As a progressive, I recognize that the Democratic Party is hardly the answer.  We are, in fact, a political monopoly dependent on huge sums of money that come significantly from corporate interests.  Thus we seldom see Democrats strongly addressing many troublesome issues that most Americans can plainly see.  An example of this is the discussion of the financial bailout.  A perfect storm building for a long time, which people like Bidden and, to a lesser extent, Obama have helped create with their pandering to the banking industry.  

This bailout, supported by Obama, is a huge redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.  First elite corporations, controlled by the super rich, fleeced poor and desperate Americans with immoral subprime lending practices. Now they are taking national capital collected most heavily from poor and middle class Americans and they are handing it over to the very criminals who fleeced the poor while collecting astronomical salaries for themselves.  In this bailout we have subsidized these salaries for the rich way beyond any entitlement to the truly needy. This is criminal activity at a scale not seen since the papacy ran the western world.  And the Democratic Party is covered in the dirt of this abomination.

I know that we are all tired of the Obama/Clinton debate, which is so last week.  But I wanted to test the bounce of the convention here at mydd.  Last week I posted a poll about support going forward.  I wanted to repeat that poll today to compare the results.

Earlier today I posted a diary (Understanding and Healing the Rift)in which I tried suggest unity through understanding the emotions involved.  Not surprisingly this elicited a lot of petty bickering between the myopic of both camps.  It also brought some very insightful comments. But what struck me most was that Clinton's most ardent supporters indicated that, despite their anger and resentment, they would be voting for Obama/Biden.  While there is a pole out suggesting that a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain, I suspect that this is just not the case.  My guess is that a few things will change minds.  The first and most powerful impact will come from Clinton herself.  slightly less of a force will be the fear of McCain.  I also suspect that the Obama campaign will succeed in convincing Americans that they, especially women and children, will be better off with an Obama administration. Lets see if we can track the change. Please take the poll  

Many Clinton supporters are very upset. Many others are frustrated with the inability of these people to "get over it".  As is often the case with these kinds of emotional rifts, the real issues lie below the surface of what is being talked about.  I suspect that most of the inconsolable Clinton people are more upset about how they have been treated, than they are about the actual choice of Biden.

Being new here, I'm not sure about such things.  Would it be ethical for someone being paid by a candidate to write, without declaring that they are being paid by the candidate?  It seems that this issue would be magnified for front page writers.  I certainly don't have any direct evidence that this is happening, but it does look like it.  I don't read that many different blogs, but of those that I do read, this one is by far the most partisan.   I realize that this would be difficult to monitor, but it seems that it should be stated and that if a candidate is found to violate the policy they should be ridiculed and made to stand with their nose against the wall.

So what is MyDD's policy? Are any of its front page bloggers paid by candidates?

I am fairly new to the world of Party politics.  I have always been an activist but until a few years ago all, even though I voted consistently Democratic, my efforts went to local issues, with a smattering of peace work.  I would have thought that there would have been a lot of cross over but, at least in my area, there does not seem to be.  Actually the email lists seem to contain a large percentage of the same names but there is almost no crossover effort.  Mind you this could be a product of the blood red area that I live in but there is evidence that suggest that this is a more wide-spread phenomenon.

In our area a few years ago our peace and justice group decided that the biggest problem for us was the divides that persist in our community along racial and socioeconomic lines.  We had been almost totally incapable of getting involvement from minority and low income people - the same groups that should be voting in large numbers for Democrats, but who are not voting at all.

We decided that we needed to take on a project that would deal directly with an issue that affected these groups.  We started a living wage campaign.  We have had some success, including getting the area's largest employer (Texas A&M University) to raise its starting pay by over a dollar an hour, still bellow a living wage.  Unfortunately most of the work in this campaign was done by upper middle class, well-educated white people - what we refer to as the usual suspects.  

Our county Democratic Party is well run by fantastic people who have contributed to many of these otherwise nonpartisan grassroots efforts.  But the county party has not been involved and continues to keep its distance from all "progressive" efforts.

In our area the reason most frequently given for this is because there are Yellow Dog Democrats who are not interested.  Or, we do not want to create waves that might cause trouble for some people.   This seems like a big mistake.  Never mind the obvious response of "it's a good thing that Rosa Parks didn't think like that."  It seems that direct action in the efforts that our common values as Democrats indicate that we should be involved in would help wake up our disengaged and functionally disenfranchised base.  

I know that in the south black and brown people are tiered of opening their doors to barely paid college students who come knocking every four years to ask them to vote for a usually white politician.  From inside those houses, in terms of the difference in the quality of life, it is not apparent what the difference is between voting and not voting.

Grassroots in the Democratic Party seems to mean working on elections at a precinct level.  It does not seem to mean putting our values into action.  The Democratic Party needs to learn what grassroots is and embrace it.  It is these efforts that will give meaning to our platform.  It is these efforts that will bring people back into the party giving them hope that the party can make a difference and that their efforts in the party can make a difference.    

Yesterday, I posted a Stop Hillary Diary that addressed an intention to set up a blog to create a united Democratic front to appose Hillary in the primaries.  The response was virulent and mostly partisan attacks.  But as Shaun Appleby so aptly said,

"...the Hillary candidacy is not merely a bid for her election but a battle for the ideological future of the Democratic party."

