Standing with the Heroes

We all, I am sure, feel pride when we see our Olympic athletes on the podium and a thrill if they occupy the top and we hear our national anthem while Old Glory is raised.

Olympic swimmer Missy Franklin, who hails from unfortunately famous Aurora, CO,  was offered six figures to do endorsements and turned it down so that she could continue competing on her high school and (future) college swim teams.  Her dedication is that deep.  Gabby Douglas moved from Virginia Beach to Iowa so that she could train with Liang Chow.  John Orozco‘s* mom went along on the two-hour round-trip commute from the Bronx to Chappaqua, twice daily, so that he could train there. You would have to be living under a rock not to know the story of Michael Phelps, raised by a single mom, a middle school principal with three children.  Great sacrifices went into all of their training – theirs and that of all of our Olympic Team.

Medals at the Olympics are accompanied by cash prizes.  Gold gets you $25,000; silver, $15,000; and bronze, $10,000.  The athletes are taxed on these winnings - whether or not they accept  to do endorsements.  That is what our government does to our heroes!  Shocking!

In a presidential season when taxes are among the contentious issues (when are they not?) there seems to be a fair question to ask of the candidates: Will you work to suspend these taxes that hurt our heroes?  It should be asked of Mitt Romney (whose answer might flip-flop depending on whether his horse medals in dressage or not), and it should also be asked of Barack Obama who spent some time today talking about the balance beam among other events.

Should Olympic medalists be paying taxes on their winnings at rates higher than the one percenters?  Should they be paying taxes at all just because they went higher, faster, stronger, or stuck the dismount?  Of course if we ask these questions we will get words.  It’s always words with them.  One guy is actually doing something about it, and whatever side you are on this election year, you have to applaud Senator Marco Rubio for taking action!  Bravo!

August 1, 2012 5:07 PM

Fla. Sen. Rubio introduces bill to make Olympic prizes tax-exempt

By Sara Dover

(L-R) US swimmers Conor Dwyer, Michael Phelps, Ryan Lochte, Ricky Berens poses on the podium with their gold medals after winning the men’s 4x200m freestyle relay final during the swimming event at the London 2012 Olympic Games on July 31, 2012 in London. (FABRICE COFFRINI)

London 2012: Summer Olympics

(CBS News) Winning an Olympic medal may be priceless to an athlete and his or her fans, but not to the IRS.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio introduced a bill Wednesday that would make the medals and prize money awarded to U.S. athletes at the London games – they get thousands of dollars in addition to the medals – exempt from taxes.

In a statement, the Tea Party-backed Florida senator blamed the tax rule on a “complicated and burdensome mess” of a system “that too often punishes success.”

Read more>>>>

*I know John Orozco has not medaled, but that does not make him less of a hero, and he is young.  There still can be another Olympics for him, and if and when that happens he should not be taxed after all of that taxing training and prep.

Read Full Post »

The Karen Finney Posse Forms Here

There is a person, and I will refrain from disclosing her screen name, but she knows who she is, who leads a posse of women who think that this woman does not do/say enough to defend Barack Obama.

Karen Finney

They attack her  mercilessly on  Twitter for not supporting “PBO” sufficiently while never specifying which of her remarks they find objectionable or anemic.

This past Super Tuesday, the above,  Karen Finney, was a guest on the panel at The Ed Show.  She asked this question.

edshow, posted with vodpod

Her remarks precipitated a hailstorm of criticism on her Twitter wall from southern conservative women who accused her of calling them racists – a statement she never made.

Yesterday, as a regular member of the panel on the Dylan Ratigan show, she incited the legendary wrath of Ratigan with this perfectly innocent comment delivered, I would add, with her signature dimpled smile and a sweet voice.

Ratigan, posted with vodpod

This evening, she appeared with Reverend Al on Politics Nation and had this to say.

Rev Al posted withvodpod

Looking at her Twitter wall , the more active of her social nets,  right now, I am wondering where the “PBO” posse is hiding?  Why did they not come out and defend her when the Southern Conservative Women’s posse went after her on Tuesday night and said they were called racist – which they were  not?  Why are they not up there praising her for absorbing the wrath of Ratigan for saying something nice about President Obama?   Why are they not encouraging her remarks to Rev. Al tonight?  Why do they post on her wall ONLY when they feel she is not defensive enough toward “PBO?”  Why did they not defend her against the unfair attacks by the SCW posse?  I wonder exactly what it is Ms. Finney is expected to do in order to please people.

