This Might Be A Good Time to Remind Your Stupordelegates: "We Told You So"

And, just in case you can't remember which stupordelegates voted for whom...
Team Hillary has posted this "Told Ya So" page.

Please note that the link to Gov. Ted Strickland's page takes you, now, to Gov. Kasich.

Ohio will "take care of" Sherrod Brown (and whichever else turncoats are still in office) next election. No worries.

No Time to Blog This Week, So I'll Just Refer You to Big Pink

When in Doubt, Back the Woman: Part Two

On the heels of the Coakley/ Brown upset in Massachusetts (which I am really not all the disappointed about) I want to say a few things about my own future voting strategy. It's an evolving strategy that I have developed over the last two years, as a PUMA and an Independent.

This kind of voting is new to me. In the past I have always, and I do mean ALWAYS, voted "D." (With the exception of a couple of Charterites on the Cincinnati City Council.) Never, before 2008, have I even *considered* voting for a Republican. But that's all changed, so now I need a new set of voting booth guidelines. You see, I really don't want to *ever* have to go to the polls and make a wrenching decision like the one my PUMA friends were forced to make in Massachusetts on Tuesday. Not without a set of guiding principles.

So here goes.... SYD's voting guidelines in a nutshell.

Principle One: When in doubt, back the woman.

The reason for this is simple. I pay taxes. I deserve representation. Period.

Please note that I did not say "always vote female." The reason is... I can imagine a scenario in which a stellar male that I adore emerges from the pack to run against a woman I don't much care for. Like, say... if my own dear son were running against Jean Schmidt, whom I often disagree with.

But, let's face it. There is a zippo zingo chance that I will ever know any male candidate well enough to erase any and all doubt. So the only way I am likely to be voting for a male politician in an upcoming election is... if he is running against another man. (Sorry fellas, but you have had your turn. And, quite frankly, you have done a lousy job of standing up for my rights.)

Principle Two: When two same gendered individuals run for the same office, do the best you can to select the one who agrees with you the most.

This is a little bit tougher. Because there are always going to be doubts about any candidate. And nobody is going to be on my side 100% of the time. But, generally speaking.... it is most likely that I will be voting for fiscal conservatives and social liberals in the future. If any party or individual moves toward a balanced budget while also supporting equal rights for all people ... they will certainly have my attention.


Principle Three: Vote for the track record.

So let's just say that we now have two same gendered pols who are both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. (Yeah right.) OK. Now how do I choose? Do I revert back to selecting the person who has the "D" behind her name, for old times sake? Or because I think her affiliation with a certain party matters?? NO!!! Now I look for the track record.

This kind of thinking would have been very helpful to social progressives in 2008, even if both Hillary and Barack were women. And even if they were spouting similar rhetoric. The one with the track record was, of course, Hillary Clinton. Had my former party-mates exercised any hint of good judgement at all... they would have backed her. And by now we'd have some realistic health care reform, as well as movement toward a balanced federal budget. We'd also have a President who has stood with social liberals in the past, and could be trusted to stand with us again.


There ya go. SYD's voting booth guidelines for 2009 and beyond. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Don't Blame Martha, She Voted for Hillary

Lynn Forester-de-Rothschild nails it with this piece, linked at The New Agenda. Anybody in their right mind knows that this is not about Martha being a "bad candidate." Or running a "bad campaign."

We now get a glimpse of *why* Martha stood for Hillary til the bloody end of the 2008 primaries. The genius of knowing her own constituants... and what they would back in the long run. Martha surely saw the huge losses coming for her party under Obama. Even in Bluest of Blue, Massachusetts.

But she tried anyway. For that I give her credit.

I hope she keeps trying, too. Just like Hillary.

Personally, I place this loss squarely on the shoulders of the man whose seat Brown will be taking. Ted Kennedy. And his buddy John Kerry. They knew who their constituants wanted at the top of the Dem ticket in 2008. But they backed the empty suit anyway. Eff you, Teddy and Johnny. Eff you both. And your little boiz club too.

