Memo To Democrats From PhysioProf


So it looks like even more likely now that Obama will win the nomination, although I guess there is some non-zero chance that Clinton could somehow pull something off. Regardless, it will soon be time to focus on the general election. This has been a very hotly contested primary, and there are a lot of short tempers and tense feelings. Well, it is now time for all Democrats—regardless of Democratic candidate preference—to settle the fuck down!

Do not forget that you are a member of a political fucking party! The entire purpose of a political party is for its members to collectively pool their political influence for the purpose of gaining power!! This means that sometimes you have to put your influence—votes, campaign efforts, donations—behind a candidate who is not your first choice!

However, if you are a loyal member of a party you do this anyway! It’s what political parties are for! You don’t get to pick and choose which general election candidates you will support, and you don’t get to have litmus tests!!

If you consider yourself a Democrat, and you believe that the Democratic Party is the best possibility for steering our country away from the edge of the cliff that we may, unfortunately, have already plummeted over, then you must support the nominee!!! To do otherwise is to play right the fuck into into the hands of the sick-fuck theocratic wackaloon neo-confederate right-wing feudal oligarchy.

This is not fucking negotiable! Any fucking questions!?

Comments

  1. says

    Although I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for the Democratic candidate, I’m no longer a loyal member of the Democratic party.

    The only reason I would vote for Obama or Clinton in the general is that my choices are unjustly and unjustifiably limited and that I prefer conservative amorality and opportunism with some passing nod to reason and evidence to complete batshit-crazy fascist theocratic whackaloon idiocy.

    But don’t expect me to jump for fucking joy, ok?

  2. says

    Agreed. Democrats need to stop providing sound bites for McCain campaign ads. The crazies who vow that if their candidate isn’t nominated than they will vote for the wackaloon geezer need to grow up. All they’re doing is convincing the rest of us that their preferred candidate really is Repugnican-lite.

  3. ksg says

    I am a democrat and am proud of it. I will support the nominee that is nominated by our current democratic process. Though Obama was not my first choice, I have done some research and find that he’s a very intelligent person who is capable of doing the job better than the current occupant of the white house by leaps and bounds. Which leads me to my question. Why in this country, in this reality would any intelligent person be willing to vote for a person that will continue if not worsen our current state of affairs. Who has never had a lick of treatment for PTSD. If there was ever was a test case for it wouldn’t it be a POW. Did anyone hear of the Keating 5. If you would be so kind. Because I personally cannot wrap my noggin around this behavior.

    bustedsbro

  4. littlem says

    So is anyone thinking what I’m thinking?

    That the esteemed Mr. Edwards (nod to Physio for the elegant “Southern Strategy” analysis) held out from doing an endorsement because he’s ready to be VP, if he can’t be Pres, no matter what?

  5. says

    Thankfully Edwards held his endorsement and did not make a complete ass of himself like our descending-into-wackaloonacy governor, Mike “making Rocky look like a pansy” Easley.

    Even Hillary said last night that she would throw her support behind the Democratic nominee. I concur with BM that she’d be a superb Senate Majority leader but where does Bill end up?

  6. says

    I’m not a Democrat (I went for unaffiliated when I registered to vote last week) but Democrat is closest to what I would support. I agree that the Dems need to get behind Obama and start working towards winning the general election. I fear that Hilary’s ambition is blinding her to the whole picture.

  7. says

    C’mon, PP, easy-peasy. Take on a hard question: should the O appease the Clintonistas in his veep pick by picking H herself? One might expect him to nod in that direction by trying a female governor for second in command. Or is he going to shock the theorists and gratify the bluehairs by taking Hillary on, baggage and all?

    I’m putting my money on Bill Richardson (swing state, check!) or John Edwards (poverty, check!) but just don’t know enough about the Sebelius-Napolitano-other? axis to speculate. But he has to take seriously the possibility of having Hillary in the two-spot, simply for the geyser of Dem lovefesting that would result. Eww, I just grossed myself out.

  8. larue says

    DAMN there’s a lot of stenched crap posing as progressive in this thread.

    We is fucked.

  9. says

    Democrat, independent or republican, i am afraid America is not ready for a woman or a (gasp) black man as president and many many people will vote for the candidate who looks familiar and that will be McCain the warmongering asswipe

  10. Facetious Student says

    I’m a democrat and will vote for whoever is the nominee. I actually sent out a post to the hillaryclintonforum.net explaining my case for voting for Obama if he gets the nomination. I recieved some lame arguments in how McCain would be better than Obama (eg “It’s about voting the person not the party”). You’re right, people need to calm down because essential it’s about the discourse America needs from the current Republican administration.

