December
17th 2009
Howard Dean: harshing that Village of Oz buzz

Posted under: American history, unhappy endings, wankers

wizardcurtainI always liked Howard Dean.  I thought he was the best choice in 2004, and although I don’t know if he would have beat Bush, he would have gone down swinging (unlike John Kerry.)  Although he’s been on TV over the last several months speaking up for “health care reform,” like the good Dem that he is, he has decided that he can’t support (today’s) iteration of the Senate bill

So, guess what?  The good doctor, who is not in office now, has no role in the Dem party, and doesn’t have a role in government anywhere, MUST BE DESTROYED.  Again!  He’s being accused of having “lost his mind!”  The White House has whispered that it’s all “irrational,” just his personal beef with Joe Lieberman.  Sen. Jay Rockefeller–a totally useless Dem if there ever was one–accuses Dean of being childish, “sob”ing and “complain”ing:

“Do I take my football and go home and sob and complain or hold out for $100 million for West Virginia?” Rockefeller asked. “No, I look at the bill and say, ‘What is in the general interest of the people in my state and the people in America?’ ”

wizardwickedwitch

Who would have thought that a good little doctor like you would destroy my evil wickedness?

Patriotism is the last refuge of those who claim weakness is a virtue, Senator.  That’s what Dr. Dean is talking about:  Why didn’t you “hold out” for what you say you really wanted?  (Unless this is what you really want, of course.)  Listen to this weak rebuttal from David Axelrod, who just sounds frantic and desperate as he begs us all to pay no attention to the man behind that curtain and reassures us that the for-profit insurance industry is “fighting us so hard!”  Give Ed Schultz his due:  he asked a damn good question, and Axelrod punted.  (H/t TalkLeft.)

Why do they fear Dr. Dean?  He has no power.  Remember?  You have the power!”

42 Comments »

42 Responses to “Howard Dean: harshing that Village of Oz buzz”

  1. Indyanna on 17 Dec 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    Contra Historiann, I didn’t always like Gov. Dean. I thought he was an over-the-top amateur zealot (having crashed and burned my own zealotry in the delicious Eugene McCarthy insurgency many springs back). I haven’t yet and still don’t think the self-infatuation of net-rootism that he pioneered offers the Dems. much of an effective model of political futurity. I didn’t even mind it all THAT much when Lieberman gave the Lamontite netroots their comeupance (sp?) in the CT general election. (It helps to know what your constituency actually thinks). All that said, Lieberman has gone far too far, and I agree with Dr. (Primal) Scream that the bill should be scuttled if the Senate won’t submit to the (people’s) House, at least on the public option. Then take it to the constituencies and fight it out next year.

    On Rocka’fella: If Vermont had seceded from, say, Canada, in 1783, and joined the federal Union nine years later, which sort of IS what happened, now that you think of it; and if Vermont still had one of its two original-issue senators (Ethan Allen, III) sending home the federal lard, that Hundred Mil would be tip-the-driver kind of money, wouldn’t it? Where are they hiding that football up in West Virginny, anyway?

  2. FrauTech on 17 Dec 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    The interesting thing about Howard Dean is…

    He inspired most of the people who did the groundwork for John Kerry in 2004. All of the next generaton activists who got involved in the democratic party at the time were thanks to him. And I do credit him with expanding online communications to the point where Obama was really able to take advantage of it. And I agree with him completely on this. I’m so PO’d that with majorities in both houses, a majority of the public saying they want a “public option”, they can’t pull it through for the people. I don’t need to see another bill like the medicare/drug program passed during the Bush years that way increased the national debt and did absolutely nothing for people who needed it. So I’m ready for Obama to step in and be the man he is and say “let’s start again next year, and i’m not going to play nice with you next year.” But none of that will happen.

  3. Emma on 17 Dec 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    So I’m ready for Obama to step in and be the man he is and say “let’s start again next year, and i’m not going to play nice with you next year.” But none of that will happen.

    That isn’t the man Obama is. With Dem majorities in the Congress and a Dem President if this is the bill the Dems got, it’s the bill the Dems wanted.

    And it doesn’t matter if that’s actually true b/c it will be rhetorically true at election time.