SYD

Cartoon Credit: H/T PUMA Eyes.

Primary, Schmimary. Who Needs One? Certainly not ACORN. Or Obama. Plus: More Sexism in the Dem Party and Steele Implies Obama is Perhaps, Racist!

Not Your Sweetie says it so much better than I could.

It's his party, "And therefore, not mine. Ever since I noticed they were throwing out my primary vote last year."

As I responded to Steven Mather at the Confluence.

There was a time when I would have defended ACORN and taken a stand against this sort of “entrapment.” But, ACORN has burnt that bridge, with the way they handled the 2008 election. Fraud, fraud, and more fraud.
If ACORN thinks, for one frikkin moment that the Hillary Dems will now jump to their support… hahahahahahaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaa. Burning bridges in politics can be dangerous. Especially when you burn them within your own party.

Ashes. That is all that will remain of ACORN’s self immolation on the altar of Obama."

Sorry for quoting myself there. However, enough is enough. Any PUMA that is now hopping to the defense of the crooked agency that robbed us in 2008, needs to think about what they are doing. Lest ACORN become a permanent fixture in the Selection process for future Democratic candidates. (Mr. Mather made some excellent comments as a follow up to what I said, BTW. I recommend that you read the whole thread. But I could not disagree more about choosing up sides against Giles and O'Keefe.)

UPDATE I : More on the reason for dissing Paterson from The New Agenda.

And by using the bold move by Gov Paterson as a ground to speak out about him, what is President Obama saying? That moving away from the status quo to pick a qualified woman is not acceptable? To give you a sense of how strong Sen Gillibrand was at home, she won her House seat with over 60% of the vote as a Democrat running in a heavily Republican district. Does this not speak volume about her popularity and job performance and hence qualification for the then open senate seat?

UPDATE II: Michael Steele jumps into the fray and D.K. Jamaal covers that angle of the story.

"Paterson is one of only two black governors in the nation, and Steele wondered aloud why Obama was not pushing out embattled Democratic Gov. Corzine of New Jersey, who will almost surely lose his re-election bid. Corzine, unlike Paterson, happens to be white.

When pressed, Steele left it up in the air whether or not he actually believes Paterson’s being pushed out because he is black while Corzine gets a pass from the White House -- playing it coy."

Yes. Mr. Steele shows off his inclination toward genius here. Because he is pointing out how ludicrous the race baiting on the other side has become, while also alerting the nation to the anti-Primary (anti-voter) stance of the current "Democratic" party.

The Lefty Blogosphere Begins to Wake Up About Sexism (Well, Sort Of.)

I realize it will be a slow, tedious process. And we won't likely get any real concessions about the matter until Sarah Palin is safely packed away and discredited as a future presidential candidate. But it does appear that the Lefty Blogosphere is beginning to awaken to the part that it's members played in the blatantly misogynist, sexist coup of 2008.

It is of no consolation to me that our, perhaps, number one women's ally in the world, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has been effectively silenced. As she spouts Obama policy, and tries to play nicey nice with his breast groping, frat boy administration.

"By all accounts, Mrs. Clinton has worked hard to be a good soldier in an administration run by the man she spent much of last year trying to defeat."

Indeed she has. And, I'll just say, it is a little more than concerning to hear her parroting catch-phrases like "Moderate Taliban." That one will come back to haunt Ms. Clinton, I'm afraid. But, worse... it demonstrates the degree to which Mr. Obama's fantastical ideas about militant Islam are pickling the brains of formerly intelligent and reasonable statespeople.

A scary situation, to be sure.

I guess what I can take away from all this is.... the Lefty Bloggers I used to respect, but came to disdain, are "waking up to sexism in the primaries" just as their Candidate's Secretary of State has decided to sip some of the kool-ade they are so intoxicated with.

But they won't be waking up to the sexism in the general election any time soon. Because Mrs. Palin won't be tipping the glass, so to speak.

She has no reason to.