Monday, June 02, 2008

So?

I have been equal parts disgusted and saddened by Obama's campaign since approximately mid-autumn last year. The filth he has engaged in is coming back to bite him big time, but it is also a loss that he chose to run this campaign when he could have succeeded even better by being what he claims. However, after this weekend, I am no longer concerned about Obama. He will lose, whether in August or in November, and he will leave.

My party has done something unthinkable for a democrat. They have abrogated people's votes and substituted their own desires as a matter of deliberate party policy to ensure the selection of a particular candidate. This was not a backroom deal. It was the public act of a core committee of the national party.

If a local branch of the party does something like this, everyone understands that it is formally against the standards, rules and procedures of the higher body, just as a locality is subject to oversight from higher state authorities. But when the national party itself shamelessly overturns the very foundation of democratic government itself, then a sea-change has occurred.

The Democratic Party is no longer democratic. It is an oligarchy. While the cynics can argue about how this "has always been the case," I say that this is categorically different than ordinary venality.

It is like Cheney's "So?"

The party has declared, through this one act, that it will do as it pleases, and the rituals of democracy are simply dumb shows to amuse the little people. There is no apology for having done this, just a few incoherent justifications for reorganizing a state's delegation to deliver the desired outcome in August.

So?

Obama is just another greedy politican who will be a footnote in the history books. He wants to be the Deciderer and help his good buddies loot the nations' treasures, and in this he is unremarkable. In contrast, the party has tossed the very foundation of our government overboard.

So?

The Supreme Court prevented votes from being counted. The RBC declared that they did not need votes at all, knowing better than the people what they need.

So?

The institution we rely on to organize and defend our collective interests has replaced that charter with one to promote the personal interests of the ruling faction, nakedly putting their interest to protect the money trough and defend their turf before democracy as such.

So, if the party is willing to trade away the most fundamental political right we have, to select our government and in the doing establish its legitimacy and the grounds of our consent to its exercize of power, how exactly is this different than Dick Cheney's arrogation of power to himself? Where are the limits to this claim to displace the documented public will of the governed in favor of the private advantage of the governors? What rule, save that of tyrants and elites, can be consistent with that foundation? How can the Democrats stand up in public and speak with authority about the rule of law when they engage in the rule of expedience? When a primary season has been marked by violent language towards a competitor and the party does not object, when voters and caucus goers are subjected to intimidation, when "activists" in the blogosphere encourage hunting down opponents' supporters and marauding them in their private lives, when voices of opposition are met with death threats, explain to me how replacing impersonal and objective rules and principles with arbitrary desires defends us from the descent we have observed in the Republicans?

I once wrote about Cheney that his desire was to dissolve all boundaries between institutions of government because it allowed him to freely exercize power as he pleased. What we watched over the weekend is no less than the leadership of the Democratic Party trying on the Cheney doctrine for size.

So?

Anglachel

47 comments:

Jet said...

Excellent article on the death throes of the Democratic Party. It's time to form a new party from its ashes, one that truly represents the masses.

Politicus Maniacus said...

Anglachel, you speak for me and for millions of not just Democrats, but Americans. It has only been over the last two days that it has truly dawned on me what happened Saturday at the DNC: not merely the switching out of thin air of FOUR delegates from one candidate to the other with no basis in the vote, but the giving of ANY delegates at all to a particular candidate who CHOSE NOT TO BE ON THE BALLOT. And the placing of the silly bickering of calendars and state rivalries as higher than and above the sacred trust to be placed in each individual voter. This is not the Audacity of Hope, it is the Banality of Evil. Making up results out of thin air is a descent into fascism. God save us now. We must fight to the core. Never surrender. Never give up. This must not stand. POLITICUS FINCH

CognitiveDissonance said...

Yes, they have become that which we hate. They have become what we've been fighting the past 8 years. And they pulled this obscenity right out there in public for all to see. It was like flipping us the bird. And they think we're going to sing kumbaya and unite with them? I'm left shaking my head in awe that anyone could be so absolutely out of touch that they would think we would be okay with this.

lo dejo en blanco said...

Well Cheney and Obama are cousins.

On a serious note, one of my primary worries for life under an Obama Administration look like in terms of dissent. He doesn't take criticism, he is not above using the media, already pliant, to his ends and he has an unruly mob at his command.