In order to better establish this as an ideological effort, I would like to articulate why I like Hillary and would like to be able to support her.

By anybody's standards Hillary Rodham Clinton is an amazing person.  She is a pioneer and a leader.  When she crashed through the stereotype of what a First Lady should be she set a new standard not just for women, but for all Americans, on what it is to define one's place.  

There are some of Hillary's detractors who claim that she would not be where she was if it were not for her husband.  While on the surface that statement is true, I reject its sexist implications.  It is true that Hillary gained access to the political spotlight because of her husband.  No politician turns that light on alone.  To marginalize her strong efforts because a man preceded her is the sort of sexist drivel that keeps women in their place.  All politicians are beholden to a network of friends, family and mentors.  Given the paternalistic structure of our political system, what woman, or man, is not helped by men in their ascent to leadership.  If all it takes for a woman to raise to power is to be married to a president, where are the rest of the first lady senators?  

Clinton had set a course of distinction long before she became first lady, even before she married Bill.  In 1964 she worked on Berry Goldwater's campaign. In her freshman year at Wellesley College she was the president of the Young Republicans. And by 1968 she was working for Eugene McCarthy. That is a bold transition that indicates an ability to think independently. She was the first student to deliver a commencement address at Wellesley.  She emerged from a modest background, by Ivy League standards, to distinguish herself at Yale Law School.  

Later she was the first woman partner in her law firm in Little Rock.  She co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and has always been a strong advocate for children.

It continues to be difficult for women to assume leadership roles in this country.  Clinton has set a good example for the country.  

If we tallied the number if issue on which I agree with Hillary Clinton, she would rank very high in my approval rating.  Unfortunately, not all issues rank equally.  Like many others, I cannot support someone who is willing to trade the lives of innocent people for political gain.  While she claims to have been duped, like the rest of America, into supporting war, I do not believe that most progressive Americans were duped.  Millions of Americans across the country marched for peace on March 15, before the bombs started dropping on March 20, 2003.  She even refused to vote for the Levin Amendment, which called for continued diplomatic efforts.  What is more she did not take the time to read the National Intelligence briefing before she took that vote on war. She voted to shatter the lives of hundreds of thousands of people without reading the information availed.  I cannot imagine.  

Even after her political calculus failed to add up, she continued, and continues, to be cavalier in the face of the anguish of war.

I also cannot fathom or support a Democratic candidate taking money from Rupert Murdoch.  This man has bought a large chunk of America's media and is welding it against our people.  As with her stance on the war, Hillary's refusal to answer the well-founded concerns of her base is both arrogant and damaging to the party.

It is true that to a degree Hillary is an effigy in a larger battle for the party.  The lines seem to be drawn between the idealists and the pragmatist; Dean and Rahm; the people and the money and now Hillary stands with the pragmatic, corporate, money machine. What do she and her supporters expect?

My own perspective is more idealistic but there are also pragmatic reasons to oppose Hillary.  She leads most polls among Democrats.  That includes polls that measure disapproval ratings.  Those numbers go way up among independents and moderate Republicans.  No matter how weak the Republicans are we will not win this election on the enthusiasm of a majority of Democrats.  It will take a coalition of all Democrats, and many independents.  This is why Clinton is polling below the other two Democratic front-runners head to head with Republicans.

Finally, I would like to address this notion that gathering together a coalition of Democrats to oppose a candidate or a strategy is somehow splitting the party.  Suggesting that the primaries are not a time to assess candidates and strategies and build coalitions within the party is just absurd.  Further I would argue that the suggestion that we support any and all D's regardless of what they do is akin to mindless nationalism.  At that point it becomes utterly meaningless to be a Democrat.  It is exactly because I am a strong Democrat that I take this stance.  While I may not vote outside of my party, rest assured that you cannot get my support simply by putting a D next to your name.

Further, for the Clinton camp and other corporate Democrats to accuse others of splitting the party is the height of hypocrisy given their outright slander of Howard Dean and back room maneuvering.      

What a dichotomy we have in the Democratic Party.  Our front runner is disliked and mistrusted by a fairly large number in the Party.  She is loathed by independents and despised by the rest of the country.  Her detractors come from both the left and the right.  

Some of us feel strongly enough to become more proactive in opposing her candidacy and influencing its power base within the Democratic Party.  We are setting up a blog to serve as a tool to help stop her from winning the primary and to more closely examine the state of our party.  If such a blog already exists please let us know so that we can avoid duplicating efforts.  

We are looking for a broad spectrum of issues oriented, objective, good writers, editors and poll analyzers to assist with front page duties. We are looking for an army of progressive Democrats who are committed to preserving the values of our party.  We will welcome those who have already left the party in frustration of its migrations from meaning. We welcome and seek to empower the disenfranchised of our country who live in hopeless despair.  If you are interested you can contact us at stophillary08@gmail.com.  We seek to influence the mood of the sphere and to be a rich source media outlet.  Our current goal is singular but our mission is not.

It is not unusual for emotions to run high as partisans pick sides. We feel differently about this one.  This blog will not endorse a candidate. We will provide a platform for all Democrats who see Hillary as a threat to our party.  The motivation of this site is based on four key points:
Her inability to win in the general election,
Her stance on the War,
Her indebtedness to corporate America, especially Rupert Murdoch
What her candidacy reflects about the state of the Democratic Party.

URL to be announced soon.