Sadly, the answer from too many people is, “No.” No, they don’t understand the words coming out of my mouth (or in this case, laptop). No matter how many times I have said this: I will not vote for Obama. Ever. See the sidebar on my blog? “NOBAMA.” “I Own My Vote.” “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Hillary!” All of that? No, apparently not. I have received SO much pressure to cave, and vote for this man. No matter how many times I say no, and no matter how politely (I am a Southerner, after all), people still try to get me to commit to Obama. Or call me a Republican. I will not, and I am not.

But since no one seems to be able to understand me, let me share with you a piece by Victoria Brownworth (or part of it anyway, from Curve, Vol. 18#8, pp 30-31). Unfortunately, it is NOT online - it was in an honest-to-goodness magazine (apparently John McCain isn’t the only one who is not wired - oh, they do have a website: curvemag.com, but it does not contain the contents of their recent issues. If you want to read it for yourself, I’m afraid you’ll have to go down to the newsstand to do it.)

Anywho, Ms. Brownworth’s article, “My November Surprise: What Will It Take To Get A Real Progressive In The White House?” could have been written by a number of us, I suspect. No, I know. It could have been written by me, at least, at least 2/3 of it. So, here it is, typed out with my own hands, in an effort to get those who are trying to cajole/manipulate/shame/demand I vote for Obama:

It’s a secret I and many women have been keeping, but the time has come to reveal my big surprise. I will not be voting Democrat in November.

I worked for Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign from February through her withdrawal from the race in June. I worked hard, doing action alerts, writing column after column, alerting the media to information about Clinton’s stances on various issues and calling voters in key primary states. I felt that Clinton was the best presidential candidate the United States had seen in years, and I was excited to work for her.

When Clinton came within a hairbreadth of winning the popular vote (RRRA here - she DID win the popular vote), but the superdelegates went in a wave with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recommendations rather than their constituents, I was beyond disappointed. I was outraged, and that outrage did not dissipate, as I thought it might, after Clinton did the good-girl thing and threw her support behind Sen. Barack Obama, rather than contest the primary outcome as previous candidates, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, had done.

I assumed that I would feel the way I usually feel when I am at odds with the Democratic Party: disappointed, but nevertheless aligned with them against the Republican candidate.

That didn’t happen this time.

Instead, my outrage grew exponentially as each new story revealed yet another of Obama’s defections from the Democratic Platform. First, it was his embrace of the faith-based initiatives program of President George W. Bush, which has not only failed, but has been grossly prejudiced and bigoted. Then it was his vote for Bush’s telecom immunity in the FISA debate (Clinton and other Democratic senators voted against Bush, so Obama’s assertion that this was the only choice simply isn’t true.) Then it was back-pedaling on his stance on the war in Iraq and a ramping up of the war in Afghanistan.

All those issues affect me politically, not personally, but when I read reports alleging that Obama pays his female staffers markedly less than his male staffers in comparable positions, I was appalled (RRRA here - it is not an allegation - it is a FACT. There are a number of articles on this, including this one HERE along with SusanUnPC’s excellent piece at No Quarter on this topic). Then Obama, who had secured the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America over Clinton (despite his sketchy record on choice and her strong record on the issue), announced that a pregnant woman’s mental illness should never justify a late-term abortion…

…(T)he Democratic Party has consistently disappointed me in the past eight years. In 2000, I felt Al Gore should have fought to be president, since he actually won the election. The United States is not a banana republic; there was no threat of the nation falling into disruption while votes were properly counted and tallied and the actual president was ensconced in the White House.

Had Gore been president in 2000, I have no doubt we would not be in Iraq, even if the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 had still happened.

In 2004, the Democrats disappointed me again, throwing their weight behind Sen. John Kerry instead of Howard Dean (RRRA here - to whom my partner, on a recent DNC request for money, responded, “F–k YOU, Howard Dean!”, summing up my feelings about him perfectly). Four years into the disastrous Bush administration, the Democratic Party went with the safe candidate instead of the progressive, anti-war candidate, once again, moving to the center instead of standing firmly to the left.