I am not here to defend “PBO” with whom you all know I have issues.  If you read the pages about why we are here and the mission statement,  however, you will see why I very appropriately defend Ms. Finney on this page.   She is a homegirl.  She defends women’s rights with logic and passion.

She has drawn fire from both sides.  In many ways I consider that a good thing.  She is objective, logical, and analytical.  She is not pushing hard for any particular candidate – very unusual on MSBNC.  She is doing her job as she understands it to be:  analyzing the events under discussion in a circumspect way.  I think she does a fine job,  and this week I thought she deserved the support of  some who relentlessly criticize her.

Well this is one venue where I can defend her as well as promote her since I think her brand of objective analysis could be better represented on the channel where she regularly occupies one or another panel.  She should have her own show there.  I probably still would need to consult her Twitter wall to find out who else’s  show she would be appearing on, but I would know that there would be an hour in the day or week that I could DVR regularly and find Karen there speaking out on women’s issues and maybe sometimes saying the president did a pretty good job at something because nobody totally sucks all the time at everything … except maybe Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.  I won’t even bother with Newt.  Just thought I would mention her to those of you who don’t have any team-owning friends.  Now y’all in Puerto Rico go out there and learn English the way those guys mastered Southern American English!

So,  Karen, you have a posse of  homegirls and homeboys right here.  We have your back!

(Full disclosure:  The author has PR cousins, some of whom are very politically active in the Republican Party.  They have native speaker level proficiency in English.  Just sayin’.)

Read Full Post »

Where are the “Death Panels?”

In order to avoid offending  Homegirls and Homeboys here,  I will refrain from posting a picture of the perpetrator.  We all know what she looks like.  Back in 2009, this Op-Ed  was posted on HuffPo quoting  Sarah Palin’s claim that what is now known as “Obamacare” would result in “death panels” that somehow would have decided   ordered that her son Trig should be aborted.

Palin: Obama’s “Death Panel” Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby

The Huffington Post   Rachel Weiner First Posted: 09/07/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:50 PM ET

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has laid pretty low since resigning. But on her Facebook page, Palin suggested Friday that President Obama’s health care plan might kill her child.

Via Talking Points Memo:

Read more >>>>

I wonder why I do not hear allusive arguments today to Palin’s claims then.  Given the now infamous “panel of men”  assembled to decide exactly what kind and how much, if any, health care women should receive, I wonder where Palin is and all her followers who were crying “foul” in 2009?

There is plenty wrong with “Obamacare.”  No one will deny that.  The biggest fault, in my book, was the withdrawal of the single-payer option which would have obviated the conflict with religious institutions we all witnessed last week.  What we did not get with Obamacare are “death panels.”

The Republicans, across the board, are bent on repealing Obamacare.   Where do they attack first?  Coverage of prescriptions and procedures known to be vital to women’s well-being and therefore family health and welfare.  But I hear no voices harking back to Palin’s  prognostication as this panel of men assembles to decide whether women  live in pain and life-threatening conditions or receive the medications and procedures that mitigate these conditions.

Anyone who has lost a mother at a young age,  Madonna and Rosie O”Donnell are two who come to mind, can attest to the devastation that brings to a family.  There are ways, now, to prevent such losses to young families that were not available to mothers of their generation.  My own mother lost her mom in childbirth when she was only six.  That might have been prevented today.  But Republicans think men, some of whom are educated in theology rather than medicine,  should be the voices to be heeded.

Among the Republicans, and specifically among those running for President, there is one who seems to believe essentially what Palin did about “death panels” and all that horror.

I ran across this article in Jezebel today, and there is an opposing argument.   The absolutely beautiful and healthy little baby,  if pictures are worth a thousand words, is testament to the value of pre-natal testing and monitoring.  This story is a must read.

Why Rick Santorum Would Have Killed My Daughter

Next month, my daughter Ella will turn 11 years old. She’s a beautiful girl, with blond hair and green eyes. She’s an amazing artist, a brilliant writer, and she can do the splits without even warming up.

And if I hadn’t had an amniocentesis, she would have died the day she was born.

Read More >>>>

She is a beautiful little baby girl, and she has the whole world in front of her.  Who knows what she might become?