    Okay, with that said what do you make of this change in attitude:

    Tim Russell after Pennsylvania elections:
    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=33033759

    Tim Russell after North Carolina & Indiana elections: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24507144#24507144

    Okay, with the Wright and Ayers controversy floating around the media has had a field day on this issue, which was a deviation from the usual “Clinton must win ___ to survive.” Now with that expectations for Clinton were elevated, BUT she still won. What’s your take PP?

  11. says

    The thing that I hate about a two party system is the way it lets folks take your vote for granted because what’s behind Door #2 is even worse.

    Violet Socks isn’t voting for folks willing to take her vote for granted while throwing her interests under the bus. It’s something I hope party loyalists will take a good look at … seeing as how loyalty (and votes) should probably be earned.

    I haven’t made up my own mind what I’m doing, but dismantling the existing system may be somewhere on that list.

  12. says

    The thing that I hate about a two party system is the way it lets folks take your vote for granted because what’s behind Door #2 is even worse.

    Perfectly true and perfectly put, Doctor. But we work with what we got. And Obama ain’t all that bad and might change more than we know for the better. I hate to use the word, but I ‘hope’ so. He’s my fourth choice for Prez this year. Hillary was like, 12th, after Gravel. Just saying.

  13. says

    I haven’t made up my own mind what I’m doing, but dismantling the existing system may be somewhere on that list.

    Good luck with that!

  14. says

    The thing that I hate about a two party system is the way it lets folks take your vote for granted because what’s behind Door #2 is even worse.

    Violet Socks isn’t voting for folks willing to take her vote for granted while throwing her interests under the bus. It’s something I hope party loyalists will take a good look at … seeing as how loyalty (and votes) should probably be earned.

    I love ya Doc but…..WTF??!!!!

    The thing I hate about fuzzy-headed idealists is that they would rather lose 85% of a loaf if they can’t have all of it.

    We tried it your way the last couple of times what with Nader and “we’re progressives, we’re better than liberals” and the-two-parties-are-the-same and all that crap. How’d that work out for us? Eight years of utterly craven Constitutional bescumbering from a crowd of oligarchic fuckwitted cryptorchids, that’s what.

    The long view you say? Oh yeah? and how much better have those progressive ideals been fairing in the post-Nader Bushrovian interregnum? How likely are they to carry the day in the next election?

    Memo to the so-called progressives: now is not the time for entertaining ourselves with pipedream ideals. Now is the time to get down in the hole, get dirty and stop the fucking diamond tipped drill rig that is digging this country back into the dark ages. Then we fill in the fucking hole. (And maybe, just maybe, in eight years or so you can think about building your camelotian dream…..)

  15. says

    Thank you, BikeMonkey! I was appalled at the sheer pettiness and four-year-old-tone over at violet socks. The number of people who seem to think John “100 years” McCain might be better than Obama is just scary. How did people learn nothing from the Nader nadir?

    Besides, I think Obama–from opposing the Iraq war from the start, to marrying a kickass woman, to voting lefty at every opportunity–has more than “earned” the dem vote. Can’t say the same for McBush.

  16. says

    Hey, being in California, I probably have the “luxury” of being able to cast a vote on principle in the general election. I don’t want McCain for president.

    But I also don’t want to be locked into a two party system that gets to tell people to pipe down with their “special interest” issued while counting on their votes. I don’t think that’s good for parties, and I don’t think that’s good for people.

    So, the question is, is there any way to get the existing parties to stop playing these games? I don’t think they have to stop playing them while it’s still essentially a two party system. And I don’t know how to get a third party into the game without the dems feeling some pain.

    I am open to practical suggestions. But I don’t view “pipe down about your issues” as a practical suggestion.

  17. says

    Pipe down about your “issues”!!!!!!
    :-)

    srsly though, vote the commies Peace and Freedom down ballot all you like, FSM knows I do. but even if your state’s electoral result is not on the line….this is IT. we need every freakin’ vote for “mandate” and “historical popular vote” and every other possible pundit point to illustrate the magnitude with which we reject the Cheney era. we need every possible coat-tailin’ representative down ballot too but I’m willing to give you a pass on that one if you must assuage your higher principles…

  18. larue says

    I’m in CA, too. Sad that OUR primary went to The Shill.

    Kuch N Edwards were MY hopes. They got, I don’t know how to say it any other way, FUCKED by the MSM.

    Purely raped, and fucked, debate after debate, show after show, no mention after no mention.