Both the Gore and Kerry campaigns were poorly run (RRRA again - that means YOU, Donna Brazile - on Gore, anyway), emphasizing defense instead of offense. Gore should have run on the progressive record of the Clinton administration, of which he was an integral part. Instead, he failed to reveal Bush’s inadequacy, even though Bush was an untested, unproven candidate (RRRA - hmmm - just who does THAT sound like?!?!) whose only political strength was the fact that his father had been a one-term president.

Kerry’s campaign regrettably mimicked Gore’s…

I thoroughly understood Clinton’s frustration during the primary: While she voted and acted progressively, Obama talked hope and change, with nothing to back it up. After she withdrew from the race, he was given his first opportunity to cast a pivotal vote for progressivism and vote against telecom immunity. He didn’t. While Clinton continued her progressive agenda and voted against it, Obama not only voted for it, but asserted that it was a good compromise, the same line anti-progressive Democrats have been proffering for years…

I remember wen being a Democrat meant being for change and actually acting on behalf of it. The first president I actually remember was LBJ, whose War on Poverty and programs like Head Start helped move the nation forward out of the divides of race and class.

There hasn’t been a more progressive American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt; he not only got the country out of the Great Depression, but initiated the New Deal and other safety net programs that would protect Americans if we ever had similar economic disaster.

When Clinton was running, some pundits referred to her as the New Deal candidate with a sneer. But given the economic disaster that the Bush administration has created, being compared to FDR should not have been seen as a negative.

I will not be voting for the Democrats this November. I’d like to, and wish I could, but I can’t. The last eight years of the Democratic Party and its refusal to take on the Bush administration have broken my faith in it…

I won’t deny that part of my decision has to do with the realization that I can no longer continue to vote against my own best interests. I have done that repeatedly, being guilted into voting Democrat when I should have taken a different route. I have argued in my newspaper columns that third party candidates are not the answer, but the past two elections, plus the current presidential race, have made me rethink that position.

The two major parties have failed a majority of Americans, but they have failed queers, women and minorities most definitively…

Vote for yourself this November instead of a party that has failed you. It’s the only way we will ever move toward real and lasting change in the United States. (Ms. Brownworth will be supporting Cynthia McKinney, the Green candidate, in November.)

I will not vote against my own self-interests again. If more WOMEN, in particular, did the same, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee now, if for no other reason than Nancy Pelosi would have supported HER instead of “the one God has blessed us with to us,” or whatever whackiness she said about Obama, and we would have, according to the polls anyway, the best PRESIDENT we have had in years. But no. Once again, the Democratic Party went with the weaker candidate instead of the sure bet.

Here’s a sure bet, though - they will not be getting my vote this year. They have done nothing to deserve it, and everything to make sure I didn’t give it to them.

Now do you understand the words I have been saying?

The boost in the wake of the primaries about which Obama supporters have been gloating has evaporated.  According to Gallup’s three day tracking poll, Obama and McCain are now tied at 45%.

Obama also trails McCain in the important state Missouri by a margin of seven points in a poll Survey USA released today.  McCain has already consolidated the support of a slim majority, or 50%, of Missourians, while Obama underperforms at 43%.  Consider Missouri a red state in 2008 now that superdelegates selected Obama as the Democratic nominee.

Perhaps PUMA, Just Say No Deal and I Own My Vote are finally affecting polling data.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=i9dVfylr5bg[/youtube]

Another explanation is Obama’s obvious weaknesses on issues of national security.  According to another poll Gallup released today, Obama trails McCain by a staggering 25 points on this important aspect of the Presidency.  

And while Obama has attempted to neutralize these concerns in his recent advertisement entitled “Country I Love,” he exacerbated this problem by taking credit for extending health care benefits for veterans when he in fact did not even vote on the bill he cites in the commercial.  This, I believe, will not resonate well with voters who are preoccupied with national security, and I imagine it will have electoral effects.   

Continue to support PUMA, Just Say No Deal and I Own My Vote, for our votes will decide the outcome of the election in November.  