  4. Historiann on 17 Dec 2009 at 1:21 pm #

    I was talking to FratGuy the other day, on the question of HCR and whether the WH is evil or just inept. While I mostly agree that this result is apparently what Obama wants, FratGuy pointed out that Obama looks a lot like the guy trying to pretend that his dog is listening to him: “Walk away from me now…good boy, good boy. Run away! Sniff that other dog’s butt!”

    So, perhaps evil and inept aren’t either/or choices. It’s inconceivable that anyone would have scripted 2009′s HCR to unfold this way, even if in the end this is exactly where they wanted to take it. Talk about the Mayberry Machiavellis.

    It’s amazing how speedily the WH gets on the stick when Howard Dean swings into action–a man who holds no office and has no power other than he can get on TV and get an op-ed in the WaPo. No enemies to the right, I guess.

  5. Indyanna on 17 Dec 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    Great image, Fratguy! Sort of vaguely Maoist, too; go with the flow, bend with the wind, fishes moving along in the stream with the people, even if it only extends to performing “mastery” over the canine world! If my exams hadn’t ended today I think I’d try something of the like with my students; some of you be at least three minutes late, go ahead and “friend” the Stateler Cafeteria and find out what the lunch specials are, open that crinkley Cabbage Wrap foil and smell up the room…

  6. Emma on 17 Dec 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    It’s amazing how speedily the WH gets on the stick when Howard Dean swings into action–a man who holds no office and has no power other than he can get on TV and get an op-ed in the WaPo. No enemies to the right, I guess.

    It’s clearly only the left who stands in the way of Obama’s agenda.

  7. Amy on 17 Dec 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    Obama should say “Let’s start again next year?” I’m just a lowly political scientist, but I have to say that this is the darned silliest thing I’ve read today. The Congress will not start again next year. Why would they? The bill has gone through many steps over many, many months and if it dies now, it’s dead as a doornail and there won’t be an attempt to reform health policy for at least a decade. The result will be that people with cancer, diabetes, and high blood pressure won’t get diagnosed and will die earlier than they would have.

    And we will all have for ourselves an example of the impossibility of doing anything on health care, so presidential candidates certainly won’t try to do anything as sweeping and ambitious as this for many election cycles.

    Timing matters in politics and a dead bill in the next few weeks weighs like a heavy hand on the future. We dumb political scientists call that path-dependence.

    By the way, in your world is criticizing someone’s views the same as “destroying” them? If so, it must be hard to give or receive any criticisms. I bet Dr. Dean is not the mild flower who can’t deal with people saying they disagree with him and doesn’t consider those to be “destroying” him.

  8. Amy on 17 Dec 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    Oh, and those who would be happy to “kill the bill” because it isn’t progressive enough really should sign up for shifts at free clinics in their areas, especially those of us who are tenured and heave health insurance. Maybe it would be nice to explain to them that it just wouldn’t have been right to have extended Medicaid, provided subsidies, and put in a whole slew of regulations over insurance companies because it just wasn’t progressive enough a bill. I know a lot of students who would benefit from the provision in the bill that they can stay on parents’ coverage until age 27 but, heck, why would they really want that if the bill doesn’t meet progressives’ standards?

    Any historians want to explain to this political scientist why Social Security was ok even though it excluded many African-Americans (and was designed to do so via compromises with southern senators)? How about the nonuniversality of Medicare and Medicaid? For that matter, what about absurd civil rights steps taken in the 1950s that were pretty little steps compared to the pure and the good and the true?

  9. Z on 17 Dec 2009 at 7:49 pm #

    I agree with Amy on virtually all points but I still do find it interesting that Dean has been classified as _irrational_ more than once (and not necessarily for right reasons).

  10. KoshemBos on 17 Dec 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    I am not an historian, but history has anecdotes to fit both sides. First, read the proposed law correctly. It may add tens of millions to the ranks of the insured, but it also exclude about 20 million illegal immigrant out of health insurance altogether, even if they can afford it.

    It seems to me that Dean believes that sooner than later the country has to move to a rational health care system in which profit is checked, were medication don’t cost as much as illegal drugs and everyone is covered, therefore, he sits this one out.

    Obama is not the one to leads to a solution. All he wants is to be in the books and get some laurels. In either 2012 or 2016, we will have a real fighter and a real believer in the good of the people.

