When you are good enough to speak your mind, people sometimes get ugly.

[wlotus]

A college student who sees through Obama writes a first-hand account of the caucus fraud she witnessed and the stress of living and going to school in the middle of pro-Obama territory. This is one example of how ugly the Democratic Party presidential campaign has been to those of us who don't succumb to the pressure to "fall in line" and dare to be just as outspoken as the Obama side is. (I wonder if she lost people she thought were her friends over that madness, like many others of us have.) This is the first time in my life I have been aware enough of the process to see just how fracturing it can be and be disgusted enough to leave the party over it.

The other day a classmate said this election cycle is the beginning of the end of the current Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties are fractured, because many of the people in both parties have significant issues with the candidates their parties selected. He says the old guard that is holding tight to the reins of power by any means necessary will continue to be pushed out as more and more people defect to other parties, vote to unseat incumbents who support the old way, or go independent. I hope so, if only so the sort of ugliness this student and I have witnessed can be less likely to happen.

Comments

[queen-in-autumn.livejournal.com]

I would really, really like to see this be the beginning of the end of the current Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties have come to the place where they are more about keeping themselves in power than they are about serving the country and representing the citizens.

It should be possible for independent or third party candidates to have an equal shot at getting into Congress or running for president. I wish there was some was to dissolve the two major parties with a single act and start from scratch.

You and I have different opinions about the most meaningful use of our votes in this election, but I'm definitely thinking about how I can help to shift the landscape and options going forward.

[rockbirthedme.livejournal.com]

When I first registered to vote, almost twenty years ago, I registered independent. My father, who is a life-long Dem, was surprised; he didn't understand why I was giving up my right to vote in the primaries (that's the way it works in PA -- you vote in your own party's primary only).

I knew why I registered that way, and I still feel that way. I knew that Democrats were just as willing to play stupid and sometimes evil games at the state and national level as the Republicans, and I didn't care to lend my name to that. This primary season just confirmed what I already thought.

I'm thoroughly disgusted by the degree to which many of my fellow Obama supporters seem to think it's acceptable to play the loyalty card. No one should ever vote out of party loyalty; voting for the best candidate is the way to go. And no one should ever vote just because someone told them to vote that way. I don't want people to vote for Obama because *I* think he's the best candidate; I want them to vote that way because *they* have decided that way for themselves. And I think we need free and open discussion of the subject. Shutting people up stinks of the kinds of government control that this country is supposed to be dedicated to opposing.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

No one should ever vote out of party loyalty

Oh, amen! Politics being viewed as a team sport wherein you have to support your team, no matter what, is just plain stupid. Where the candidates stand on the issues should determine how people vote.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I'd like to see the electoral system overhauled. Proportional representation in a multiparty parliamentary system!

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Politics is ugly; it always has been; it always will be, and in fact, historically it was much worse. With all due respect, you've said plenty of ugly things about both Obama and the people who support him. But that's okay, right?

I have to say I just don't understand people who feel oppressed and miserable because not everyone agrees with them. Being able to express different points of view is what democracy is all about. Having one's candidate lose is simply not the same as democracy being trampled.

Mostly, I am SO fucking tired of people treating Hillary Clinton as though she were some fragile flower, needing protection from a party in which she and her husband are powerhouses. And anyone who went from supporting Clinton to supporting McCain either never knew or cared about any candidate's policy positions.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

Politics being ugly does not mean it ought to be ugly. It shouldn't be, and whenever it is, people are going to complain about the injustice of it.

I did not say anything ugly about Obama or the people who support him. Some would disagree with that statement. Many would agree. You obviously disagree.

I find it incredible that when people who were there, who saw the fraud, stated the facts of the corruption as it unfolded, you would insist it was all lies and an attempt to protect the Clintons. Furthermore, there is plenty of documented bias against the Clintons in the Democratic party for not being part of the elite that come from old money. Go and find it, if you care to know the truth. But it would require you to not dismiss the words of people who do not support your candidate, and I don't think you are willing to do that.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Politics being ugly does not mean it ought to be ugly.

I agree it shouldn't be ugly, but it is and always has been. I also don't think people should fail to point out this ugliness. It's just difficult to take it seriously when those who decry this ugliness are participating in it.

I did not say anything ugly about Obama or the people who support him...

Yes, I do disagree. I think saying those who voted for Obama had "lost their minds" or were "duped" or "played like fiddles" or were engaged in "mindless conformity" or do not have "clarity of mind" is insulting. I think making statements like "For some of us who were able to recognize Senator Clinton as the more qualified candidate and relate to her solutions for this country's ills..." insults the intelligence of those millions of voters who chose a different candidate. It's also puzzling since both Clinton and Obama espouse many of the same solutions, and both of them differ rather dramatically from McCain.