• Outrage at the blatant bias against Hillary in the mainstream media
• Outrage that the Obama campaign has played the race card repeatedly and been given a “free pass” by the media
• Outrage at the DNC and the NCDP for their unethical behavior in steering voters to Obama in the watershed North Carolina Democratic Primary
• Outrage that almost a century after women won the right to vote, we’re still living with the same old paradigm – a woman who stands up and speaks out gets told to shut up and sit down
• Outrage that after eight years of Bush, we’re stuck with another loser Democratic candidate

 We’re mad as hell – and we have a new website:  charlottefrontandcenter.com Declare your independence this July 4th and take back our Democracy!  On July 3^rd Hillary supporters and centrists from all over the country will be joining charlottefrontandcenter.com in our Operation Hell Hath No Fury mail-in protest.  We are sending old-school paper postcards to the heads of the DNC, all state Democratic officials, and major media personalities.  You can print them out and mail them - or - Check out our new website for complete details of how to do it online – the USPS will mail them for us!  Want to see how it’s done? You’re invited to our Postcard Party!!

• Caribou Coffee at 7510 Pineville-Matthews Road (at Carmel)
• Wednesday night, June 25th - Drop in any time from 7pm to 9pm
• Bring a laptop and a credit card - No laptop?  No problem, use one of ours
• Cannot attend?  Out of state.  Send postcards online instead.

At charlottefrontandcenter.com, you’ll find links to other like-minded grassroots organizations that have sprung up all over the country. They’re joining us in our nationwide demonstration.  Will you?  Send the DNC and the media a clear message:  NOBAMA 08!  

Obama’s support for the FISA “compromise”

What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

My friends, this is exactly the definition of a cult. People do and say things that if they were using their reasoning faculties they would know that what they were doing was wrong. But instead they “believe” in the superior will of the Master and follow along like so many lemmings. Taking their will and good sense off the cliff.

Otherwise reasonable people did a massive 180 as if no one was looking. They even went so far as to redefine what they were supporting so that it wouldn’t sound so bad.

Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill — the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms — and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it’s our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything — including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law — because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

Notice that? The most important thing is to put Obama in the White House. Our Constitutional protections wane in comparison to this importance. All those folks that fought and died or were maimed for life defending the Constitution, their lives mean nothing compared with the one life that is Obama. He is a lot more important that the principles that make us a great democracy. No wonder he has his own Presidential Seal.

A single example of what this bill does to harm us is worth pointing out. For several years now the Democratic party has stated time after time that certain powers claimed by Bush were unconstitutional and thus illegal. But not any longer. Thanks to Obama and his Cult.

The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

Quite frankly this action is much worse than anything Bush did. With the thuggish behavior of the Obama campaign and his hordes of Cult followers the potential for intimidation, violation and abuse are far greater than anything we have ever seen before. Even worse than Nixon.

Word to the wise: NObama!

Just Say No Deal

Special thanks to V, who always gets these videos up so quickly at the NoQuarter channel at YouTube.

Why We Were There

During a primary season that lasted six months, nearly 18 million voters chose Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. That was more votes than for any primary candidate in American history, and 300,000 votes more than the presumptive nominee received. During the last four months of the campaign, the punditry and the commentariat relentlessly urged Hillary to quit, despite the fact that she was so close in the popular vote and the delegate count.

Never before has any candidate been so incessantly hounded by members of the political commentariat. Not even candidates who were several hundred delegates behind like Ted Kennedy in 1980 who took his fight all the way to the convention. How come no one tried to hound him out of the campaign? The most common answers are sexism, DNC bias, and hatred of the Clintons.

Sexism

The appalling incidents of misogyny and sexism against Hillary exhibited by many members of the broadcast and print media, both male and female, were legion during this campaign. There were daily sexist jokes against Hillary during the monologues of both Jay Leno, the worst perpetrator, and David Letterman. The worst broadcast network was NBC and the worst cable network was MSNBC, with CNN a close second.

The sexism was used as a weapon by stations owned by NBC which include MSNBC, CNBC and several local stations. General Electric owns NBC so the question is, where did the order for the bias originate, GE or NBC news? Who’s the bad guy in this, the head of NBC News or the CEO of GE? My vote for worst person in the world goes to Keith Olbermann. This article in The New Yorker sheds some light on him: ONE ANGRY MAN.

Most commendable throughout the campaign was Fox News Channel, a station that actually lived up to its slogan, “Fair and Balanced.” A special shout out goes to CBS’ Katie Couric who made a point during her Evening News broadcast of noting the immense level of sexism used against Hillary throughout the campaign. Brava!