    Let’s wait.

  11. KC on 17 Dec 2009 at 8:57 pm #

    In my view the current horribly flawed legislation is better than what we have now, so I hope it becomes law. If this gets pulled until next year, there will be no next year, and health care reform will go back to being like the Cubs winning the World Series, i.e., it ain’t happening. Again, I would refer people to Nate Silver’s analysis at fivethirtyeight.com. This bill does improve things quite a bit for a lot of people who are really suffering right now. The public option should not be the ground on which the left chooses to make its last stand.

  12. KC on 17 Dec 2009 at 8:58 pm #

    Also want to add: I like Dean, but my Vermont friends say he was nothing like this when he held elected office as their governor. Much more middle of the road back then.

  13. Emma on 17 Dec 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    Oh, and those who would be happy to “kill the bill” because it isn’t progressive enough really should sign up for shifts at free clinics in their areas,

    And when it does pass, you can staff the emergency rooms and morgues for the poor women who’ve had to get illegal abortions.

    So long as we’re going to suffer and die, we should do it on a gender equal basis. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

  14. Historiann on 17 Dec 2009 at 10:31 pm #

    Amy–you’re welcome to comment here, but can you tone the sarcasm down a notch? Did I insult political scientists in my post here?

    I just think this is a bad bill that has been badly handled from the start. I also don’t think criticism actually “destroys” people–I think you misunderstand me on this point. I just think it’s hillarious that the WH feels the need to train all of their firepower on a critic (Dean) who doesn’t hold office or bear any responsibility for where were are now (unlike Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, or etc.) Dean’s a nobody now–so what are they afraid of, if their bill is so awesome and sure to be universally revered?

    If this is our only window for reforming the delivery of health care and we have to pass *this* particular iteration of the bill NOW NOW NOW or health reform is dead for a decade–then that says a lot about the absence of leadership from both congress and this White House in 2009. Again–how is it that Dean is so important and all-powerful that he alone can ruin everything?

    I don’t think you have to be a conservative or a right-winger to wonder how mandates to buy insurance from for-profit companies without meaningful subsidies for middle-class people is going to be a huge win for anyone. But–that’s what this bill looks like to me. (And, oh yeah: as Emma notes–if Stupak stands in the Senate bill, women will be forced to buy insurance that doesn’t in fact insure them equally! So the bill is a two-fer insult to its base of middle- and working-class women. Awesome)

  15. Paul S. on 18 Dec 2009 at 6:20 am #

    I still can’t figure out why people are so surprised about this. The whole reason that the Democrats were able to gain control of the Presidency plus the House and Senate was that they appealed to the political center and ran centrist candidates in states and districts where the Republicans had been winning. If they had tried to keep their “progressive purity” the Republicans would probably still control at least one branch of the Congress or even the presidency. The USA didn’t really turn to the left, it just turned away from the right toward the center.

    IMHO – the more centrist/conservative Democrats are just holding out for what the people who elected them want.

  16. KC on 18 Dec 2009 at 6:57 am #

    Paul,

    That’s important to remember. Also important to remember that if the Dems fail to pass health care reform of any kind, the 2010 elections will be an even worse blood bath for them than they are already shaping up to be.

  17. Widgeon on 18 Dec 2009 at 7:12 am #

    I am a historian and would like to respond to Amy’s point about Social Security. The exclusion of domestic servants and agricultural workers from Social Security (and thus the exclusion of most black workers) exacerbated racial inequality in profound ways, as did New Deal housing policies. The same can be said for the way in which “entitlement” programs such as welfare were (and are) administered differently because they targeted women. There has been much ink spilled on this issue, but a good quick read is Katznelson, _When Affirmative Action was White_. My point isn’t that the current health care legislation should be jettisoned (I’m on the fence on that question), but that bad legislation can create real harm.

  18. Historiann on 18 Dec 2009 at 7:54 am #

    KC: re: Widgeon’s point too–passing this bill might do the Dems more harm than good. It’s like a parody of what right-wingers always say about liberals: this bill will take our money NOW to help subsidize benefits in 2013. And, it looks like another dose of corporate welfare, this time for for-profit insurance companies, because it’s guaranteeing them millions of new customers and letting them off the hook for regulation by the states (with the so-called exchange across state lines.)