I think claiming Obama has "no experience or qualifications" is insulting, especially as he has more experience in elected office than does Hillary. I think it's ugly to call him a "thief" or "dangerous" and to suggest he's "backhanded and devious" or that his associates are "scary." I think it's weird and hypocritical to say his platform is "weak" when it's very similar to Hillary Clinton's platform. I think it is unethical to continue trying to perpetrate the myth that, somehow, Obama managed to "steal" the election, in spite of the fact that he (and other candidates) played by the rules to which all the candidates agreed, whereas, in spite of agreeing to the rules, Clinton did not. The insistence the DNC violated it's own rules in the face of irrefutable evidence they did not is just plain foolish. I think saying "There is, however, a track record of empty words, caucus fraud, sexism, race-baiting, secret meetings, and media silencing," is not only ugly but flat-out untrue. I find the charges of sexism and race-baiting to be especially offensive, considering (a) Obama's record on women's issues is more consistent than Hillary's and (b) the number of people who worry about "black people taking over the country," or call him "Barack Hussein Obama or lynch him in effigy or scream "terrorist; kill him" at McCain/Palin rallies.

I find it incredible that when people who were there, who saw the fraud, stated the facts of the corruption...

I'm not being clear because this isn't what I meant. What I meant is the attitude that Hillary is an outsider and/or underdog within the Democratic party, when in fact, she and Bill are extremely powerful within the party, is sexist and paternalistic. I find the idea that Clinton was somehow forced to support Obama to placate the party to be the same.

Additionally, I have not heard one single charge of fraud, collusion or intimidation from any credible source. I could understand the initial confusion about delegates in MI and FL, but to keep on with making such allegations after it has been explained and re-explained and explained again is something else entirely.

Furthermore, there is plenty of documented bias against the Clintons in the Democratic party...

The problems the Clintons had within the Democratic party didn't really have anything to do with money, as very few of the Democrats come from anything that could be considered "old money." The Clintons' problems within the party had to do with Bill being (a) a true centrist and (b) falling into a lot of scandals. Regardless of these problems, the Clintons remain very powerful; they certainly wield more power within the party than Howard Dean.

But it would require you to not dismiss the words of people who do not support your candidate, and I don't think you are willing to do that.

I haven't dismissed anything anyone said because of who they do or do not support. I like Hillary Clinton and can understand why others supported her candidacy. I like McKinney, both personally and politically, although I think her platform is unworkable. What I will dismiss are the words of people who are blatantly ignoring facts and acting like spoiled, entitled children who do not get their way.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I don't have the patience or desire to go through point by point and dispute every statement you made. I will say, however, this sort of response is exactly why I usually disable comments on my political posts. It is a perfect example of the name-calling, ugliness, and browbeating I grew weary of early on, when I made it clear I do not support Obama.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Then you've entirely missed the point of what I am saying. My views as expressed here have nothing to do with which candidate you support.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

It seems we are missing one another points, if agreement is needed to prove we understand one another.

We are not going to agree on this at all. That does not make me and the other PUMAs "spoiled brats" who "ignore facts". I would bet you would not appreciate being painted in that light just because you disagree with facts, either.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

My point, which you are ignoring, is you're engaging in exactly the same thing you complain about other people doing.

I may well be missing your point. What is it?

This Applies To You, Too

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

http://wlotus.livejournal.com/1181140.html?thread=5179604#t5179604

agree 2 disagree?

[tuluum.livejournal.com]

:( sigh... up to now i've been too scared/intimidated to comment on ur political posts for fear of being blacklisted but i do agree with the points made by jane_etrix. i certainly support your expressing the conclusions you've come to, and the choices you've decided best express your views, but it doesn't mean being regularly called week after week (by someone I like and respect and consider a friend) blind, brainwashed, misogynistic, anti-feminist, a follower or dismissive of 'the truth', esp. when rebuttals are discouraged, doesn't seem unfair and at times condescending... Maybe it's been wrong of me to read ur posts as suggesting that that is how you feel about people who do support Obama but it's certainly come across that way more times than not. I've never browbeaten you or asked you to filter your posts or challenged them, so I don't think I fit the stereotype that you seem to hold, but I certainly feel that my viewpoint is not welcome here, and that the only comments you want are those that express agreement. I can't imagine I am the only one who decides to stay silent so as not to cause upset. I respect the terms that you want to run your blog under and political disagreement has never stopped me from being someone's friend but that doesn't mean that I understand how any of the above responses from jane_etrix even nears the relentless severity of your own characterizations of those who don't go along with you :(

Re: agree 2 disagree?

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

When I write anti-Obama posts here, I am not responding to someone like you, who does not encourage misogyny, etc. I am responding to the overwhelming cacophony of pro-Obama voices on the internet who do. My opinion is not welcome in their forums; if my commentary is not deleted outright, I am attacked and belittled for seeing things differently. My own blog is one of the few places I have where I can freely express my views, and it is the only place where I have the power to insure I and people like me can express our views and respond publicly to those who not only see differently from us, but are more than happy to sling mud in the process.