Millions of women are outraged at all the sexism and misogyny and take it personally as an attack on them, not just Hillary. They weren’t just attacking a female candidate, they were attacking all women. They were attacking the progress an entire generation of women thought they had made, as my wife put it.

DNC Bias and Hatred of the Clintons

As if the sexism wasn’t bad enough, Hillary was also placed at a disadvantage by her own party throughout the campaign, starting last year. A proposal was passed that went beyond the DNC rules and stripped MI and FL of all delegates for violation of the timing rule. Since those states heavily favored Hillary, she was immediately placed at a disadvantage. It didn’t matter that three other states also violated the timing rule.

A meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) at the end of May resulted in the seating of all the delegates from those states at the convention, but with half votes, similar to the original DNC sanction for a timing violation. The half vote provision should not have affected superdelegates, but the RBC had no interest in abiding by its own rules.

What really angered Hillary supporters was the arbitrary way in which 59 uncommitted Michigan delegates were assigned to Obama while four earned, pledged delegates were taken away from Sen. Clinton, and given to Obama. That was an outrageous violation of the DNC charter, a blatant disregard of fair reflection, the basic tenet of the party.

That was the last straw for many of Hillary’s supporters, who immediately left the party as a result. Numerous new Web sites and blogs sprang up. To get an idea, see Just Say No Deal.

As for hatred of the Clintons, that’ll have to be another article for another day. Whatever the reasons, there was nothing to warrant the treatment Hillary received during this campaign. Also, nothing warranted the savagely brutal treatment that Hillary’s supporters received at the hands of Obama supporters, both online and in the field.

Bloggers and diarists supporting Hillary were called all sorts of names and dangerous attempts were made to uncover identities. Campaign workers in the field were subjected to name calling, harassment, and sexist remarks by SEIU members in Pennsylvania. Never before had Democrats been subjected to such treatment by fellow Democrats.

As Lou Dobbs often says, what in the world is going on here?

What’s going on is a blatant attempt to seize control of the Democratic party on behalf of the so-called Liberal Elite. They’re the far left of the party that despises the Clintons for their centrist views, despite the fact that Bill Clinton was the most successful Democratic president in 40 years. No other Democrat won as many electoral votes in those four decades and he was the only two-term Democratic president. Democrats lost 7 out of 10 presidential contests in the last 40 years.

Now, the far left is attempting to seize control of the party, taking over and remaking the party in Obama’s image, in a ruthless attempt to oust the Clinton faction. They’re even going so far as to move the DNC to Chicago and force party members to work for the Obama campaign. Should they be successful, there will no longer be a Democratic Party, just the Obama Party. And the co-mingling of DNC and Obama staffs–and possibly funds–will undermine election law limits.

Senator Clinton suspended her campaign for the nomination on Saturday, June 7. She said she endorses Sen. Barack Obama and that we, her supporters, should support him. Sorry, Hillary, as much as we love you, many of us cannot do that.

We have come to know Sen. Obama far too well to be able to support him in any way. Some of us have already changed our party affiliation, some to Independent while others have switched to the Republican Party. Many of us have joined the PUMA movement which originally stood for Party Unity My Ass.

We’ve had it with the far left, the Liberal elitists, with Obama and his mean, vicious, thuggish supporters.

We all continue to support Hillary and still want her to win the nomination, hoping against hope that something will happen to change the minds of wayward delegates who have gone astray from our Liberal ideals. We’re hoping they will come to learn the true nature of Sen. Obama so that they will shy away from him the way we have. We don’t trust him and can never vote for him. We think Sen. Obama represents a threat to this country, that he’s far worse than president Bush.

So, while Sen. Obama is planning to build a new basketball court in the White House, some of us are exploring our options. Many of us are considering voting for Senator John McCain.

Meeting With Senator John McCain

A bunch of us attended a special virtual and real town hall meeting for Hillary supporters on Saturday, June 14. It was part of his “Citizens for McCain” grassroots effort. We thought the Senator would be elsewhere and that it was to be a conference call event. We didn’t learn until the night before that Sen. McCain would actually be there. It was held in the McCain for President headquarters in Crystal City, in Arlington, Virginia. RNC Victory Chair Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard, accompanied the Senator.