    I fail to see how Dems will score a win on this one. Their base smells a rat. I could be wrong–this bill could magically heal the millions and make our nation great again. But so far, it doesn’t look any better than what a George W. Bush WH and Republican congress could come up with.

  19. Emma on 18 Dec 2009 at 9:08 am #

    I still can’t figure out why people are so surprised about this. The whole reason that the Democrats were able to gain control of the Presidency plus the House and Senate was that they appealed to the political center and ran centrist candidates in states and districts where the Republicans had been winning.

    Maybe people are so surprised because those “centrist” Dems are demonstrably and hugely to the right of even their centrist supporters. They’re not taking centrist positions nor are they taking positions their constitutents support.

  20. Historiann on 18 Dec 2009 at 9:16 am #

    See also Big Tent Democrat’s commentary, “How the Health Bill Debate is Like the Iraq War Debate.”

    You’re either with us, or with the terrorists! (Except, it looks like the WH and Senate leadership are happy to negotiate with terrorists named Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman!)

  21. Paul on 18 Dec 2009 at 10:08 am #

    Maybe people are so surprised because those “centrist” Dems are demonstrably and hugely to the right of even their centrist supporters. They’re not taking centrist positions nor are they taking positions their constitutents support.

    Is this really true, though? The current healthcare plan seems pretty centrist to me in that it greatly expands government funding for healthcare but does not give the government complete control of the system. The right-wing position would be either keeping the current system or cutting the government programs that already exist.

  22. Historiann on 18 Dec 2009 at 10:12 am #

    Paul–I suppose you’d have to look at the polling data district-by-district, but it seems like the American public are to the left of where most pols are (of whichever party.)

    The great thing about the Senate “health” “care” “reform” bill as it exists now is that it’s bringing together Tea Party righties and left-liberals like me! This is because of Obama’s failure to lead.

    Like I always say: Awesome!

  23. Emma on 18 Dec 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    The current healthcare plan seems pretty centrist to me in that it greatly expands government funding for healthcare but does not give the government complete control of the system. The right-wing position would be either keeping the current system or cutting the government programs that already exist.

    You’re talking ideologies. I’m talking voters. Which is to say, I agree with Historiann it seems like the American public are to the left of where most pols are (of whichever party) on health care reform.

  24. Kathleen Lowrey on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    I wonder if one of the reasons that the White House has gone full “Dean is a crazy person, don’t look at him” is because I might not be the only person out there who feels hugely confused by the whole health care reform process at this point and so is looking for guidance. Dean is somebody I really trust in politics, I was just crushed in 2004 that he wasn’t the nominee, and so when he comes out on a debate I find totally perplexing and about which he is additionally authoritative on other merits (physician, would have liked to have been Sec. of HHS), I tend to think — huh, he’s probably right.

    Admitting this — maybe not here, but lots of places — will probably cause a rain of “oh god you’re so stupid you can’t think for yourself aggghhhh go hide under a rock”, but I just think, I’m reasonably politically engaged, I’ve followed the debate and the process with a fair amount of attention, but I don’t feel I independently know what the right course of action is, I don’t know enough about health care, insurance, or the political process. A guy who is a doctor, former head of the DNC, and whom I’ve always thought well of — maybe he’s worth listening to. Obviously the WH wants to undermine that kind of influence.

  25. Historiann on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    Kathleen–I think you’re right. My comments that “he has no power” were meant to highlight the fact that he doesn’t have a vote on the Senate version of HCR, whereas Nelson, Lieberman, and others against it do have votes. I think the WH is angry because Dean was supporting the WH’s message all along, like a good Dem, and they’re scared because Dean is still widely respected by many Dems, and he’s got real credibility on HCR as you note.

    But as good a Dem as he is, he’s not owned by the WH or corporate interests, so he calls it like he sees it. Seems like Rahm would have done well to have swallowed his pride and co-opted Dean by making him Sec’y of HHS now, doesn’t it? (By the way: is Kathleen Siebelius M.I.A. or something? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Any leadership out there?)

  26. Historiann on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:39 pm #

    IOW, that “giant sucking sound” (to borrow a turn of phrase from Ross Perot) is the leadership vacuum! If this WH couldn’t (or wouldn’t) enforce party discipline back when Obama’s approval ratings were in the 60s, I highly doubt that they’re going to have an easier time of it now that he’s in the 40s.