The Red Queen said...

I just wrote a post the other day about how the Dems were proving the Iron Law of Oligarchy to be true with "rules" process. They would rather lose half the party and the election rather than share power with the Clintons. Disgusting really.

lakelobos said...

Another morning to wake up to the crisp and analytical posting here. Thanks.

I also realized late in 2007, September?, that Obama is a Republican with all that comes with in in the 21st century. 2008 has brought out the fascistic tendency of Obama: total control of the party, resorting to his tribe as The power (AA and the Whole Food people - Saddam had the Taqriti people), and no other voices should be heard.

These three power graping points are the core of many authoritarian regimes.

The Democratic Village agreed. Selecting delegates is the last straw. Before that we saw, (see the post) the enabling of the pogrom of the Clintons and everyone associated with them. What irritates me most is the dropping of blue collar workers behind as if they are dead weight and not a core belief of the Democrats.

Cesar Chavez get lost - the Democrats are saying. And to add insult to injury important leaders follow: Edwards (what about the poor? forget it), Dodd, Byrd, etc.

As you say, Anflachel, we are now the Cheney Democrats. We must resist it with all we have at our disposal. We cannot and should not believe in the lose of Obama; we must guarantee it.

Linda said...

As I read your post, where your passion and disappointment flowed through your words, I thought of these other words, spoken at a different time, but never more true..."When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected it with another and to assume among the power of earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Natures's God entitle them..."

Anglachel said...

Careful, lakelobos. "We" are not Cheney Democrats. The bulk of the party, including the majority of those who voted for Obama, did not sign on to this.

This is a faction within the party who thinks their shit doesn't smell and that they are entitled to exert their paternalism because they "know best" what we "hicks" need.

I'm not leaving my political house because the frat boyz came in and tried to throw a kegger. They can get the hell out. Step one, defeat their creepy candidate.

I take my cues from Hillary. I'm not going to be scared away because the boyz scream and threaten.

Anglachel

Blackdogred said...

And if Hillary comes out and fully and sincerely backs Obama, what will you do?

If Hillary is offered vpotus and accepts, what will you do?

I'm asking sincerely, without snark.

Shainzona said...

blackdogred: If our goal is to defeat Obama (and kick the frat boys with their keg to the curb), then the answer to both of those quesitions (for me) is still not to vote for BO.

I doubt Anglachel will agree with my next statement...but depending upon the continued stupidity that I see from BO and Friends, I may find myself having to vote for McCain...just so they get my message.

That will kill part of my spirit, but that's what this lifelong Dem may be driven to.

Joey said...

I know what Hillary will do. She has an obligation that she need to fulfill. And I know that she always commit to her various roles and responsibilities.

And I now what I will do. The vote is my. If someone need my vote, that person has to convince me. Can BO convince me? Hell No!

My choice has been set in stone:

Plan A - Hillary
Plan B - McCain
Disqualified - Obama

lori said...

Yeah, well, the assignment of the Michigan delegates is like some crazy move some dictator in Africa makes - it's really bizarre. I don't get why someone who wants to do that is a Democrat. Is the Republican party so filled up with crooks that they need to join our party in order to piss on voters? Do we really have that many crooks in our nation? Whatever. I'm expecting Obama to join the GOP when all is said and done.

I love Senator Kennedy just like I love Senator and President Clinton. But I didn't listen to Teddy when he told me to vote for Obama and I won't listen to Hillary and Bill if they do either.

Pat Johnson said...

This super delegate idea is a hoax. My state, MA, went overwhelmingly to Hillary. Yet Kerry and Kennedy announced for Obama. What happened to the "will of the people"? Apparently lost along with the principles of one man, one vote. The only thing that matters is that they get Obama as the nominee regardless. I have never been so disenchanted or disgusted in my life. And when will someone in the MSM start to take a real close look a this empty suit? Too late now.

Horselover Fat said...

It seems to me a good start towards taking back the party would be to repudiate the current leadership. I think as big a landslide loss as possible for their choice Obama in the GE would help.

That is why I will vote McCain instead of 3rd party even though my red state will not be in play anyway.

Alice said...