That is why I usually disable comments on my political posts. Yes, for this particular topic, only comments in agreement are welcome. It is one of the few places we have to vent in peace. We get the other side's views ad nauseam in the media, from our friends, from our families, just about everywhere we look on LiveJournal, and elsewhere on the 'net.

If the vents I and others like me make do not accurately describe you, trust and believe you are not the type of person we are talking about. But we are not able to talk to those people, so we talk here. Don't take personally what does not accurately describe you. And you're right: it would be better for you to not read those posts, since you know they will only upset you.

Re: agree 2 disagree?

[tuluum.livejournal.com]

i understand a lot better now :) i didn't get/see your response until posting my comment below. so i'll delete that cos now we are on the same page :)

ETA: I can't delete my comment cos it posted under ur username?!? i responded from within gmail, cos i thought it was an email (i hadn't logged into LJ until just now)... dunno how it logged in as you.. weird... anyway feel free to delete... :)

Re: agree 2 disagree?

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

Hi Wanda, don't understand how anything I wrote was browbeating.I have never suggested that you change your stance or position and always stated that I respect and support the process through which you reach your decisions. Was merely trying to understand something that didn;t seem fair and wanted to know if i was right or wrong in that assessment.. You always talk about speaking up and about fairness. What u see as me insisting on inserting my opinion, i saw as me sharing my point of view... It's not always the worst case scenario you know... Sometimes when people say they disagree and take the time to say why, it's not because they want to suppress, dismiss or invalidate you but because they want to engage with you, to connect with you. To understand and to also be understood. If I was truly dimissive of ur POV or didn't appreciate you as an individual then i wouldn't bother to muster the courage to engage with you on this level. And if i didn't hold you in some high regard it wouldn't bother me if i thought you were being unfair at times. I've always made note of who stuck around and continued to engage with me, despite holding strongly divergent views on various things and valued them equally to, if not more than, those who stuck around because they agreed. It wouldn't be honest for me to only engage with you from positions of agreement, that just creates something shallow and artificial imo. As stated before, I come primarily from a perspective of engagement. That perspective does not see sharing one's POV as an invalidation or undermining/belittling of your stance but as a way of remaining close in some manner. Maybe some of the others who 'insist on inserting their opinion' feel this way too and that is why they do it. Maybe others have (or had) a vested interest in making you change your mind, but i don't think anything in the history of our interaction would lead you to believe i have a similar motivation. It is unfair to project that on me. Minds can and should be able to meet without merging... at least that's been my experience and the basis for my best relationships... maybe it's a cultural thing... dunno... ur interpretation of words and phrases is often very different from mine... Anyway am quite saddened that you have indeed taken my words in the worst possible light. I hate miscommunications and misunderstandings (which I hope are what this is rather than a deliberate push for me to be silent and distant). But as I always said I will respect that too...

me

[heronblue.livejournal.com]

This is more a response to the comments than your post itself.

I think the problem here is that you're preaching to the choir, in a way. I very much doubt that anyone who reads your blog is a mindless conformist, stupid, or misogynistic, because I don't think you'd put up with that kind of nonsense. However, it looks as though quite a few of your readers are Obama supporters. You vent anger at Obama supporters in your blog because it is a safe space to do so. And, to your credit, you do point out now and again that you're not venting at thoughtful and reasoned people like your readers who are Obama supporters, but at the larger community. But the larger community isn't reading it, we are. I read your political posts because I respect you and your views. However, I do have to frequently remind myself that when you talk about "Obama supporters", you're not attacking me or your other readers, but rather the vitriolic and intolerant Obama supporters who are out there (and not reading your blog).

This election has everyone incredibly wound up. Tempers are running high. You are biased. I am biased. Every opinion I hear or read these days is biased in one direction or another. I'm just hoping (probably in vain) that when this is all over we can get past all the anger flying in different directions and try to fix the mess that Bush has made of this country. And I don't mean blindly falling in line with the Democrats, but working in a nonpartisan way to try to undo some of the damage. Clinton is still a fairly powerful senator, so I've no doubt she'll have a lot of influence in that.

Just to restate where I stand in all this: I was so on the fence between Clinton and Obama that I brought a coin with me into the voting booth to flip. I like both of them. I still like both of them. I have some doubts about Obama, but they're mostly due to my belief that you can't really tell how someone will be as president until they actually are. I certainly couldn't have predicted in 2000 that Bush would be as monstrous as he has been.

I disagree with you on this issue, but I still think you have a valid point to make. I admire your ideals... I'm one of those dreaded Washington insiders who learned the art of uncomfortable compromise in the cradle, so I tend to be impressed when people refuse to compromise (unless they're utterly ridiculous, which you're not).

All I'd ask (and I think this is true of the others who commented in this post) is that you try to remember that not all Obama supporters want to silence you. Some of us are listening to you quite closely, with no intention of stopping.