Full disclosure here:  My sister and I were both Rh+ born to an Rh- mother.  We were both born blue.  We both developed jaundice,  and this was in the late 1940s,  so we never knew how we survived.  We do know that our mom had at least two miscarriages, perhaps for this reason, one before I was born and one between the two of us.

I am glad for the procedures, monitoring, and insurance coverage that allowed this beautiful girl-child to survive and thrive.

So WHERE are those “death panels?”

Read Full Post »

Unnecessary Roughness

This was the statement.

U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands

Taken Question

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the January 19, 2012 Daily Press Briefing

January 20, 2012

---

QUESTION: Does the U.S. take a position on the recent posturing between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands?

ANSWER: This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels.

We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.

I was impressed that both the U.K. and the Argentine appellations were used , and I thought the final sentence stated a very clear position given that both countries are allies of ours.  We do not have a dog in this fight (or should I say “show?”).

Today I came upon this commentary on Commentary:

Obama Sending Wrong Message on the Falklands.

Robert C. O’Brien, a former American representative to the UN, argues today in The Diplomat that the Obama administration has again turned its back on the United Kingdom in its dispute with Argentina over the Falklands. This is a rather easy call–British sovereignty there is lawful and the clear choice of Falklands residents. But Argentina is stirring up trouble there once again, and O’Brien suggests Obama’s behavior is indefensible and will have consequences:

Read more >>>>

What got Seth Mandel all fired up was this lengthy diatribe by Robert C. O’Brien in  The Diplomat.

Obama’s Falklands Failure

With the world’s attention focused on Bashar al-Assad’s violent suppression of the Syrian civilian uprising, and with the increasing likelihood of a strike by Israel to thwart Iran’s relentless drive to obtain nuclear weapons, perhaps the most underreported international story is the increasingly heated dispute between Britain and Argentina in the South Atlantic Ocean. It is an unfolding issue that could say much about the way the U.S. handles its alliances, including those in the Asia-Pacific region.

Read more>>>>

Both Mandel, and O’Brien cite O’Brien as a former representative to the U.N., neither specifies which administration he represented.  I might have guessed.

Robert C. O’Brien is an American attorney who was nominated^[1] by President George W. Bush on November 10, 2005 and confirmed by the US Senate as the US Alternate Representative to the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly, which met in New York

Read more >>>>

Clearly I was not following our foreign policy at the time with anything like the devotion I have accorded it since a certain brilliant, hard-working charmer took over as our top diplomat.

What advantage would be gained by U.S. interference in this disagreement is no clearer today than it was in 1982.  Of course the British subjects who are residents going back 175 years want to remain under what we term de facto U.K. administration in much the same way that the Protestants in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the Commonwealth.

Naturally, the Argentines feel that their Malvinas are an occupied territory colonized by the British.  Is there some other way of explaining how these islands came to be under British rule?

All who visit these pages know that I am not one to defend President Obama easily, and I certainly see the fingerprints of his Secretary of State, whom I admire (to put it very mildly), all over our policy on the issue.

While Mandel and O’Brien rant over our unwillingness to intrude,  I happen to like our clear, concise position as stated in the January 19 press briefing.   We have no reasons to stick our nose where it does not belong.

You know me well enough by now to be certain that I will not be ending a post like this  – especially since I am defending President Obama (!) without something from the awesome Hillary Rodham Clinton  – a picture, a quote – something!  Here is a video of her remarks on the matter during her visit to the Casa Rosada on March 2, 2010 as they were published here.

Video: Secretary Clinton’s Remarks on the Falklands/Malvinas

Read Full Post »

Falling Short

As any archer will tell you, there is a difference between hitting the bull’s eye and hitting the skirt.  Twice in a week now,  I see how the DNC damaged this country by contriving the 2008 nomination process.  Two issues that Hillary Rodham Clinton made eminently clear that she would own, from before she declared her candidacy for president,  were universal health care and a foreclosure freeze accompanied by restructuring of mortgage rates.  Well, we did not get HRC, so we did not see these issues addressed as she had outlined them.

Healthcare:  Yes, we did, after an 18-month battle get something, but a badly flawed something,  that continues to exclude too many, a large percentage of whom are women, and does not include the single most important factor that would  have neutralized completely this week’s argument between the administration and Catholic institutions: the single -payer option.   Had THAT been a non-negotiable part of the package, this week’s issue would never have arisen.