Anglachel, wonderful comments! As per usual. It reminded me that Bush and the Republicans could never campaign on what they really believed or wanted to do. Their campaigns were based on lies and pretending they were "compassionate", that they were not mean and vindictive and racist and war mongering. Obama and his team of advisers are doing the same thing. They are pretending to be like what Hillary actually is. Obama talks one way but thinks another. His advisers are of the Milton Friedman school of economics ilk. Yet he pretends to be so liberal. The old bizarro world is at play three fold. He is creepy in ways that are not evident to his supporters...yet. But the gathering strength of Hillary and the dissipation of Obama's support, coupled with the greater intensity of his power grab, makes for scary times. The DNC debacle on Saturday is evidence of the desparation at play. I can not begin to tell how that has affected me. But I do know that I will use my biggest weapon at my disposal to thwart the boyz from throwing a kegger in my party...I will vote for McCain. To save democracy, and the Party and a viable opposition, one has to maximize their vote. And that seems to mean McCain...if Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

Horselover Fat said...

HRC is a loyal Democrat and will do what she has to do - even, I am guessing, accepting VP (if offered) although she doesn't want it.

I understand HRC's need to be loyal to sustain her position within the party.

I, however, have now become an Independent so I can vote as I please. (I am staying registered Dem though, as my state's primaries are closed).

salmonrising said...

Today,6/3, the WSJ had a front page story on Obama's campaign courting Clinton's big money backers. My thought: the money crowd is always for sale to feather its nest. My vote? Not so much. Too early to know what I will do in Nov, other than not voting for Obama. Have already re-registered as Independent. Find it healthy to always end my blood pressure raising reading of the blogs by visiting one of the cute critter websites for a dose of sanity...I think Molly Ivins said something @ being sure to have fun since the bastards are always going to be there and you may as well have a beer and a laugh while rolling up your sleeves to stay in it for the long haul.

Puget Sound Island Girl said...

It use to be so simple. We were the good guys and they were not. This primary season confirmed that statement to be an untruth.

How very sad.

hells kitchen said...

What disturbs me is how little people understand democracy.

I had dinner last night with a friend who is usually a Republican but finally became disgusted with Bush and was leaning toward Edwards until he dropped out. She is a woman who doesn't like Hillary.

We try to have civil conversations. In fact, our civil conversations once a month over four years were the impetus for her change of attitude toward Bush. The day she told me she most liked Edwards for his policies left me completely bowled over.

So, over dinner last night, we discussed the current landscape and I gently gave her information about Saturday's DNC disaster. When I told her about taking Hillary's delagates and giving them to Obama and that they had no right to do so, she claimed that they did.

This is the problem with politics by personality. Her dislike of Hillary clouds her recognition of the abuse of civil rights.

I'm in agreement that we need a third party and I believe this point in time is a rare opportunity for one to succeed. Both the Republicans and Democrats have tarnished parties. There are opportunities for the disaffected from both to come together.

The other option I see is an in-party insurgency. In NYC in the 1960s a reform movement started within the city's Democratic Party. It took a few years to succeed, but it did because it pointed out the corruption of the regular party.

herb the verb said...

Thanks so much for your excellent insights Anglachel!

I thought you might be able to flesh out this excellent insight somebody left at Talkleft.

It starts with this:

"I am genuinely surprised that nobody has noticed that, at a philosophical level, Obama's message is self-contradictory. It consists of two parts:
(1) Unity and post-partisanship - building bridges across old divides, healing wounds in order to get things done. A "new" coalition.

(2) Change - being a clean broom through Washington. Out with the old, in with the new. The old politics has failed us, etc."

kentuckiannna said...

Puget Sound Island Girl:

My sentiments, exactly. As I told my husband yesterday, it used to be the bad guys were all on one side of the line, and I will fight the best I can and however I can to make sure they stay there. All is lost if the power brokers and fascists are allowed to encompass all avenues to power.

daily democrat said...

I believe that the malign influence of the current President's administration has infiltrated our whole society and thus also the Democratic Party to a great extent. We Democrats had hoped to do better than we have done during this nomination process...both campaigns and the DNC have employed tactics that many of use imagined only Republicans would ever use.

And yet I will still vote for any Democrat over any Republican, no matter how flawed that Democrat's behaviour may be, because in asserting their loyalty to the Democratic Party that person has chosen a political philosophy I respect. On the other hand, the Republicans have chosen a political philosophy I don't respect.

