I am a leftist. Have been one since I can remember. My politics are probably more democratic socialist than anything else, but I am pragmatic and have given (wasted) 24 years of allegiance the Democratic party. At 13, I was the only kid in the class (in NYC!) of 42 who would get up and be Mondale. I worked for J. Jackson before I could vote, and Dinkins the first year I could vote. I contributed money to B. Kerry in 1992, even when I had nothing to give.
The "liberal" Democratic party has disappointed me time and again. They back off from fights when they are needed (Reagan era, Bush eras), create drama when it is not needed (see first 2 years of Clinton) and run the most ridiculous national campaigns one could imagine- Dukakis in a tank???, Gore with the pink make-up and trying to be alpha male during the debates? Kerry not responding?
This time I am not only disappointed, I am saddened. I realize that in writing this I will face the wrath of any Obamopath that finds this obscure blog, but the "liberals" have managed to do it again. Hillary Clinton has been demonized by the left. A purposeful narrative has been created around her, playing on inherent gender biases and misinformation spread against her in the 1990s to make her this overambitious, say anything, heartless, "Lady Mcbeth"ian, horrible person. Her record has been misrepresented. She has been called racist and every word out of her mouth has been redirected to reenforce this narrative by a press that knows that her fall makes a great story. A press that is also enamored with a phenomenal speaker.
The problem with the narrative is that it does not represent who she is if you actually pay attention to facts. For example, I read in commentary from newspapers, watched tonight on CNN (forget what MSNBC does) and see constantly in blogs that she has run a negative and attacking campaign, that her downfall is her own fault. If we look at the facts, however, we can see that she did has directed her commentary toward policy and electability. The Obama and Edwards campaigns attacked her continuously since last fall. The attacks have been general and relate mostly to the narrative that was being fed. For example, calling her part of the "old school", "not an agent for change", etc. are generalizations; but, how true are they? During the 3 years that they have been in the senate together, Barak and Hillary have voted differently on a total of 6 important issues- and in 3 of them, she has taken the more progressive position. Her actual policy proposals are far more ambitious than his and better laid out. I read Obama's books and get e-mails from both campaigns. Clinton's have mostly not mentioned Obama but when they do- it is on policy or electiblity. Obama's e-mails have talked about the Clinton income, which is interesting since he made millions also from speeches and books. He constantly has sent out negative messages.
He states that he is above a negative campaign. This is only because he has had his advocates do it for him. If anyone remembers back in January, when BHO had lost NH and NV to HRC and he needed to win SC by a wide margin to prove viability- who pulled out the race card? None other than Donna Brazille, who had sunk the Gore campaign as campaign manager with her hatred for the Clintons, came out and labeled a speech in which Bill questioned why nobody is checking Barak's consistency in his speeches and actions (calling it a "fairytale" but not implying or mentioning race anywhere in the speech) as a "racist" comment. All hell broke loose as a comment saying that the civil rights act needed a president who could pass it to get through (LBJ not JFK) became viewed as racist as well. The truth about this was written about in the left-leaning New Republic http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&k=5083, but noone paid attention. I would challenge those who call the Clinton's racist to look at the actual statements, not the interpretations and also look at their actions. They have worked in the civil rights movement for their entire lives.
There are so many other aspects to this. Mysogyny was clearly evident. There was a media fueled MTVish elevation of Obama to a god-like level, when he has done little in his career to merit this. Noone has asked, "hey, what change? How?". In one breath his supporters will say that there is little difference between their policies, so HRC supporters should back him, and in the next breath they will link her to W.
What it has left me is the choice of allowing another right wing presidency or supporting Obama. I will work as hard as I can to prevent another right wing presidency. I am going to work for Obama and vote for him, even though I disapprove of how he has run the campaign. However, I intend for that to be my last Democratic vote- and since Republican is a word that shouldn't even be used in polite company, the two parties are out for me. After 08- and hopefully a president Obama since we have no other choice. I am done. He would have to really impress me (more than words) for me to vote for him in '12. I am going to find a party that represents something. They chose the "flash" over the substance and this down to earth person is done with them (after Nov.)...
One more thing-
Barak owes Hillary not the VP- that would be terrible. HE OWES HER A SUPREME COURT JUSTICESHIP.