Now this morning, the president presents a plan to help some mortgagees in trouble.  Had HRC’s HOLC or HOME been passed, all mortgagees in trouble would have had access to renegotiation,  and foreclosures would have been temporarily frozen long enough for refinance to have taken place – years ago.

Mortgage Settlement Leaves Some Foreclosure Victims Wanting

Too little, too late for so many.

The Dems are trying to drum up some enthusiasm for an incumbent candidate whose inexperience and self-assuredness have served up insufficiency and inadequacy.  The one who was NOT ready from day one.  The unnecessary debate over women’s’ healthcare and the limitations of this morning’s settlement with the banks do little to inspire team spirit.

As usual, it is the surrogates who must argue with passion that the White House is doing the right thing by women, but is that enough?  It should be the incumbent inspiring the passion.   I find Karen Finney a particularly effective voice on the issue of women’s health care, but as I watch and listen to her, it occurs to me that,  as she inspires me,  it is not Obama I wish to follow into this battle, but rather Karen herself!  I do not know whose voice we will hear speaking for those left behind by the bank settlement, but certainly one will emerge.

In the same way that “Hillary Sent Me”, absent Obama personally reaching out specifically to HRC supporters,  left me completely unmotivated to support him (and even more passionately wanting Hillary), this continuing surrogacy strategy is doing nothing but spotlighting leaders, real ones, that I would much prefer to share a trench with than Obama.  Ms. Finney is quickly emerging as one of those.

So, as I continue to harbor hope that in some way Hillary Clinton ends up at the top of the ballot sooner rather than later, I see in some of the surrogates who defend Obama’s inadequate programs, my future leaders.  Elizabeth Warren is one, and Karen Finney is another to watch.  She has that Joan of Arc quality that HRC has.  Yes, I would follow her into battle just as I would follow Hillary.  Would I follow Obama?  No, I still simply cannot do that.  How can you follow the “leader” who leads from behind?

You only get points for hitting the target.  Obama continually hits the skirt.

******************************************************************

*Edited to add*  It was atrociously negligent of me not to add the link to Karen’s seminal article on this issue which is one of many reasons why I point to her as a leader.  A “must read!”

Church, flock at odds

******************************************************************

Read Full Post »

Objectification of an Icon? Not in HillaryHood! No you DON’T!

This came up in one of my news feeds.

Obama’s Hillary card

By Brent Budowsky – 11/30/11 05:51 PM ET

President Obama has the extraordinary option of rekindling the historic spirit of his presidency and riding the sweeping tides of history for the advancement of women by naming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate in 2012.

Read more >>>>

The title is a molotov cocktail.  We all have seen “The Hillary Factor” and “The Hillary Effect.”  Recently, we were heartened to see “The Hillary Moment.”  So what’s the big deal?  What’s the difference?  What is wrong with “The Hillary card?” 

From Dictionary.com:

fac·tor

[fak-ter] Show IPA

noun

1. one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation: Poverty is only one of the factors in crime.

2. Mathematics . one of two or more numbers, algebraic expressions, or the like, that when multiplied together produce a given product; a divisor: 6 and 3 are factors of 18.

3.  Biochemistry . any of certain substances necessary to a biochemical or physiological process, especially those whose exact nature and function are unknown.

4. a business organization that lends money on accounts receivable or buys and collects accounts receivable.

5. a person who acts or transacts business for another; an agent.

ef·fect

[ih-fekt] Show IPA

noun

1.  something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.

2. power to produce results; efficacy; force; validity; influence: His protest had no effect.

3. the state of being effective  or operative; operation or execution; accomplishment or fulfillment: to bring a plan into effect.

4.  a mental or emotional impression produced, as by a painting or a speech.

5.  meaning or sense; purpose or intention: She disapproved of the proposal and wrote to that effect.

mo·ment

[moh-muhnt] Show IPA

noun

1.  an indefinitely short period of time; instant: I’ll be with you in a moment.

2.  the present time or any other particular time (usually preceded by the ): He is busy at the moment.

3.  a definite period or stage, as in a course of events; juncture: at this moment in history.

4.  importance or consequence: a decision of great moment.

5.  a particular time or period of success, excellence, fame, etc.: His big moment came in the final game.

card

¹    [kahrd] Show IPA

noun

1.  a usually rectangular piece of stiff paper, thin pasteboard, or plastic for various uses, as to write information on or printed as a means of identifying the holder: a 3″ × 5″ file card; a membership card.

