I agree with the position taken by Delawareliberal that if Clinton somehow emerges as the nominee there will be little left to save in the Democratic Party.
Clinton has gone where no Dem has gone in a very long time--race baiting, trying to hijack Texas by disputing the credentials of thousands of fellow Dems, saying that the Republicant candidate is more qualified than the Dem, and so on. HRC's tactics are downright Rovian and should be spurned by every Democrat, especially the Party leadership.
Alas, the Superdelegates (i.e., the supposed "leadership" of the Party) are standing around like dorks at a high school dance, waiting for the girl to approach them. To me, this means that the Dems no longer stand for what they say they stand for.
Moreover, the fact that Clinton is still in the race and the Superdelegates cannot step up to the plate means only one thing....
Bill Maher has said it, in these exact words.
Arianna Huffington has said it, in not exactly these same words.
But in both cases, they are right.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE PUSSIES!!!
There, now I've said it....
I have watched for years, the Dems complain about Bush's policies.
Then, when given a clear majority that would have allowed them to STOP the war and bring violators of our Constitution to answer for their misdeeds, the Dems whined that they lacked 60 votes necessary to prevent a veto, or a claim of "Executive Privilege," or any other excuse Bush could pull out of his caustic orifices....
When the cry for impeachment grew so loud that over 50% of the U.S. citizenry called for precedings, the Dems AGAIN balked. Pussies-in-chief Pelosi and Reid hemmed and hawed that impeachment would take up too much time, prevent the passage of quality laws, and so forth.
Here is what Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee during proceedings toward Nixon's impeachment, had to say about these concerns.
Insufficient time. In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February 1974. The committee finished voting on articles of impeachment July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the Constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now that the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress might conduct them even faster than in 1974.
Distraction. During Watergate, the impeachment inquiry didn't prevent Congress from getting its work done. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.
Divisiveness. True, President Clinton's impeachment was a highly partisan process that divided the country - because most Americans didn't support it. They believed his conduct was reprehensible, but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment therefore had negative repercussions for the Republicans who instigated it.
Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was bipartisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence - all gave the public confidence that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.
(snip)
Undermining election prospects. When the impeachment process began, Nixon had just been reelected in one of the largest landslides in history. Few, if any, worried about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress or the Democrats. Public opinion simply forced Congress' hand when Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the Judiciary Committee conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress' approval ratings soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.
Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.
Clearly, the real reason for the refusal to stand up for the American people and the Constitution is much simpler: Democrats are PUSSIES and that's why the Reictwing continually stomp them, even though the Reichtwing actually hold fewer numbers than the Dems.
On May 11, 2006, Tom Curry of MSNBC wrote a piece, entitled, "What would a Democratic majority do in 2007?.
In it, Curry posited that
For some Democratic activists outside Washington, the overriding need, once their party regains the majority in Congress, is for them to shift the balance of power away from a president they see as dangerously powerful.
Queen Pussy herself, Nancy Pelosi, had this to say:
"We will have subpoena power, and that’s why the Republicans are so afraid that we will be able to show the public how they arrived at a (Medicare) prescription drug bill that is born of corruption," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi told NBC’s Tim Russert on Meet the Press Sunday. "Investigation is the requirement of Congress. It’s about checks and balances."
Wooooooo! That turned out to be some tough, er, verbal flatulence, from our fearless leader.
- ROLLEYES -
Instead, the Democrats have let Bush continue to defecate all over the Constitution, participate in activities that the U.S. itself pursued as War Crimes in WWII, and politicize every aspect of the government.
The NSA "Total Information Awareness" Project? IT IS STILL FUNCTIONING, PEOPLE!!!!
Do you feel safe knowing the government can read your every email, monitor all your online purchases, listen in on all your calls? If Hitler and Stalin were still alive, they'd be running for President of the United States of America!
It's absolutely ridiculous that the Dems haven't put people in prison for this....
Congress holds the power of inherent contempt, which permits Congress to order the Sargent at Arms to arrest the offending individual and physically detain him or her until they comply with a Congressional subpoena. No hiding behind executive privilege anymore IF the Dems could actually grow some balls!!!
Violations of the Geneva Convention? STILL HAPPENING, PEOPLE!!!!
American soldiers and/or American agents are being ordered by senior officials in this administration to sodomize, rape, burn, beat, dive insane (through sensory deprivation) other human beings.
Moreover, if the government suddenly determines that you are an "enemy combatant," you have zero recourse to reconcile the mistake. You have no protections under the Constitution, according to this Administration and the Democratic Party, which has sat on its thumbs while the U.S. government became the equivalent of Pot Pol, Joseph Stalin, and Saddam Hussein all rolled up in one.
Politicization of Civil Service? IT IS STILL HAPPENING, PEOPLE!!!!