The women with McCain’s team were very impressive and extremely nice. They understood we were lifelong liberal Democrats who were considering voting for a Republican for the very first time. I tried to explain that it wasn’t out of anger or disappointment but out of fear for our country.

It was a very good meeting, full of Hillary’s supporters, many of them from NYC, in full Hillary regalia. John McCain made a short statement about his policies and positions, followed by lots of Q&As from attendees in Arlington, and conference call participants, mostly women from Ohio and Pennsylvania. Sen. McCain was very complimentary of Hillary, making a special point of complimenting her on her campaign.

Everyone was very pleased to be there, and Sen. McCain was in good spirits. The questions were all very good, and McCain’s answers were clear, concise, and direct. There were also some good laughs during the Q&A. One of the callers was a fire chief from a town in Ohio. McCain said he’d like to come visit and be shown around town. The caller happily agreed.

After the Q&A, McCain mingled with the crowd, signed autographs, and spent quite a bit of time chatting with individuals, including Harriet Christian, whom you may have seen being ejected from the May 31 RBC meeting. John McCain knew who Harriet was and was very happy to see her and she him.

Here she is on Fox discussing her meeting with John McCain, for whom she will vote despite his position on abortion. McCain’s position is irrelevant because he said he wouldn’t have a litmus or ideological test for judges. They just have to be qualified. He voted for Breyer and Ginsberg, for example. He held Roberts up as an example of the type of judge he would nominate.

He was very personable and easy to talk with. He reminds me a bit of Harry Truman. My father once walked along with him on one of his regular walks around the White House block. That was back when you could have that kind of access to your president.

The Senator even posed for some group photos, and I managed to snap a few with my iPhone.

Click here to view the Web gallery. (Note the display options at the bottom and the download button above the photos on the left.)

As you can see, the Hillary supporters were very upbeat. I didn’t take detailed notes of the meeting because it was being videotaped and I thought the video would be available on McCain’s Web site at some point.

Hillary supporters there were appalled at what our party has been doing lately and one of the staffers also expressed horror at the DNC’s move to Chicago. What might Obama do to this country with a compliant Congress? We’re looking to McCain as a last resort but we also want to see Hillary reenter the fight. I overheard some Hillary women talking about how much they wish they could still have a woman in the White House.

I know it’s pure fantasy but I’d like to see Hillary protest what’s happening with the DNC and how Obama’s taking it over, remaking it in his own image. I’d like for her not to support Obama at all and start railing against him and the party. Yes, just a fantasy because it looks like Hillary and Barack will be getting together onstage June 26 for a fundraising event.

What impressed me about Sen. John McCain was how forthright he was, how decisive and direct in his answers. No hemming or hawing, no ums or uhs, just simple, direct answers without equivocation. In other words, he sure didn’t come across as someone trying to sell you something, or someone who tailors what he says to who’s listening. Carly Fiorina talked with us after the event, after McCain left, and told us that what we had seen was the real John McCain. I’d have to agree.

I would have absolutely no reservations about voting for him if his opponent is Obama. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to do everything I can to promote Hillary and to defeat Obama, the illegitimate one.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

Look, I am all for thinking outside the box. But this guy is thinking outside the universe of reason. What should we expect next? That Patti Solis Doyle will pick Dr. Seuss as Obama’s running mate. Strangely, that somehow seems entirely appropriate.

But it isn’t just Pooh that we should emulate. Danzig believes that Luke Skywalker has a place in an Obama Administration as well.

In a briefing which will inform Mr Obama’s understanding of terrorists, Mr Danzig said he learnt much from recent interviews with jailed Aum Shinrikyo terrorists who released sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground in 1995.

He said that even people who are relatively well off and successful can feel like failures and become alientated from their societies. He said one terrorist told him: “We have been raised on a theory of superheroes. We all want to be like Luke Skywalker.

So this guy Danzig that is apparently on Obama’s very short list to become his National Security Advisor learns things from Cult leaders. No wonder Obama wants him on his team. Danzig will be fawning all over him, in awe of the Master.