    Obama is No. 3 for this Larue, and I’m solid on him.
    What else we got?

    Shillary as Veep? NOT gonna happen. Dead loss to the GOP. Pure dead loss. A Clinton ANYWHERE near the general will cost us.

    They hate the Clintons that much, the 23% AND the NeoCons’s do.

    Not even the Clinton’s cozy reach arounds to big biz can endear either of them to the 23%, or the GOP.

    So, Obama nees a veep.

    NOT RICHARDSON! I LOVE him, but he will NOT help to be elected.

    He also, was villified and ignored by the MSM in the early primary efforts.

    I like the idea of Shilary as Senate Maj Leader, but I fear the Clinton lust for a return to power, so NO GO for that. We can do better, people. Really.

    Bill on the Supreme’s? Shit, I’d rather have HILARY on the Supreme’s.

    At least, I think, she’d be under control for the woman’s voice there.

    But I fear she’d sell out THAT constituency too, for access to power.
    And I used to LOVE her for her stands on women’s rights, etc. Course, I voted for Ferraro, back then, too. Crock of shit, right?

    So, a good Veep for Obama?

    Damn. Gotta be someone popular. Well known. Male or female is good. Color don’t matter.

    Not Pelosi, for god’s sake, or SciFi, or Boxer.

    Please.

    I like Edwards. I really do. And Gore, well, he’s out there ain’t he?

    Who’s got some ideas here? SmirkingChimp had something on this, but I can’t find it . . .

    Good Memo, Physio!! *G*

    Harumph.

  19. says

    Purely raped, and fucked, debate after debate, show after show, no mention after no mention.

    Larue, thanks for your comment. While we definitely know what you mean, I think it is best not to use rape as a metaphor in this way.

    Actual rape is so singularly violent and horrible a tool of oppression of women, and so destructive and painful to women who have been raped, that to use it as a metaphor in this way has the potential to cause much more incidental pain than is worth it.

  20. says

    I have a fucking question, PhysioProf. Thank you for fucking asking ;-)

    Do you consider the DLC as republicans or Democrats?

    I’m a fucking Democrat btw. And, I consider the DLC fucking Republicans masquerading as “democrats”. I am voting for my second choice so yes, we need to stick with voting for our party…… so long as the candidate is indeed a Democrat.

    I’m thrilled my second choice Democrat is going to fucking be the nomineee!!!!

    (I’m between semesters this month so I’ll be checking you more fucking often ;-) )

  21. says

    There’s one happening right now, and you are missing it!

    For the love of all that is covered in butter and syrup, WTF?

    We have a liberal black man scooping up screaming victories in places like Idaho and North Carolina, revamping campaign finance from the ground up, and fighting back against right wing smears by speaking intelligently…

    And that’s not radical enough for you?

    I guess you are waiting for the Santa Claus/Tooth Fairy ticket (Something under every pillow! Every day!)

    Parlimentary systems are designed for third and fourth parties. Our bicameral system is not.

    Period.

    In our system, third parties are a symbol of imminent Whig-style defenestration. Upon reforming, we are back at two parties again. Voting for third party candidates does NOTHING to make third parties viable.

    You are messing with the laws of physics. And losing.

  22. says

    yep, wavelength.

    and agree that I personally don’t give two shits about “the Party;” I do however give two shits about not having fucking McCain even in the best case scenario that he “only” turns out to be Bush Lite, and it’s beyond me how anyone who’s been around these past eight years doesn’t see this. I mean, basically what I hear the Hillary-or-bust people saying at -this- point, is that they wish for Hillary to become Nader /Perot, in the hopes that she might actually turn out to be Lieberman.

    -shoots self-

  23. says

    >>While we definitely know what you mean, I think it is best not to use rape as a metaphor in this way.>>

    GAH, -thank you.- k-rist, people…

  24. says

    Dr. Free-Ride, others: maybe? all’s I know is, it won’t be this election cycle, or anytime soon. I mean for me the only alternative U.S. party I ever found remotely compelling was the Greens, and really if I’m gonna throw my weight behind something like that, I’d at least like some confidence that they can organize their way out of a grease-proof paper bag at -some- point.

    and the two-party structure’s been around since the very beginning; it’d be, well -radical- to change it, and I don’t know how that would come about, or at what cost.

    also, you know, I wonder if multi-party systems are all that either necessarily; I mean, hey, the National Socialists won by a plurality in a multi-party vote (throws obligatory nickel into Godwin fountain, makes wish)

  25. ac says

    It’s the douche vs the turd but it’s important to vote anyway… That sounds familiar…

  26. says

    -shrug- do what you want. personally I think Bush has done plenty of damage and McCain’d do more, and while I was quite underwhelmed by Kerry and am more so now, I’d still pull the lever for him again.

