• against her after it kept silent during the blatant misogyny directed at her and continuously telling her to get out of the race as if her winning the nomination was not a feat in itself, being the first woman to do so and the possibility of being the first woman President.

    The party screwed her repeatedly, openly and behind closed doors i.e. in May, taking away delegates that she had rightfully won. She learned the hard way how the party people she tought would stand by her were never there or ditched her on a dime.

    She must have learned through Reid's book in which he tells how Obama was always the annointed one while she was never considered because she/Bill were seen as too controversial therefore could not win the general elections.

    She found out early on how the press is definitely against her/Clintons. The reporting was so over the top biased against her.

    She's intelligent enough to realize that if she ran it would be deja vu!

  • risk pools? Anyway, today an exemption has been added for union workers.

  • Brazile's words: "you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    You're welcome under the bus with all of us old crows who were kicked out to the curb during the primaries.....

  • "REAL CHANGE YOU BEREAVE IN!"

  • on a comment on 220-215 over 4 years ago

    so, one way or another, more and more women actually will not have the choice guaranteed to them, and once again, it will be poor women who suffer the most.  

    Too bad the economic considerations that require that not one federal cent be spent on this area of women's health do not extend to the area of government-sanctioned war, huh?  Lots of death and killing there, but I guess that's okay.  

    This reform effort was already less-than-acceptable, but now, between the insurance companies calling the shots on what areas of women's health will and won't be covered, and the members of Congress who want to impose their own beliefs on everyone, I'm hard-pressed to understand why any woman should support it at all.

    And I'm even more perplexed at how little push-back there has been from any corner of the Democratic caucus, from the party in general or from the so-called women's advocacy groups.  But then, I keep forgetting we have nowhere else to go, and are supposed to be grateful we still have accommodations, even if they are under the bus.

    Two years ago, I would never have imagined that my reaction to much of what is coming out of the Democratic Party these days would be utter disgust accompanied by a louder and louder "F**K You!"

    But, here we are.

  • comment on a post 220-215 over 4 years ago
    The Dems are no different than the Repubs.  They have allowed the "fundies" to insert their religious beliefs into this bill and some women on both sides of the aisle agreed.
    Remember when the Obama supporters beat the Hillary group over the head with the Supreme Court possibly voting against Roe v Wade if the Repubs won?  Tell me the difference here if these types of laws and policies are voted in by the Dems who I thought would defend us and grant equal rights.  Both parties are nothing but shams and tonight proved that this fiasco had many authors.  Shameful.
  • comment on a post A Real Winning Democratic Strategy for 2010 over 4 years ago

    to stop the republicans from cutting any money out of medicare. I cannot believe that they will actually cut over 1/2 trillion out of it! They will pay the price in 2010/12 with the elderly!

  • making peace with Hillary.....

  • comment on a post A Surge in New Jersey over 4 years ago

    share. My step-mother in Montreal just sent me the following:

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/ They+oppose+Bush+from+their+very+soles/2 069998/story.html

  • was it her or Collins  who was just re-elected last year?

  • especially after reading this latest little jewel:

    http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?g uid=20090913/4aadcdd0_3ca6_1552620090914 801533105

  • comment on a post Progressive Disappointment Sets In over 4 years ago
    with it:
    whttp://www.openleft.com/diary/15066/unit edhealth-lobbyist-announces-big-fundrais er-for-pelosi-as-she-backs-off-public-op tion
  • on a comment on Why Obama's Plan will Succeed over 4 years ago

    people who used to have health coverage don't because they don't have jobs, and they can't afford the COBRA payments, just exactly how thrilled do you think they will be when they can't get any help from this great reform plan that was passed to much crowing and back-slapping because it isn't going to start until 2013 and won't be fully rolled-out for four more years after that?
    Health care is not a game to people who can't afford access to it, or who have spent years paying higher and higher premiums for less and less coverage and wonder how much longer they can afford to keep paying.