  27. KC on 18 Dec 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    I fail to see how Dems will score a win on this one.

    I agree it is lose-lose at this point. But where do they cut their losses? If they come back with nothing I agree with a previous poster who said they will have killed health care reform–again–for a decade or more. And that’s really bad and will have 1994-like repercussions next year.

    However, if they come back with something, some watered-down, piece of garbage bill that doesn’t do all it should, or even half it should, they will, I think, be in marginally better shape, simply because they can go on the road touting the benefits of the bill (there will be some, such as the exclusion of the right to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions). What’s more, they can argue that health care reform remains a pressing issue, a work in progress. They can still fight for a public option. The public option polls well. If they can beat the tea-baggers and the Liebermans at the polls in 2010 or 2012 they can improve this thing in increments in the coming years and hopefully keep control of the House or the Senate.

    As angry as I am with Democrats, I don’t want to see Republicans back in power, and that’s what I fear a defeat of this bill will lead to.

  28. Z on 18 Dec 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    Something is better than nothing on health care because it at least keeps the issue alive.

    It also helps with the 2010 elections which are important. You do not want a Congress which will vote to nuke Iran!!!

    I am for choice and free health care and free contraception and abortion, but to put abortion coverage into perspective:

    I have had the best insurance available in my state for decades and it didn’t cover my abortion. I know for sure because I double checked and talked to two plan representatives about it. Maternity coverage was quite lacking at that time as well. That didn’t mean I had to have an illegal abortion, it just meant I had to pay $200 for a legal one.

    The cost of a first trimester abortion now is about half the amount of my current insurance deductible. If my insurance currently covers abortion (I haven’t checked), the cost of one would apply to the amount of the deductible, which I never reach anyway.

    My point: I’m for choice and pro women’s rights and reproductive health rights, but I wouldn’t turn down insurance that covered accidents and cancer just because it didn’t cover abortion.

  29. Historiann on 18 Dec 2009 at 8:36 pm #

    KC and Z–that’s where I’ve been all along (i.e. just pass something, anything and then fix it later), but I think there’s a point beyond which that’s a realistic plan. I’m not 100% sure we’re there yet–one of the problems I’ve had all along with this “process” is that the bill/s change every day depending on which U.S. Senator decides they want to leverage something else. But, we may be. I thought that Dean’s analysis was persuasive. But I also recognize the real challenge that starting over in the new year would be.

    Stories this afternoon that Ben Nelson wants HCR to be an “opt-in” program rather than an “opt-out” program make me think we may be at the point of no return. I think it’s going to be a bad November for the Dems next year either way.

  30. Amy on 18 Dec 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    Remember when a bunch of governors said they didn’t want stimulus money but all of them took it anyway? That’s what will happen if the law passes with an opt-in provision. Very quickly the states will sign on.

    Widgeon: Yes, the way Social Security was structured was highly problematic. But if it had not been passed it could not have been expanded and fixed.

    Complaints in the line of “but it should be better than it is now,” in my view, are beside the point. At this moment in history, the choice is not between the ideal and a series of less ideal choices; that moment has come and gone. Ultimately you can only pass what the coalition allows. Unfortunately we have Lieberman and Nelson in there. I sure wish we didn’t, but I didn’t have a say and they are there. And “leadership” has virtually nothing to do with what Lieberman and Nelson are going to do.

  31. Historiann on 18 Dec 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    Amy–agreed, with one exception. Leadership (or IMHO, a lack thereof) has a LOT to do with where we are. The decision to cut deals with Pharma and the for-profit insurance companies, and the decision to “sell” this plan as a strategy to “bend the cost curve” instead of as a great crusade for human rights and social justice in the tradition of antislavery, Civil Rights, etc.–that’s led us to this point, where no one is happy, and Obama is losing his base in additon to the right and the center.

    Maybe there’s integrity there (of a sort) that he didn’t try to sell yet another massive subsidy of for-profit corporations as a great crusade for human rights! (Well, at least we’ve got that going for us.)

  32. Z on 19 Dec 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Historiann — yes, true on leadership. And both Dean and the idea that something must be passed are persuasive; I don’t know what to think today.