If you aren’t sure by now that this dude needs some emergency mental health care just look at these words of wisdom from a close advisor to Obama.

“When we’re doing mundane things, we lose track of our ambition but when someone comes along, like Asahara, the head of the cult, and presents himself as a messiah and gives us a picture of progress that is ordained by heaven and that we are carrying out a saintly mission on earth that is for us extraordinarily evocative.”

Mr Danzig added: “The parallels with al Qaeda are obvious.”

Uh, Earth to Danzig. You seem to be describing your boss fairly well. Not exactly a great selling point if you ask me. Next time, try laying off the Cult-Aide for a few hours before you brief the rest of us on how Obama will make us safer by following the advice of imaginary characters.

And if we weren’t convinced enough that Danzig was WAY out there he offers one more tidbit of wisdom. And folks, you just can’t make this stuff up.

He said that another lesson about terrorists can be learnt from studying violent football fans. “One of the best books I’ve read on terrorism in recent years was not about terrorism at all,” he said. “It’s Bill Buford’s book Among the Thugs, which is a description of soccer violence in Britain.

“Buford became absorbed by soccer violence. He describes the most appalling examples of soccer violence by fans against fans. But he describes with relentless honesty how he finds sickening things attractive. He says violence lets the adrenaline flow; it’s like sex, you live in the moment.”

So terrorism is like violence is like sex. So what exactly is he suggesting? That we should all take a primer course in S & M? Or is he suggesting that the solution to our national security problems is that we aren’t kinky enough? Perhaps we should ask Pooh.

- Online and Nationwide— JustSayNoDeal.com, a coalition of voters, individual activists, blogs, PACs and grassroots organizations, reacts to the scene on Monday night in Detroit’s Joe Louis Arena when Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm received a deafening chorus of boos at her mention of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Moments later former Vice President Al Gore experienced similar jeering when he referred to Senator John McCain.

Just Say No Deal Coalition members will not tolerate such offensive and disrespectful conduct from supporters of Senator Obama aimed at any individual— whether they be an elected official or a member of the community at large, and the Just Say No Deal organization will not align itself with any candidate that permits this shameful behavior to be exhibited in any forum.

During this lengthy primary process, Senator Clinton and many of her 18 million supporters have endured pointedly hurtful behavior and vulgar attacks by unruly and inappropriate backers of Senator Obama in public arenas and in new media outlets. The most prevalent arena of these assaults has been on the most recognized sites within the blogosphere.

Concerned citizens continue to break their silence to express their dissatisfaction with party leaders and the short-circuiting of the nominating process. The Just Say No Deal portal offers those voters a plethora of voting strategies, calls-to-action and blogpostings to guide their general election decision-making. In doing so, they reclaim their voices and vow to Just Say No Deal!

(If you are in the media, you may e-mail SusanUnPC at gmail dot com for contact information.)

Note: See Truthteller’s post, “Hostility, Angriness and Arrogance Is Anything But Unifying” for more detail on the incident.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm received a deafening chorus of boos Monday night at her mention of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the candidate Granholm once backed for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The jeering from thousands of Obama supporters at Joe Louis Arena came after Granholm acknowledged her support of Clinton, and they seemed to take her aback. “Come on now,” the governor pleaded before finally continuing, “I’m proud to say I’m standing with her and all of you” in supporting Obama.

This behavior is anything but unifying. In fact, it is belligerent, aggressive and in my opinion the intended product of the campaign of coordinated vicious personal attacks Axelrod and Obama waged against Senator Clinton.

But there is more. Yes, believe it or not, there is more. According to today’s edition of the Congressional Quarterly, Obama has insulted Latina lawmakers by assuming he does not need to meet with them individually in order to gain their support. I quote:

The presumed Democratic presidential nominee got the cold shoulder from Latina lawmakers Tuesday as he began a three-day campaign to shore up Capitol Hill support after an arduous primary season.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois huddled with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) at the offices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). But only one of the six Hispanic congresswomen who are Democrats, longtime Obama backer Rep. Linda T. Sánchez of California, attended the meeting, in which members gathered in a semicircle around Obama.

The men in the CHC said scheduling conflicts were to blame for the absence of Latinas who had backed Obama’s primary rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. But that was not true in all cases.