As early as two weeks ago, Bill Moyers interviewed Harry Waxman, who has held numerous hearings but has not done anything in terms of getting things changed and putting people in jail. Here is part of that conversation:
BILL MOYERS: Lurita Doan is not a household name - but she is one powerful woman. She runs the GSA - the General Services Administration -- the largest broker of goods and services for the federal government. She manages nearly 500 billion of our tax dollars.
(snip)
BILL MOYERS: Lurita Doan was herself once a government contractor - providing surveillance equipment for border security and other projects. A big contributor to Republican campaigns, she was appointed by President Bush in 2006. Leaks from inside the GSA began to raise eyebrows.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: We heard that Lurita Doan, who was the head of the agency, who had only been there six months at the time, was trying to give a special contract to a friend, a personal friend, rather than have competition. And secondly, we heard that she was also giving a- contract or directed people to give a contract
Continuing...
BILL MOYERS: As they combed through the documents looking for possible sweetheart deals, Waxman's investigators came upon a real surprise -- a powerpoint presentation given at her supposedly non-partisan agency by Karl Rove's White House Deputy, Scott Jennings.
REP. BRUCE BRALEY (D-IA): Can you tell us what if anything these slides have to do with the GSA's core purpose of procuring supplies and managing Federal Buildings?
LURITA ALEXIS DOAN: This brown bag luncheon I believe has been mischaracterized. This is a meeting that is a team-building meeting that is hosted by our White House Liaison, a GSA employee, a non-career employee and it is hosted every month.
REP. BRUCE BRALEY (D-IA): Well when the presentation begins with the White House Office of Political Affairs on the cover slide and the slide presentation has multiple references to the Republican's vaunted, 72 hour get out the vote effort, and its impact on a host of different Congressional races, which is what is contained on the other slides that are in this presentation, I think the American taxpayers have a very good reason to wonder whether the only team that was being helped during this briefing was the Republican party team.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: It's a violation of what's called the Hatch Act. You're not supposed to be doing partisan politics when you work for the government as a way to try to keep people insulated from the old days when the machines used to insist that government employees work for the party.
REP. BRUCE BRALEY (D-IA): You have suggested that this wasn't intended to have a partisan purpose in your presentations and yet the Committee has been informed by multiple sources that after Mr. Jennings finished his presentation you took the floor, thanked him and then posed a question to the entire group of participants and, according to those sources, you stated, "how can we use GSA to help our candidates in the next election?" Now, reminding you that you are under oath, can you tell the committee whether, in fact you did make that statement?
LURITA DOAN: I do know that I am under oath, and I will tell you that honestly and absolutely I do not have a recollection of actually saying that.
(snip)
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: It's unusual for me to ever call for the resignation of a federal official. But in your case, I don't see any other course of action.. I would urge you to resign.
BILL MOYERS: But Ms Doan is still in office, isn't she?
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: She's still in office, and I think we've got to ask that question again of the administration. Why is she still there if she violated the law? And why is she still there if she gave sweetheart contracts, misusing taxpayers' dollars?
It's even worse, when one considers the treasonous behavior of war profiteers, all being supported by the Dems because THEY WON'T DO ANYTHING!!!
On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, described how the Pentagon used questions such as, "Who did you vote for in the last election?" and "How do you feel about the Roe v. Wade decision?" as the basis for passing on millions of U.S. Taxpayer money for the rebuilding of Iraq.
- BANG HEAD - BANG HEAD - BANG HEAD -
So Congress, under the "leadership" (cough, cough) of the Democratic Party has accomplished nothing in terms of (1) Putting controls on this Administration, (2) Rebuilding our Constitutional Rights, and (3) Restoring the Civil Service to the People.
To me, the Obama situation really indicates that the Democratic Leadership doesn't understand what is important to real Americans.
If the superdelegates come out for HRC after all this, I would put tremendous efforts and money into helping build a new party--a true "Change Party" that places the American people first.
Obama supporters should really consider this as an option if Obama is not selected.
I don't know about you, but.....
----
ADDENDUM: It appears that some Kossacks are not familiar with the etymology of the various words in the English language. For your reference, here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about my language choice.
Main Entry: 4pus·sy
Pronunciation: \ˈpu̇-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pus·sies
Etymology: short for pussycat
Date: circa 1942
slang : a weak or cowardly man or boy : wimp, sissy
Main Entry: 2pus·sy
Pronunciation: \ˈpu̇-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pus·sies
Etymology: perhaps of Low German or Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse pūss pocket, pouch, Low German pūse vulva, Old English pusa bag
Date: circa 1879
1 usually vulgar : vulva
2a usually vulgar : sexual intercourse
2b usually vulgar : the female partner in sexual intercourse
SOURCE: http://www.merriam-webster.com/...
And, yes, the word aptly reflects the Dems over the last few years.