    “it’s the issues, stupid.”

  27. Sera says

    I agree with you to some extent, a little. I do. But I also don’t know how productive it is for someone as obviously brilliant as you to throw so much emotion and energy into worrying whether or not the good cop will beat out the bad cop in the fake battle for our nation’s affections. Why not just spend five seconds thinking about who you think will be the least evil candidate, vote for them, and then start planning the revolution which would give us all actual choice? Your energies are needed elsewhere and what.

    Belledame, you’re so cute when you act like ‘radical’ is a synonym for ‘bad.’

  28. Alex Stone-Tharp says

    Except that it’s not really a fake battle. While it is absolutely true that the two party system enforces what ought to be a false choice between a slightly center right party and an insane neo-fascist one, that is the actual choice that voters face and there will be significant real world repercussions to that choice.

    I’m especially thinking of Supreme Court nominations here; McCain has clearly and openly said that his nominees would be in the Roberts/Alito mold. We might like to hope that a strong Democratic majority in the Senate would stand up to his nominations, but why take that chance? Even one more arch-conservative justice on the court will have massive consequences all up and down the spectrum of progressive issues.

    I guess what I’m saying is that after eight years under Bush, I think it’s well worth worrying “whether or not the good cop will beat out the bad cop” even in light of the fact that neither cop is truly deserving of loyalty or admiration or support.

  29. says

    My attitude is basically that the power centers of neither party are particularly appealing, but the Republican Party has proven that it despises objective reality and is much more likely than the Democratic Party to completely destroy everything in the universe that I care about. Therefore, regardless of the particular candidate at any point in time, I have decided to throw my lot in with the Democratic Party. The could nominate Howdy Fucking Doody, and I would still support him over whoever the Republican Party nominates. Period.

  30. says

    Sera: who are you, and what the fuck are you talking about? Who’s “radical,” here? The Greens? Because I’m fairly certain what I said was I don’t find them -organized,- at least the ones I’ve encountered. As in, do not have their shit together. Fine, set the world on fire; can you at least use a dry match?

    And, which “revolution” was this, again, exactly? I keep losing track. Will there be pie? “I was informed that there was to be punch and pah.”

    And, you need to buy me a drink if you’re gonna be calling me “cute.”

  31. says

    The could nominate Howdy Fucking Doody, and I would still support him over whoever the Republican Party nominates.

    Aha! You have now pierced the miasma that is Hillary’s sekrit strategery. She is out to show the Donkeycrats that no matter how much a fraction of the party ends up hating the nominee, it is better to vote dem. She’s like the Reagan of dems! I mean what else can explain what she’s up to ? Field Negro just fucking nailed with these observations as far as I’m concerned. First he said of the Clinton’s (after the Bill / SC thing):
    “I just don’t love those mofos anymore”. And then, more recently (from memory) “I can’t believe her…and I don’t even dislike her that much”. HAHAHAHAAH.

    Ok, so there’s a method to their madness. I can dial back on the “You can’t spell ‘hillbilly’ without Hill ‘n Bill” rhetoric….

  32. says

    right, certainly there’d be no other reason to do that, because if there’s one thing that’s really good politics, it’s falling back on tired-ass Southern-white/poor/rural jokes; I mean it’s not like anyone -else- besides the Clintons (who are totally actually reading this), like potential voters, might look at it and go “actually, you know what, fuck this shit.” Too. and hey, fuck ‘em if they do, who needs ‘em? quick, get the duelling banjos!! it NEVER GETS OLD, NO PRECIOUS.

  33. says

    if you are referring to my hillbilly crack, belledame222, no, it never does get old to make fun of racists. i have a smidgen of sympathy for their poorness and uneducatedness but then I’ve met plenty of poor white and uneducated who didn’t end up racists. so yeah, being a racist is a personal choice. i’ll make fun of that shit, you bet your ass.

    and I’ll for damn sure call out politicians who know better appealing to (and thereby tacitly endorsing/approving) racist voter sentiments just to win. This is one pander too far for me.

    But go ahead. Tell me how holding the majority of the party’s choice for nominee hostage to the minority of Dems who are too racist to vote for a black man is a good thing. Because that is Hillary’s remaining theme. “Vote for me because I can pick up the hardcore racist voters”. What a crock. Even if the racist voters were the deciding factor (which is very far from clear) it is a decent bet that those ignorant idiots won’t be voting for a woman either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>