“They called to set up a call,” said Rep. Loretta Sanchez , D-Calif., who had spoken on the House floor earlier in the day. “I said, ‘He can come over and see me.’ ”

Obama began calling Hispanic congresswomen last week after they first made their displeasure with his inattention to them known.

Since then, Obama’s campaign has had contact with the offices of Loretta Sanchez as well as Hilda L. Solis and Grace F. Napolitano , also from California.

The Latinas’ reluctance to get behind Obama reflects the challenges he faces in uniting Democrats. They were important surrogates for Clinton both in and beyond their congressional districts, and they could provide vital help to Obama, too.

Presuming one enjoys the support of a group of Congresswomen who represent a constituency who rejected one’s candidacy by a margin of approximately 35 points is the height of arrogance. Perhaps Obama neglects to remember how these elected officials are more interested in serving the voters instead of stroking the ego of a career politician who exploited the voters of the state of Illinois for personal, political and financial gain. If Obama sincerely desires the votes of Latinos, Latinas and Catholics, he needs to earn our votes, not arrogantly assume he has them already secured. To quote Loretta Sanchez: “He needs to come over and see [us].” This also includes his vile and undisciplined supporters.

Hissing at Clinton supporters while taking their votes for granted is anything but unifying. But this is the modus operandi of the Obama campaign. While it may be the juggernaut of change in which many low information devotees blindly and mindlessly believe, it is also the change Clinton supporters will roundly reject when we cast informed votes for other candidates in November.

That said, Naomi Klein at The Nation wrote this last week:

"Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."

Oh, dear.  President Bush and Vice President Cheney love the "free market," too: so much so that after Enron’s Ken Lay (may he rest in peace) begged the Bush Administration to let "free market" forces resolve California’s energy crisis, the Administration refused to intervene at a crucial time.  This inaction left Californians paying triple what they had been paying for electricity, while companies like Enron and Dynegy cashed in.

Given some of Sen. Obama’s campaign statements — and some of the advisers he has chosen to give his ears to — I’m not surprised that he loves the so-called "Free Market."

Neither is economist Paul Krugman, who commented:

"Look, Obama didn’t pose as a Nation-type progressive, then turn on his allies after the race was won. Throughout the campaign he was slightly less progressive than Hillary Clinton on domestic issues — and more than slightly on health care. If people like Ms. Klein are shocked, shocked that he isn’t the candidate of their fantasies, they have nobody but themselves to blame."

Super-blogger Anglachel concurred but put it differently:

"Hundreds of bloggers typed their fingers to the bone explaining that you [progressive Obama supporters] were projecting your fantasies onto this cypher, pointing out his economic team is not very progressive, that his major donors are all Wall Street financial people, and that he never met an economic measure favorable to the middle class that he didn’t want to compromise on. You got snookered by your own irrational fantasies."

Back in December, democrats marveled over how lucky they were to have two great candidates (Hillary and Barack), either of whom they could vote for while sporting a big smile. 

Now, Sen. Obama is unequivocally praising the so-called "Free market"? 

I can hear the defense already: "Obama is just playing to Independents and Republicans, so he can get elected — he doesn’t really mean it. And McCain praised Bush’s corporate tax cuts a few months ago."

Anyone using that logic should be able to similarly apply it to McCain.  It would go something like this:

"McCain was just playing to the Republican base during the primaries: he didn’t really mean it.  He did, after all, raise hell and vote against Bush’s corporate tax cuts when it mattered — knowing he would take political heat."

The upshot: both candidates have, at some point, either flip-flopped or misrepresented themselves regarding the "Free Market" love fest.

Frankly, I don’t support McCain, but I’m also having trouble supporting Obama.  That’s Obama’s fault. 

I wouldn’t have trouble supporting Obama if he had consistently (and sincerely) taken stands against those Republican ideas (like so-called "Free Market" theories) that have wreaked such havoc on our nation. He didn’t take such stands.

Given the strikes against him from a progressive point of view (like his fighting to cut Florida’s primary vote in half and his back-door taking of cash from lobbyists and corporations), Obama needs to do better if he wants to maintain progressive support.

I shouldn’t have to hold my nose when I vote in November.  I need both hands free to bubble in the circles on my ballot.