! But then it was "close enough to steal" I suppose. But At least good old boy Bill Clinton knew how to talk to the white voters. His wife keeps telling us about it. So I'm sure he got a majority in 1992.

Clinton 39%
Bush 40%
Perot 20%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...

WHAT?! He didn't win a majority of white voters? Only 39%, less than anyone else? It must be due to Perot taking away all the white voters he would have gotten so let's check 1996.

Clinton 43%
Dole 46%
Perot 9%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...

Huh! Well I'll be jiggered. It looks like Democrats haven't won the white vote in at least four elections even though we won the popular vote in at least three of them.

I wonder why the media and our own "concerned" DUers haven't mentioned that?

This is a repost of a thread I wrote April 10, 2008. I thought it would be appropriate tonight.


I've seen plenty of my fellow Obama supporters stating that there's no sexism at play in this election but I've never agreed with them.

I've seen plenty of Clinton supporters stating that most Obama supporters are sexist and I've certainly never agreed with that.

I think the real sexism running rampant in this campaign happened six years ago when Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution against her better judgment and against her previously stated beliefs. She voted for IWR because she felt that a woman couldn't be seen as weak on military issues and have a chance at the presidency. She became a hawk on military matters even though that ran not only against her beliefs but against the beliefs of her constituency, the state of New York.

The problem is, I can fully understand why she did it. She's an ambitious person, like most politicians. She had a goal that she felt could only be obtained by voting for a bill she didn't honestly agree with. I'm sure she, like most people at the time, thought the war would be quick and precise, with little bloodshed.

None of this excuses her vote, but it does provide a glimpse into the cost of real sexism. If Clinton had voted her conscience, instead of pandering to the bigotry of sexism, she would likely be the Democratic nominee at this moment. Unfortunately, she made an incredible lapse in judgment that has helped cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and the perpetual misery of untold millions.

Very few of those who support Obama over Clinton are sexists just as very few who support Clinton over Obama are racists.

The real sexism is what caused a good person to support a war she never honestly believed in.

And the cost of that sexism is steep.

Hillary Clinton says my voice doesn't matter to her.

When Hillary says that she wants Michigan's votes counted as is, she's telling me that she doesn't think my vote should count because I didn't vote for her. She can spin it and lie about it all she wants but there is only one truth. Clinton doesn't want my voice heard.

And when she claims to have the popular vote by disenfranchising four entire states' votes, she is saying that she doesn't think their voices should be heard, either.

So how many people does Hillary Clinton not care about when she cuts us all off from the Democratic process? One million? Two million?

The answer is however many it takes for her to grab power.

So do you want ANOTHER president who says "Who cares what you think"?

I think two terms were enough. Don't you?