If we now concentrate on making clear the contrast between the Democratic philosophy and the Republican philosophy, I believe our shared fundamental beliefs could do a good job of uniting us and guiding our Party through to victory in November.

Shainzona said...

daily democrat: Actually I disagree. The Dem Party does not resemble the party of my core principles. So I will not enable them to "paper over" my beliefs for their own.

Speaking only for me....

Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

I figure the Corporate Holodeck Media [aka M$M] will start taking Plastic Jesus apart once the Democratic Party nominates him--UNLESS my suspicion that Obama may be a Trojan Horse for Wall Street, to raid Social Security, is correct.

If the M$M starts dissecting their old pal McCain instead of their new pal Obama, then I will strongly suspect the fix is in for November.

If the misruling class actually wants Obama as their puppet, then not only can the M$M be ordered to favor him, but the crooked voting machines can be set to favor him.

We might even see some M$M outlets favoring McCain while others favor Obama; this could represent a factional split in the misruling class.

Old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

From the swamps of the Arkanshire, Ivory Bill Woodpecker

Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

Daily Dem: Luckily for me, I have never joined any political party, and so feel no such obligation to hold my nose and vote for Plastic Jesus.

Puget: I agree, although I would have said: "It used to be so simple. We were the reality-based community and they were not".

I never thought I'd see Democrats brewing Kool-Aid. :(

daily democrat said...

shainzona: I respect your view that the Democratic Party isn't the Party of your core principles. Do you think there is or could be a Party that would represent your core principles? Did you used to think the Democrats did represent you?

blackdogred: I think Hillary should NOT accept the VP post if offered. I have spent the whole campaign thinking the opposite, but when I saw how Obama abandoned his church rather than standing firm on the ground he has made for himself over so many years, I felt that Hillary should save her strength for serving greater ends that playing second fiddle to Mr. O. However...to answer your question directly, I would follow her lead and vote for her as VP if that is what she chooses to campaign for.

ivorybillwoodpecker: Are you planning to vote?

pm317 said...

This is a faction within the party who thinks their shit doesn't smell and that they are entitled to exert their paternalism because they "know best" what we "hicks" need.

This is the undercurrent of Obama faction -- just caught enough of that idea from BTD sneering at Josh Marshall(don't know who he is and don't care..) for calling Bill Clinton out of his time, out of his element. Marshall's evidence (don't laugh)-- Bill Clinton referred to YouTube video as a movie. On the one hand I want to ridicule their arrogant ignorance and ignore, on the other I want to scream at their stupidity. Just because they write their ignorant drivel on the Web, they think they are smarter. Weren't these the same silly, ignorant people accusing Clinton of making Obama's picture darker (without of course, knowing how image/video technology and computers work?). So for some it is fashionable to be on that side of the fence (because they have been told that by people like Marshall) but not smarter.

Another excellent essay, Anglachel.

Chinaberry Turtle said...

The only thing I'm struggling with:

(a) write-in Hillary in November

or

(b) vote for McCain.

My wife is a Hillary supporter, but will vote for Obama in the GE. So, I guess I'll have to vote for McCain to cancel her out.

This is all just so wierd. I never, not in a million years, ever thought my wife and I would vote for different candidates in the general election. We've always voted the same.

Just goes to show how brutal this primary has been, and how self-destructive Obama's campaign has been. Even though my wife will vote for him, she saw, for example, the "sweetie" thing and just wondered: "Why does he have to say things like that? That's so offensive."

This is all just so awful. I thought I was on the side of good. But now I realize I'm a wandering Clint Eastwood nomad roaming around in the spaghetti western desert of Democratic politics.

CMike said...

pm 317,

Actually, unless you are averse to facts you should care to know who Josh Marshall is. He has a Ph.D in history, he has been blogging since the 2000 election, he has built an online operation with full time, paid staffers. Marshall is credited with bringing to light the Bush/Gonzales purge of nine (was it?) Bush nominated U.S. Attorneys for not selectively prosecuting or exonerating individuals based on their party connections.

The point Big Tent Democrat makes is stronger because of who Marshall is. Marshall would be expected to be one of the more sober of Sen. Obama's supporters.

Lynne said...

Extraordinarily painful.