    And O. is not just losing his “base,” he’s also lost tolerance from people like me, to the left of it.

  33. Emma on 19 Dec 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    Relax everybody! Chill out! They only sold out women. We can live with that!

  34. Emma on 19 Dec 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    My point: I’m for choice and pro women’s rights and reproductive health rights, but I wouldn’t turn down insurance that covered accidents and cancer just because it didn’t cover abortion.

    Hey, I can live without abortion coverage, too. After all, I’m a lesbian who is never going to get pregnant. I can also live without insurance that covers maternity costs, regular ob/gyn care, birth control, emergency birth control, regular mammograms, and treatment for sexual dysnfunction. So, if I can live without it, I guess you’re going to have to live without it, too. Is that how it works? Hell, my insurance would be a LOT cheaper if it didn’t cover all that stuff that reproducers do. So, I think we should make sure that all that maternity related stuff is optional, too. After all, not everybody needs it and lots of people would take the insurance anyway.

  35. cgeye on 20 Dec 2009 at 6:58 am #

    Dear Amy:
    “I’m just a lowly political scientist, but I have to say that this is the darned silliest thing I’ve read today.”

    Nope. Saying this opportunity’s all or nothing’s the same trap Clinton fell for.

    They can fix this bill in reconciliation; they can strengthen it, dare the Reps to filibuster, and at last sucessfully use the nuclear option against it. They can start over just in time for the 2010 elections, and instead of being idiots who can’t campaign on a bill that won’t start anything good until 2014, they can do it right and strengthen the Democratic control of Congress.

    And don’t you fucking dare pull that “you progressives support a shitty bill with a IRS-as-cop mandate that will guarantee Republican control of Congress in 2010, or I’ll shoot this baby” crap. The public option was a vague promise this summer, and the particulars evaporated as quickly as they were conjured up, and the cost of whatever crumbs we get is women’s healthcare legislated to the standards of the strictest anti-abortion state. If our lack of support wasn’t crucial at the beginning, it’s sure as hell not crucial now. The health insurance companies don’t need me, and they’re paying the bill for this push every step of the way.

    Public opinion favors single payer or at least expanded Medicare, and Obama discarding those tidbits for the usual suspects is what will cost lives and the 2010 elections.

  36. cgeye on 20 Dec 2009 at 7:07 am #

    And wake me up once this punitive ball of coverage excludes men’s coverage of Viagra, penile implants, vacuum devices, venereal disease management for married men, and impotence treatment once at least 2 children have been fathered during the man’s lifetime.

    Also, it would be nice that every punitive abortion reporting statue does the same contact tracing for baby daddies as those infected with HIV — and make child support non-optional. If a woman’s marked by the state for wanting an abortion, let the man be marked for causing it.

  37. cgeye on 20 Dec 2009 at 7:07 am #

    um, *statute*.

  38. Historiann on 20 Dec 2009 at 7:43 am #

    “If a woman’s marked by the state for wanting an abortion, let the man be marked for causing it.

    Yes, exactly. But: we all know that’s never gonna happen! Time to start voting against the Dems, friends.

  39. Emma on 20 Dec 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    Time to start voting against the Dems, friends.

    I’m with you. I don’t think I’ll vote Republican but, hey, maybe I really should start voting my pocketbook. Since I won’t get equality, maybe I should grab everything else I can get.

  40. Emma on 20 Dec 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    If our lack of support wasn’t crucial at the beginning, it’s sure as hell not crucial now.

    Amen.

  41. Historiann on 20 Dec 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    As for voting: living out West, there’s always some crazy-ass party running some crazy-assed candidate (i.e. the U.S. Constitution party, etc.)–I’m sure it’s totally right-wing, but it might be a good place to cast a protest vote until the National Women’s Party is revived. (I don’t know how to do write-in candidates with those creepy electronic voting machines…)

  42. Z on 22 Dec 2009 at 6:30 am #

    Voting: You don’t have to vote right wing to vote against the Democrats. There’s Green, Peace and Freedom, even Socialist Workers if you don’t have other lefty options in your state. I usually vote 3d party but it really makes Clinton people scream; I had someone voting on my tenure and screaming at me the same day because I wouldn’t wear a Clinton bumper sticker on my car.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply