mainstream rant #36: The Gen X Nuclear Option

[tyrannosaurus vex]

At stake in this primary race is not just a nomination for President of the United States, or even a victory in November's general election. It should be obvious to any observer, inside or out, that the intense emotions being brought out here are no less than an historic and potentially deadly crisis of identity for the Democratic Party. The Clinton camp has done everything in its power to cast this as a fight between "working Americans" and "the latte-sipping crowd," but almost nothing could be farther from the truth. Class, income, and lifestyle has little to do with this struggle. And it has nothing to do with gender or race or any other perennially convenient cross-section of voters, either.

It is far simpler, far more dangerous, and for some reason far more unexpected than any of that. It is a struggle between those who control the party -- and their children. Baby Boomers versus Generation X. Of course, there is bleed-over in support from both directions, but by and large, we are seeing an attempted coup-de-tat in progress by members of a younger, more idealistic generation who are not ready to settle for the failures and compromises of the Hippie generation. Is this any surprise, after seeing the havoc wreaked by the Flower Children in 1968, when they were as insistent on their demands as Generation X is today?

The torch is being passed. And the Democratic Party has two options: either listen to the People, give them their Nominee and hand over the reigns of Democratic power to young people with fresh ideas and the energy to carry this party into this century... or die. And that is no exaggeration. If millions of people are told in August that their voices and their demands have no place in the "Grown-Up's" Democratic Party, they will revolt in a heartbeat, and the next generation of Democrats will turn away.

Some of them will join the Republicans. Some of them will join the already-too-large ranks of apathetic citizens. Some of them will dissipate into third parties. Only a few of them will remain loyal to the party that has shown contempt for the future -- certainly not enough to make the Democratic Party strong, or even viable, for another generation.

I am among these voters who demand a new and invigorated Democratic Party. I, like millions of others, am tired of watching as the Democratic Party makes big promises and fails to act on behalf of the People. I am sick of my vote being assumed, and of my demands being swept under the rug while my party plays "safe politics." And I will not be ignored, especially when for the first time even among Democratic voters, my voice is chanting with the majority, demanding a new direction in Washington.

If Barack Obama ends up with a majority in popular votes and delegates, only to have his nomination railroaded because party elites have decided they know what is best for me more than I do, I will vote for McCain in November. Not because I hate Hillary (because I don't), but because it is intolerable to toy with the will of the People. I do not care who is the "safer" candidate in November. I do not care who has contributed what to whom, or who owes political favors to whom. I do not care about anything this year except that for the first time in my lifetime my vote actually counts. As for Hillary, she needs to be aware that my generation is not full of idiots, and we do not lie down to her claims just because they come out of her mouth. And every time she accuses Barack Obama of "disenfranchising" voters in Florida and Michigan because their state party broke the rules, it only makes her attempts to disenfranchise a majority of all Democrats nationally by calling on their delegates to abandon their pledges look more and more disgusting.

And not only will I vote for McCain, I will vote Republican for every single position on my ballot, from United States Senator to Neighborhood Watch Chairman. I will do this knowing full well that if my votes turn out victorious it will spell discomfort and pain for millions of Americans for at least four years. But I truly believe that if the Democratic Party cannot live up to its name, it deserves not only to be defeated, but to be dissolved. Again, I would not do this to spite Hillary: if she ends up winning the popular vote, then she'll have mine. But if she, through slimy politicking, back-channels, and democracy-subverting tricks, steals this nomination -- not from Barack Obama, but from the People whose voices are so clearly demanding a departure from the politics of the Boomers -- my hand will be forced. I would rather put up with failed Republican policy for four more years than allow my party to devolve further into an aristocratic cesspool of insider power plays while assuming it has my support.

So, to the "superdelegates," I have only this to say: As you cast your vote or make known your allegience, know that while you can deny the People our voice in your process, we can deny the entire Democratic Party its voice in Washington. We are the People, and regardless of your political calculations, we can send the lot of you to the political sewers in a single night this November.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Shit yeah.