I never thought I'd see the day when Democrats - DEMOCRATS - stooped to gaming the system against EITHER candidate, let alone one that was supported to be their own.

Well, I cease to be an active Democrat the moment Hillary leaves the race, if she does. They can call me when they return to sanity and to their sense of core ethics.

Shameful. They can't beat her fairly, so they change the rules.

Shainzona said...

Sean: "...suck it up and get behind our man."

Oh, ha ha ha ha ha. Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

No thank you!

pm317 said...

cmike, so?

I care about facts just not those you cite. I don't need/care to know who Marshall is to recognize the value (or lack thereof) of what he writes -- what he says corroborates the existence of an ignorant pomposity typical of Obama faction. I am proud that I am not beholden to anybody in this anonymous Internet. I am tired of giving the media whores, some of them bloggers "with bigger credentials," credit just because of who they are. I am not going to do that anymore.

If you're touting Marshall's credentials to say he should know better, well, there have been several such "journalists and intellectuals" this time around who should know better.

Anglachel, please delete this comment if you so choose -- I don't want to use your forum to argue with another poster.

gob said...

Anglachel, thanks for your usual fusion of lucidity and passion.

I still need more help from people here thinking about this. You have written persuasively here about how the Democrats have openly violated the basic foundation of democracy, just as the Republicans have. Maybe this should be enough to convince me to withhold my vote from both parties' candidates.

But it seems to me that the rottenness is still significantly different, maybe different enough that I should vote for Obama if he's the nominee (a prospect that makes my stomach turn, honestly). The DNC thumbed its nose at the very meaning of voting, in order to favor one candidate over another. The Bush administration has thumbed its nose at the very meaning of both due process and the human right to life and liberty, in order to imprison without even a hope of fair trial, a fifteen-year-old boy,among other victims.

I am shamed by both acts, but infinitely more shamed by the second.

Last December the Boston Globe asked all the candidates the following question:

Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

Obama's answer:

No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.


McCain's answer:

The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that, under the Congressional authorization of the use of force, the U.S. can hold even American citizens under the law of war if they are enemy combatants. But the Court also said that U.S. citizens must have due process to challenge their detention. And I think that is very important when it comes to American citizens.


I feel sick at the witch-burning incited by Obama and his minions during this campaign. I think his policy approaches stink, for a Democrat. I don't trust him at all. But still. I think in light of the answers above, my duty might be to vote for him if he is nominated.

Sorry for the very long comment. If anyone has anything helpful to say, I'd be most grateful, if the discussion can be held without hijacking the blog.

Other Lisa said...

Sean: "...suck it up and get behind our man."

Stand by your man!
And tell the world you love him
Keep givin' all the love you can!
Stand...by...your man!

Wow, Sean. I concur with Shainzona. That was classic.

Shainzona said...

Sean: Glad you've enjoyed your time here. We're sorry to see you go.

Horselover Fat said...

Sean,

If you know better than we all what Obama really is like, is that because you are smarter?

Horselover Fat said...

Sean,

We all see the world through our personal mental filters, and evaluate people's characters accordingly.

But, is it not somewhat rude to come onto the host's blog and describe her opinion of Candidate Obama as a "grotesque caricature."

daily democrat said...

gob: I feel your pain...as bad as the situation is among the Democrats (and Anglachel has described the true awfulness so beautifully), our problem is that we have only two choices...

either get on board the bus with the Democratic candidate we didn't want, or stay off the bus.

The Republican situation being MUCH WORSE, I personally would NEVER go there NO MATTER WHAT. But what to do??

Matt said...

Anglachel, I know that you don't want me to particapate in your blog any longer because I have a different opinion and I will respect that. However, you are an excellent writer and command an audience of democrats.

I hope that you will rethink your position on the path the country is on and turn you wisdom and attention to making sure that McCain is not elected.

I understand that you don't like Obama but I find it hard to believe that McCain seems a better choice.

Good luck with all you do and God bless.

Matt

daily democrat said...

Sorry, that was rather silly of me to claim we have only two choices. We do have other choices, of course...we could try to start a new Party with an agenda we could believe in...or try harder to fix the old one.

I have not been an Obama supporter so far, but I do think Sean has a point about Hillary (and none or few of us, I suspect) making a fuss when the DNC originally disenfranchised the MI and FL delegates.

