Left in the West - Election 2008

WakeUpWalmart.com Skewers McCain in New Ad

wuwm — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:22:45 GMT

WakeUpWalmart.com Skewers McCain in New Ad

McCain probably thought that by choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate he could mask his record on women's issues - or to borrow a timely phrase, put lipstick on the pig that is his platform.

But WakeUpWalmart.com is going to make sure he doesn't get away with it.

In a new ad, WakeUpWalmart.com highlights what is one of the most egregious examples of his standing in the way of progressive reforms like fair pay for women.

Women working at Walmart make notoriously less than their male counterparts (it's the Walmart way). That's why WakeUp Walmart joined together with other groups to form the largest discrimination class action in history.

This was a chance for Big Mac to prove those reform credentials he likes to talk about, but instead he case a big, fat, regressive "NO" to fair pay.

You call that "reform"?

McCain talks a big game about "change" all of a sudden, but he's saddled with an ugly record of reinforcing Walmart's Republican policies.

As economic anxiety continues, we need a president who will fight for the rights of workers, not Walmart.

WakeUpWalmart.com will hold McCain accountable for his votes and is running this ad in battleground states beginning with the McCain's parading of Palin at the debate tonight.

I encourage everyone to send it to any of the women in your life and to post it yourself.

McCain: How will you get your party on the same page?

America's Voice — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:33:22 GMT

Securing the votes in Congress to pass real immigration solutions into law isn’t going to be easy. The next President – no matter who wins – will need to lead his own party first to get it done.

Senator Obama would surely have an uphill climb, even with a Party Platform that favors comprehensive reform. But, given an enforcement-only Party Platform and the policy positions of most Republicans in Congress, Senator McCain may need to scale a brick wall to bring his party on board!

Nevertheless, both candidates continue to talk about reform (at least in Spanish).

Well, we’ve already heard enough rhetoric- we want a roadmap. We’re asking the Senators how they will unite their own parties to pass real immigration solutions into law.

We’re saying, Show America the Immigration Reform Roadmap during the next presidential debate on October 7th!

Resources

The Republican Platform

The Democratic Platform

Tepid

Rob Kailey — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:31:04 GMT

(This diary is mostly in response to a post from Anna to which I reacted harshly. Kindly don't mistake it for an apology, however.)

Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

4 years ago, the Democrats had a candidate for President who would be considered terrific by almost any metric. Multiply decorated war hero, eloquent speaker, intelligent, life devoted to public service with a metric buttload of experience under the direct tutelage of a Democratic party icon. He had solid credentials on most every issue supported by the Democratic party. John Kerry should have creamed W. He obviously didn't.

After the month-long shock wore off for most Democrats, the dissection began, and we all got to watch damn near every Democrat on the continent convince themselves that John Kerry was a weak candidate. 'He was tepid' (the word I was most astounded by), 'he didn't fight back when attacked', 'he didn't campaign hard enough' I don't believe any of those accusations to be true or factual. There are reasons that John Kerry lost (failure to run a 50 state campaign, shenanigans in Ohio, ...) but the weak blame laid in his lap by Democrats struck me then as now to be little more than CYA. for the last several years, a collective amnesia seems to have taken hold, where John Kerry will take a strong stand on something, and Democrats will say, "gosh, where was that John Kerry when he was running for President?" That was the John Kerry that ran for President, we were just focused on the gotcha instead of the winning. There are things that John Kerry could have done better, but there's one helluva lot that Democrats could have done better.

Ya' see, The republicans were right about one thing. Most Democrats were clearly focused on "anybody except Bush". I think if we'd have nominated a platypus, the polling likely would have remained the same. (Yes, I know that's an exaggeration.) In the actual analysis of the election, what swung the vote for Bush were the so-called "Security Moms", women who self describe as Independents or even Democrats, but just didn't trust John Kerry to defend Precious Q. Snowflake from the 'terrists'. The funny part is, I don't think those people, because it wasn't just women who voted on that weak distrust, needed John Kerry to convince them of his strengths. They wanted their Kerry-voting neighbors to show the confidence in the candidate that they themselves lacked. Sadly, we were all either sharing their distrust or too damn busy attacking Bush (ANYBODY BUT BUSH!) to actually, you know, support our candidate. That's why Kerry lost. Not because he was a tepid candidate, but because we Democrats showed tepid support. Our support of our ideals was plenty strong, but in a Republic, if you don't imbue those ideals into a candidate, you lose. And we did.

The question remains, did we learn anything from that. Some of us did. Howard Dean formulated the 50 state strategy, which Barack Obama effectively used to defeat a very powerful primary opponent. I think most of us learned that the change we want and need isn't going to happen overnight. It will take more and better Democrats, and that's a long hard slog.

Some Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to have learned a damn thing. They are still fixated on ideas that don't work; thinking that one candidate with the proper party credentials will 'win the game'; thinking that America boils down to Ohio, Michigan and Florida, and thinking that anything is better than a Republican in the White House. In other words, they are fixated on an ideal of the Democratic party and it's candidates that has shown a remarkable aptitude for failure, (even in the primary just past.) And in the most remarkable of almost Republican twists, they project their own short-sighted idealism onto their opponents.