[guest7654]

I am of the opinion that all the "hope and change" crap coming from the Obama camp is just that....crap.  and of the bull variety.  I will be happy if either of them get it, but I srsly doubt that Barack would deliver any more than Hillary would.  Actually I think Hillary would be able to get more done for the people, but anyway...that's just my opinion.  The "hope and change" crap that gives so many people a warm, fuzzy feeling inside is just good marketing.

As for voting for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination, (by the rules and regulations set up by this government, "for the people and by the people") you are just being stupid.

Thats like having chocolate cake and strawberry cake and a bowl of shit; where you really want some strawberry cake, but someone takes it away, so you just get mad and opt for the bowl of shit instead of chocolate.  If McCain wins, I am blaming you personally.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I am of the opinion that all the "hope and change" crap coming from the Obama camp is just that....crap.  and of the bull variety.  I will be happy if either of them get it, but I srsly doubt that Barack would deliver any more than Hillary would.  Actually I think Hillary would be able to get more done for the people, but anyway...that's just my opinion.  The "hope and change" crap that gives so many people a warm, fuzzy feeling inside is just good marketing.

As for voting for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination, (by the rules and regulations set up by this government, "for the people and by the people") you are just being stupid.

Thats like having chocolate cake and strawberry cake and a bowl of shit; where you really want some strawberry cake, but someone takes it away, so you just get mad and opt for the bowl of shit instead of chocolate.  If McCain wins, I am blaming you personally.

A lot of people, like you, are very good at missing the point of all these mainstream rants I keep coming up with. Maybe I haven't explained myself well enough.

First of all, I don't give a fuck about Barack Obama. What I do care about is that this guy, who was supposed to be the Token Black Guy in the Democratic field (and hence less owned/controlled by party elites), has run away with the popular vote and is currently poised to become a candidate for President. He caught the Old Guard completely by disguise, and he is the best chance at the People actually getting a fucking voice in any national election in at least 100 years*.

What is at stake here is a surprise for me, and that is the only reason I am among those who care about this election. This kind of thing -- popular candidates running away with the popular vote in spite of there being a well-positioned hand-selected heir to the national throne -- is not supposed to happen. Our system "of/by/for the People" was designed to prevent the People from actually having much of a say in the direction of the country. That system is broken this year, and there is a chance to put somebody into office who is, while 'mainstream' in his policy, pretty open about the fact that DC is a pile of shit that needs an overhaul.

I would be supporting any candidate from any party who broke through the elites' stranglehold this way. Barack Obama just happens to be the guy who is in that position.

Hope and Change is irrelevant. For me, the simple fact that Obama was supposed to lose but is winning instead is enough "hope" and "change." And it pisses me off when I am written off as some obamafag blindly supporting a mainstream candidate. I'm not in this to sell out and acquiesce to the status quo, I'm in it to take advantage of an opportunity that wasn't supposed to be presented to me.

As for McCain, I will vote straight Republican if the DNC steals this nomination for Clinton, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. But my rants are not really intended for the audience at PDCOM, I just post them here. They're intended for dissemination to a wider, more mainstream audience, in hopes that a few people might start to see that Obama is a chink in the armor of the two-party oppression system. I have to sound pretty mainstream in order to get any attention from anybody who isn't already initiated to the idea that Democrats and Republicans are playing for the same team.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I am of the opinion that all the "hope and change" crap coming from the Obama camp is just that....crap.  and of the bull variety.  I will be happy if either of them get it, but I srsly doubt that Barack would deliver any more than Hillary would.  Actually I think Hillary would be able to get more done for the people, but anyway...that's just my opinion.  The "hope and change" crap that gives so many people a warm, fuzzy feeling inside is just good marketing.

As for voting for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination, (by the rules and regulations set up by this government, "for the people and by the people") you are just being stupid.

Thats like having chocolate cake and strawberry cake and a bowl of shit; where you really want some strawberry cake, but someone takes it away, so you just get mad and opt for the bowl of shit instead of chocolate.  If McCain wins, I am blaming you personally.

A bowl of shit? Really? Two corrupt parties, both regularly handing us shit for presidential candidates, both behaving pathetically in public, both more than willing to put the nations needs behind the needs of their own party... and you'll call one cake and the other shit?

Perhaps you're thinker and prover should have a chat.