    As far as I'm concerned, every member of the House and Senate has something on the line, regardless of whether they are in safe districts or not.  The political fortunes of those who vote for reform are at stake along with the fortunes of those who vote against it, because there is no victory in making people wait somewhere from three to seven years for relief from the predatory insurance companies.

    I know for a lot of people this is an adrenaline-filled political thrill ride; there's a giddy breathlessness that has entered the discussion that is a little nauseating, really, when considering the real people and real lives that are at stake. These real people have become incidental to a political calculation that seems to now be about "saving" a president whose breathtaking lack of leadership is one reason we are where we are.  What is it we are saving him for - so he can dither and fiddle and negotiate and compromise and concede away the next issue that matters to us?

    If you think these people won't exact a price in 2010 or 2012, I think you're dreaming.

  • founder of http://www.singlepayeraction.org/

    Civility is in the Eye of the Beholder

    Congressman Joe Wilson calls President Obama a liar.

    That's disgraceful.

    Some Democrats want him censured.

    President Obama and the Democrats turn their backs on single payer -- the only health care reform that covers everyone and control costs.

    By so doing, they are condemning at least 60 Americans a day to death (Institute of Medicine report) due to lack of health insurance.

    That's disgraceful.

    Eighty-six Democrats in the House are signed on to Congressman John Conyer's (D-Michigan) single payer bill (HR 676).

    But not one has said they will vote against the break the bank, leave tens of millions of Americans uninsured Obamacare.

    Not one.

    Not even Conyers has said he will vote against it.

    None of the so called "progressive caucus" has said they will vote against it.

    HR 676 is being used a way to placate the Democrat's progressive base.

    Sure, we believe in single payer.

    But no way we're going out on a limb to fight for it.

    That's disgraceful.

    Wilson is fighting for his cause -- insurance company profits before people.

    But at least he's fighting.

    The Democrats are supposed to be fighting for the people.

    They say they want change.

    But they too are in the pockets of the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.

    And they cave in to the powerful forces that control their political lives.

    That's disgraceful.

    Obama throws the weak "public option" under the health insurance industry bus.

    And Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation magazine, says that Obama shows "progressive spine."

    That's disgraceful.

    Civility is in the eyes of the beholder.

    Obama and the Democrats are acting against the interests of the American people.

    Uncivil.

    Disgraceful.

    Who will censure Obama and the Democrats?

  • comment on a post Dear Mr. President over 4 years ago

    http://www.counterpunch.com/redmond09042 009.html

    excerpt:

    The more things changed, the more Kennedy stayed the same. He never heeded his oft quoted, unoriginal and hokey one liner, "Sometimes a party must sail against the wind." He sailed with the entrenched, profit-gouging, corporate, hurricane force winds that control health care, inflict, and are responsible for unspeakable suffering and death. Kennedy bears responsibility, too, and has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands. Because it could have turned out very differently. If Kennedy hadn't given up the fight for the National Health Act in 1971 the United States wouldn't be mired in a massive health care meltdown today. Kennedy was especially well positioned to take on the powerful insurance industry and pass legislation that evicted them from health care and created a government financed health program. He was independently wealthy and didn't need corporate campaign donations to fund his reelection campaigns. He had the power and prestige of the Kennedy name, the connections and tons of money to keep up the fight for as long as it took. Remember, he served in the senate for 46 years! If the liberal lion had shown any courage or had any balls (lions have big balls, but perhaps not if they're liberals) and actually stuck to the uncompromising principle that health care is a human right for all, not a commodity, he could have claimed a well deserved and genuine legacy as a champion of health care reform, he could have gone down in history as the Aneurin Bevan of American health care. But he didn't, so he can't.

    An astute politician summed up Kennedy's career this way: "Usually at the end of the day, he [Kennedy] would make a compromise that his most loyal fans would be disappointed with. `Oh, you've given up too much, Teddy' - but he would know how much you needed to give up to pass the bill..."

Diaries

Advertise Blogads