It is my opinion that it is well passed the time for Democrats to wake up to few realities. No candidate will embody everything you want and more. The realities of politics are not such that each person gets what they want. Seemingly since Ronald Reagan, Americans have carried a national delusion that our President needs to be just like us, and give us everything that we ask for, or that person is unworthy of our support. Our sense of individualism appears to overridden our reason, at which point all we have to hang onto is our idealism. That is a national zeitgeist custom made for Republican victory and service to those most well heeled to manipulate that idealism. The reality is that we are not special little snowflakes. We won't get everything we want, and our desires for ourselves cannot trump the good of the country as carried out by the candidates we elect. Speaking personally, I don't want politicians who 'feel my pain'. I want politicians who will do something about it ... for all of us. Those are the people to whom I will give my whole hearted support.

Which brings us to the present. The Democrats have another candidate who is, by most metrics, terrific. He has a track record of building consensus. He is possibly one of the best public speakers of modern times. His ideas are soundly in the camp of the Democratic platform. He has international appeal as well as an appeal to minority voters. He is young, attractive and energetic. And he's running against a lobbyist- gelded dinosaur that he should quite easily crush.

However, Democrats being Democrats, we're already looking for ways to snatch defeat from the angry jaws of victory. It isn't at all surprising to view the claims concerning Obama coming from Republicans. They are mostly untrue and easy to counter with polling, facts and a small degree of objectivity:

'Obama supporters are brainwashed children drunk on charisma. They will suffer 'Obama Fatigue''. Not likely.

'Obama is inexperienced; an empty suit.' Simply not true. He has more experience in public service than GW did.

'Obama can't win the big states'. Better check the polling, 'cause that's just not the case.

'Obama can't win any demographic except black people and young folks'. He already leads (in aggregate polling) among the hardest demographic for a Democrat to crack, white males between 30 and 50. The only demographic in which Obama shows any weakness is among the elderly.

I won't even go into the more despicable attacks (race baiting, religious terror ...) being thrown out by the Republican fear generation machine. I wanted to point out these above complaints because they are coming as often from Democrats as they are from Republicans. And if we have learned anything from 2004, it's that weak support, lacking any confidence in our candidate, can be more damaging than no support at all.

I, for one, have no patience left for those who claim support while tearing at the candidate and the candidate's supporters. The time for political illusions is well past; realism about politics and our politicians is exactly the change that America needs. Part of that realism is accepting that you can't always have what you want. As regards the FISA reauthorization vote, which has many Democrats disappointed in candidate Obama, I have to ask what the reality we wished to accomplish was. Let's be honest. The whole fight was over retroactive immunity for the telecoms who aided the criminal activities of an out-of-control executive branch. What we wanted was a statement that these criminals will be held accountable. Was that realistic? You bet. Was it politically realistic? About as much as impeachment. Was this the stand upon which we want candidate Obama to stake his election? Not me. Vengeance is best left to those who have the power, not those who are seeking it.

We've played a game. A game we've been losing for going on thirty years now. We've been trading 'gotchas' with the Republicans, only theirs have been a helluva lot bigger than ours, because Democrats keep losing sight of the goal in favor of the short desire. The goal is to get our candidate elected President. The death of telco-immunity would have been a nice gotcha, a 'feel good'. That's all. I am disappointed that candidate Obama did not take a stand. But then, I am a realist. I expect to be disappointed by many things that President Obama will do, or not do. But I look forward with a completely positive attitude to what he can and will do that serves the country once he is in office. His support of this one compromise will not stand in the way of him becoming President. What will are those who points fingers with a happy cry of "See, he's not your progressive messiah, foolish bot-people!" What will stand in the way of Obama becoming President is when those people are Democrats, and I see no reason to be polite or gentle in pointing out the insult they lay upon me, our candidate and, of course, the worst insult they could level of all ... "President John McCain".

This election is about Change. And the biggest change should be this: no more tepid Democratic gotchas, and no more tepid support. There will be many people who favor a President Obama, but he makes them nervous. He's a little too dark, a little unknown, a little too seductive to others. The American impulse will be to run home to momma, or in this case, the old white guy. It will take commitment and confidence on the part of Democrats to convince these people that change can be good; it can be healthy; it is what our nation is and truly was all about. A Democratic President can help move this country beyond the failures of BushCo. This is our election to lose. I say, let's not do that.

A Touch Of Integrity Would Be Nice

Rob Kailey — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:30:38 GMT

(Crossposted from A Chicken Is Not Pillage)

So, it seems that Bill Kennedy has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and at least one moron thinks I should reevaluate my endorsement of Obama. Actually, I have been reevaluating a few things.

1) I lost more than a small amount of respect for Mr. Kennedy when he dropped his Congressional run. I know that he claimed it was for health concerns, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth. Now, I'm somewhat glad he did. Let a fighter carry the load.