2. one of a set of thin pieces of cardboard with spots, figures, etc., used in playing various games; playing card.

3. cards, ( usually used with a singular verb )

a. a game or games played with such a set.

b. the playing of such a game: to win at cards.

c. Casino . the winning of 27 cards  or more.

d. Whist . tricks won in excess of six.

4. Also called greeting card. a piece of paper or thin cardboard, usually folded, printed with a message of holiday greeting, congratulations, or other sentiment, often with an illustration or decorations, for mailing to a person on an appropriate occasion.

5. something useful in attaining an objective, as a course of action or position of strength, comparable to a high card held in a game: If negotiation fails, we still have another card to play

I have emphasized the definitions I consider most relevant.  Most of these nouns name a person or intangibles: an element, a state, a period.    Card   is different.  It is a thing, a piece of paper, or worse  a tool (#5).  To couple this word with the name Hillary (and everyone knows which Hillary), is demeaning, insulting objectification of  the most powerful, recognizable, effective, and altruistic human being on earth who happens to live in a female body.

What is the implication?  A president who inspired hope in so many and then let them down would use the one gem he managed to acquire for his measly crown to retain his position.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a world hero.  She reaches out to the poorest, the mutest, the most downtrodden, the disenfranchised, the ignored… yes, the invisible … because they/we are not invisible to her.  She told us that in 2008,  and we have seen her act upon that statement as Secretary of State.

To suggest that this awesome woman is an object, a card to be played in a political game,  is deepest insult.  For shame!  Shame on those who suggest it!

If this is indeed from the Obama campaign playbook, shame on them!   She has gone above and beyond.  The Homegirls and Homeboys of HillaryHood excoriate this cheap political move.

Here is our hero with another hero from today – a day of history.

Do not try to cheapen her.  Do not objectify her.  She is not an object or a card to be played.  She is a hero.  She is precious.  Treat her respectfully.  We will NOT tolerate objectification of this icon of human rights.

Read Full Post »

The war is over? But not quite yet? Reality check!

I guess this comes under the heading: Sh*t happens. Obama’s campaign sent this to the blogger known as “Still4Hill.” How presumptive can they be?

Friend – I’m James Kvaal, the new policy director for President Obama’s 2012 campaign. You’ll be hearing from me occasionally about the President’s policies and those of our opponents, and how we can all help bring about change for our country.Yesterday, we accomplished one major change when President Obama announced that all American troops in Iraq will be home before the holidays.With that action, the Iraq war will end. And one of the President’s central promises will have been kept.Both as Americans and as supporters of President Obama, this is something for us to reflect on, and be proud of. Watch the video of the President’s announcement — then please pass this on: http://my.barackobama.com/Iraq-Announcement The war in Iraq was a divisive, defining issue in our country for nearly nine years, and was the catalyst for many Americans to get involved in politics for the first time. Now, thanks to the actions of this President, we can say that conflict is coming to a close. The end of this war reflects a larger transition in our foreign policy as, in the President’s words, “the tide of war is receding.” The drawdown in Iraq has allowed us to refocus on the fight against al Qaeda, even as we begin to bring troops home from Afghanistan. And of course, this week also marked the definitive end of the Qaddafi regime in Libya. These outcomes are an example of what happens when a leader sets a plan and sees it through. In the last campaign, the President committed to getting American troops home while leaving behind a stable and secure Iraq. You rallied around that vision, and now that promise has been fulfilled. On behalf of this campaign and supporters of the President across the country, I want to thank the more than 1 million Americans who have served in Iraq, and all those who worked to make this possible. Thanks, James James Kvaal Policy Director Obama for America

Here is my reply.

James -

I am a blogger associated with Team Hillary Clinton. My first question is why you would send a Barack Obama campaign email to somebody named “Still4Hill.” It seems that ought to imply who my 2012 candidate is. Were that not the case I might have changed my name to “Was4Hill” or something like that. But this is beside the point.

Seriously, James. The war is over? But not quite yet, not until December 31. The transparency promised by the Obama team in 2008 has been as clear as mud until recently. “Ending” the war in Iraq is as obviously political as are all the public appearances exhorting the public to contact representatives to tell them to support the jobs bills. There is one job that is meant to protect and preserve – Mr. Obama’s.

What strategic or tactical event precipitates this mighty finish to our long slog through Iraq? Nothing! Most tellingly, it is evidently not that “over” since the official end does not take place until the end of the year. This is misleading, purely political nonsense. It obscures the truth: that the American presence remains at great expense to Americans. This is a chess move.