On the other hand Sean, at least we have realized we were not paying enough attention to that by now, and speaking only for me, I'm willing to admit how serious an error that decision was, and not willing to support the undemocratic compromise the DNC agreed Saturday.

jurassicpork said...

I've been meaning to write at length about the SBC and Howard Dean's despicable decision to deny Flaorida and Michigan their delegate seats at the convention but have been distracted by the moral and intellectual freak show of the Bush administration to pay it much mind. Thanks for explicating the real core issue of this unholy mess that had resulted in only half the delegates' votes being counted in those two states.

It was despicable for Dean to drop the hammer on these states, especially Florida, a state that's run by a GOP legislature that played a very big part in Florida pushing up its primary date. What was Dean thinking in denying Democratic delegate votes for something the GOP did?

RayN said...

gob, sweetie, thanks so much for posting your tortured thoughts for us to contemplate. I am sure that we all will take them to heart, chastened, saddened, and wiser for your sacrifice.

Anglachel said...

RayN, gob's posts are perfectly acceptable to me. The dilemma posed is real. You can apologize to gob for the personal insult or you can find anothe blog to comment on.

It is *not* an easy or obvious choice that one should vote for McCain over Obama. I won't. Other posters here will.

Further, it is also not an easy or obvious choice that disgust with a specific candidate should trump party loyalty, in most part because the Republicans are so dangerous.

Blackdogred asked earlier today if I would reconsider my decision to abstain from voting for Obama if Hillary were the VP. Chinaberry Turtle asked me much the same question last week. Last week I said I didn't think that would happen, but I couldn't say what I would do itf it did. After the behavior of the RBC on Sturday, the answer is no because my opposition now is to the party as such.

They shit on the single most sacred value of a democracy - the sanctity of the vote - as a matter of political expediency. That is not forgiveable.

Anglachel

Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

Daily Dem: Yes, I will vote, probably for McKinney, if I can't bring myself to vote for McCain.

Anglachel said...

Matt you'd be welcome to participate if you had any reason to be here except to piss on Hillary.

I went back to early 2007 (in the January posts) and found that I had enumerated my four acceptable candidates for this election. In order of preference:

1. Al Gore
2. Wes Clark
3. Hillary Clinton
4. Barack Obama

Go ahead and look it up. Al and Wes didn't run, and I was *excited* at the idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket. The spousal unit and me sat around last spring, giggling madly at how that ticket would make Rightwing heads explode. I favored Hillary, he favored Obama, and we clicked the rims of our mojitos together on both getting what we wanted.

HRC for Pres. to rub the MSM's noses in their own shitty attacks on the Clintons over the years and to provide the highest levels of wonky brilliance to guide the nation out of the Cheney swamp. Obama as VP to smooth over the attitudes of the elite left and to get the most incredible preparation for the Presidency someone could ask for. They would be rock stars, world savers, the best our nation could offer, the start of 16 years of renewal, nay, of renaissance.

And then the upper-class, elitist assholes who have lost every election they have run in my adult life decided to get rid of the bitch and have done everything to win - right down to discarding votes and handing unearned delegates to Obama. Obama himself has conducted himself shamefully, eagerly embracing the worst smears, the lowest slurs, the most cut-throat calumny, treating both this amazing woman and her millions of supporters like shit to be scraped off the bottom of his shoe.

It is not the defeat. It is the petty, resentful, bullying and selfish behavior of the Obama side towards one of the greatest public figures of the last forty years.

And you come here and try to inflict more of this on her and on us. YOU and the arrogant jerks who decided that it was your prerogative to do anything and say anything to kick that stupid bitch out are the reason that you have lost my voice as a supporter. Me, the person who once stood up against the netroots to DEFEND Obama against the same kind of shit you bastards have been throwing at Hillary. Even today, when your precious golden boy allegedly had the nomination sewn up, I had to delete puts downs and obscene curses against my candidate in my blog's comments.

And you want me to say a kind word about your candidate now? I don't think so.

Anglachel

samsgrandma said...

I just sent your post to superdelegate Ed Cote piece by piece in a series of 10 emails. Each one acknowledges you as the author and says I wholeheartedly agree.

Anglachel said...

Matt, go wank somewhere else.