2) I'm sure as hell glad that Kennedy is not a super-delegate. I'd like to think that that lofty position is carried by those who won't cave at the first faint breath of an ill political wind (or redundantly, a Clinton fart.)

3) If Kennedy actually thinks that there aren't bitter people in Montana who cling to religion and/or guns then I'd sure as the hell like to see him explain the Freemen. What fricking Montana does that guy live in?

4) There was a time I would have supported Clinton for President. One month ago, I still gladly would have. Not any longer. Big Swede is right, I should reevaluate, and indeed I have. John Cole puts my conclusion into words better than I ever could, so let him explain:

She and her low-brow coterie of lackeys have left a trail of slime and unpaid vendor bills everywhere they have gone the past few months. They have lied, distorted, polled, and then lied some more. They attack viciously, then play the victim when punched back. There is literally NOTHING they will not do to win this nomination. They have convinced themselves and their rabid but diminishing band of followers that she somehow got screwed in Florida and Michigan. They have shit all over every caucus state. They have dismissed every state they have not won as unimportant. They have come up with new names for delegates depending on how useful they are today, and tomorrow they will change their name and corresponding level of importance. Some days they are super delegates. Other days they are automatic delegates. Pledged delegates don't have to stick with their candidate, we are told, except for Hillary's who have to stick with her. The only consistent principle is that the only people who matter are the ones who have voted for Hillary. They have threatened, hell, they have promised, a bitter convention fight if the super-delegates do not crown her as the nominee. They bring out the worst in everyone around them, me included.
And I am sick of it, and I am sick of her.

If it walks like a Republican, and talks like a Republican and whines like a Republican and lies like a Republican, it surely must be a Republican.

Since I'm not likely going to find the time to post my sweeping impressions on the outcome of the M-M dinner, kindly allow me to post my thoughts about Hillary's speech here. That night, she was responsible for the only truly 'WTF' moment. She went off talking all kinds of tough smack about forcing China to "play by the rules", rules she will somehow write that force China to yadayada ... To be honest, that entire bit was completely unreal. We have no force or club to hold over China. We can do nothing to stand in the way of their economic hold because we have become entirely dependent on it, just as we have Middle Eastern oil. So why would Hillary spew such obvious bullshit? Simple, she had what she believed to be a bitter union crowd at her disposal, and she wasn't going to miss such an obvious opportunity to pander to that bitterness, with an obvious lie. Her diatribe was far more elitist and arrogant than anything Obama has said, and vastly more crushing to to those who actually believed that line of crap.

The greatest applause that Hillary garnered on that night were for her bold and cheap denunciations of the current administration. Where Obama took shots at John McCain and dismissed the outgoing horror of BushCo, Hillary went on the attack against those who will be gone (I hope) soon enough. She played on the crowd's bitter hatred of Bush and Cheney. No problem there; I clapped as hard as any. But then, in a moment that seemed to stun the audience, she lauded and praised John McCain the very man who is heir to the awful legacy she so delightfully helped us revile. I defy any, Clinton supporter or no, to make sense of such a move. McCain promises 4 more years of the nightmare we all wish to wake up from, and Hillary demanded that we show deference and respect to him? No. Fucking. Way. Period. Clinton engaged in rank manipulation, dripping with petulant expectation of support and respect. Since that night 10 days ago, I have gotten madder and madder about that shallow little demand of hers that I give a one salient shit about John McCain. In case no one's noticed, I don't tend to appreciate efforts to manipulate me.

So, let Bill Kennedy flee to the security of God, Guns and Gutless pander. Let the Repubs concern troll at will. I remain convinced, win or lose, that I have backed the right horse. Obama told the truth, and if Bill Kennedy can't accept that ... tough. I'm glad that we have, finally, an opportunity to vote for a candidate with a modicum of integrity and at least a small talent for honesty. That candidate would be Barack Obama. For those of you who won't bother to follow a link, I leave you with more words from John Cole:

The woman is a moral black hole- soulless, empty, calculating and nasty all the way to her core (I know, I know- I just don't know the "real" Hillary, who is charming and friendly and down to earth and likes pizza and beer). While her super-human ambition is admirable, it is not grounded in a sense of decency, and she knows no boundaries. Watching her the past few days has been a real eye opener, and watching her campaign the past few months should be a clear enough indication what America has to look forward to if she should win the election (although, I simply can not conceive how that happens). While she runs around lying about Obama, allowing her surrogates to portray him as unelectable, she fails to mention how she is going to win the general election when she can not even convince a majority of her own party to choose her.
Enough is enough. Go ahead and call me "Sullivanesque" in my rants about this awful person. Sullivan was right about her essential character and who she really is, and we all know what we will get if she is elected. Four years of bullshit, division, victimhood, and failed policies that would have been great, but those mean old Republicans just didn't let it pass or people just were not smart enough to do what she wanted. It won't be her fault, it will be the opposition party for opposing her, or it will be our fault because we didn't support her enough, or, well, you know how it is with her.
Count me out.