Declaring the war over, Obama shifted operations in Iraq from the Pentagon to the poorly funded State Department. Protection of civilian State Department and USAID staff now falls to extremely expensive and poorly regulated contractors. If this declaration of peace were anything other than political, a wise president would have made sure that the State Department had a fully funded and trained civil security arm. There is such a body, but it is miniscule in contrast to the numbers of troops being pulled out. A responsible president would have bulked it up first, before declaring “peace.”

Now it is up to our diligent and assiduous Secretary of State to manage an almost impossible post-war program for which Congress is certain to cut rather than improve funding. Nice move.

Obama is the most disastrous president I have witnessed in my life. Worse than Nixon. This move by him is real clear politics. It reminds me of this and is about as true.

Good luck in your new position,

Still4Hill

Team Hillary Clinton

HillaryHood

Read Full Post »

CEDAW: It Is High Time!

I have said it before here, the Obama administration has a miserable record of pushing treaties through the Senate.  I keep a record of Hillary Clinton flying all over the world signing treaties, but back here at home, precious few get pushed to a ratification vote in a Senate that, for now, has a Democratic majority.

When I posted Secretary Clinton’s remarks at a women’s leadership event at UNGA yesterday, little did I know that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that has not rung in on the women’s rights treaty.  But here it is, thanks to HuffPo.  Signed by Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, CEDAW has been languishing without Senate ratification all these years.

It is time for this White House get moving on treaties, and this one would be a good start.  It needs a push!

Joshua Hersh joshua.hersh@huffingtonpost.com

Hillary Clinton Promotes Women’s Rights Treaty That U.S. Has Not Yet Signed

Posted: 9/20/11 07:55 PM ET

NEW YORK — On the eve of high-level meetings for the United Nations’ general assembly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended an event on Monday afternoon designed to highlight the importance of women’s participation in public life.

Together with a selection of major female world leaders, including Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s top diplomat, and Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile and the head of U.N. Women, Clinton put her name to a document calling for developing countries — especially in the changing Middle East — to clear the way for women to hold leadership roles.

The joint statement read:

We call upon all States to ratify and fulfill their obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and to implement fully Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women and Peace and Security and other relevant UN resolutions

Read more>>>>

Read Full Post »

Words Fail…

IT’S OVER

Harry Hamburg, File / AP Photo

Elizabeth Warren Out: Report

There’s no better way to ruin a weekend than having somebody replace you at work. President Obama has reportedly chosen his nominee for chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it’s not early favorite Elizabeth Warren, a source told Bloomberg News Friday.

Read more>>>>

Why do I have a nagging thought at the back of my head that this announcement, coming at this particular time, is inextricably tied to conversations going on behind closed doors at the White House between the Republicans and the erstwhile POTUS?

Did I require yet ANOTHER reason not to support Barack Obama for any additional time leading from behind?  No!  Leading from behind whom?  My guess, from behind the GOP!

Read Full Post »

Base to Robby Mook @DCCC (Testing … testing….)

Just got an email from Robby Mook saying that my DCCC membership has expired and all I need to do to renew it is contribute.

With the Federal Election Commission (FEC) deadline just days away, there has never been a more critical time to show your support for President Obama’s agenda….

Really, Robby?  And what agenda would that be?  The one that has yet to advocate for full civil rights for gay Americans? The one that extended unemployment benefits for 13 months but the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans for two years?  The one that, instead of fighting for the single payer option simply allowed it to be excised from the health care bill?  The one that still does not firmly, once and for all say that LGBT rights are human rights, and human rights are LGBT rights?  That among those rights is the right to serve one’s country, and to die for it,  as openly gay?  As who you are?

That agenda?

Dear Robby,

When the Democratic Party listens to its membership, I will renew my membership.

The party refused to provide a fair and transparent roll call vote in Denver in 2008, and the RBC  reassigned Hillary Clinton delegates to Barack Obama in a move that, if not illegal, was at least unethical.

I, as a registered Democrat resent the way the party treated me and my 18 million pro-Hillary cohorts.  My contributions since 2008 have gone and until further notice will continue to go to Hillary Clinton.

What will it take for me to make future contributions?  Put Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket where she belongs.

Regards,

S4H (my real name here)

Happy Pride Day, everybody!

Read Full Post »