[Idem]

Thats like having chocolate cake and strawberry cake and a bowl of shit; where you really want some strawberry cake, but someone takes it away, so you just get mad and opt for the bowl of shit instead of chocolate.  If McCain wins, I am blaming you personally.

Wait, what?  What the hell is the difference between Hillary and McCain?

[AFK]

to the OP.  I hope you are able to get people outside of PD.COM to read it and understand it.  

I feel similar about Obama.  You hear it in the media a lot.  Hillary was supposed to win the Dem nomination.  Obama was supposed to be the token Black guy, and the feel-good, Cinderella story.  You know, kind of like Gonzaga was in the NCAA March Madness a few years back.  It was going to be good for a few months, a nice side-story, but eventually we were going to be talking about how Hillary would beat Giuliani (yeah that one didn't quite work out either).  

Do not be mistaken, the record turnouts at the Democratic Primaries, would not have happened without Obama, or someone in Obama's position.  That his campaign inspired so many first time voters IN A PRIMARY, is quite a notable acheivement.  It is hard to get people interested in the actual General Election, much less a primary or caucus.  In Portland, Maine, when we had the Maine Caucuses, they had people lined up for 4 blocks to get in and vote.  That has never happend before for a Caucus in Maine.  

I'm with Vex.  If Clinton and Howard Dean orchestrate some sort of take-over or pre-emption of the popular vote, then I won't vote for any of the Dems either.  For a party that was supposedly so outraged by how Bush stole the election from Gore, they certainly have a short-term memory.  It's either that or unabashed and blatant hypocrisy.  I'm not sure I want either having any form of power in the White House.  We've already had 8 years of that shit.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

to the OP.  I hope you are able to get people outside of PD.COM to read it and understand it. 

I feel similar about Obama.  You hear it in the media a lot.  Hillary was supposed to win the Dem nomination.  Obama was supposed to be the token Black guy, and the feel-good, Cinderella story.  You know, kind of like Gonzaga was in the NCAA March Madness a few years back.  It was going to be good for a few months, a nice side-story, but eventually we were going to be talking about how Hillary would beat Giuliani (yeah that one didn't quite work out either). 

Do not be mistaken, the record turnouts at the Democratic Primaries, would not have happened without Obama, or someone in Obama's position.  That his campaign inspired so many first time voters IN A PRIMARY, is quite a notable acheivement.  It is hard to get people interested in the actual General Election, much less a primary or caucus.  In Portland, Maine, when we had the Maine Caucuses, they had people lined up for 4 blocks to get in and vote.  That has never happend before for a Caucus in Maine. 

I'm with Vex.  If Clinton and Howard Dean orchestrate some sort of take-over or pre-emption of the popular vote, then I won't vote for any of the Dems either.  For a party that was supposedly so outraged by how Bush stole the election from Gore, they certainly have a short-term memory.  It's either that or unabashed and blatant hypocrisy.  I'm not sure I want either having any form of power in the White House.  We've already had 8 years of that shit. 

I'm amazed at how everyone is assuming that the Dems would do something like that... so far, the only voices I've heard spouting nonsense about superdelegates, appear to either be part of Clinton's team or the FAUX News team....

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to blow the easiest electoral victory they've had in 150 years. These people are professional nitwits.

[Cramulus]

In the Parable of the Gong, the young Discordian Golden Rod learns that it's his choice whether or not to wait at red lights. He then decides that in order to demonstrate his freedom, he must run every red light. His newfound freedom leads, ironically, to a dogmatic approach to choices.

I feel sympathy for his plight. Personally, I strongly resist two-party hegemony. I agree with Ratatosk in that both parties suck and neither are capable of enacting the types of changes we'd like. In past years I've voted third party, green party, independant party, trying to rally for Anybody But These Two Con Artists. I don't have to tell you about the two man con. It's there, and it's awful.

Vex and RWHN's efforts as of late have pointed out to me that I shouldn't just discount a democrat or a republican because they're a part of the two party hegemony - just like we shouldn't just run red lights because we can. And I thank them for that.

Any candidate who succeeds in making the "rationally apathetic" masses care - signifies to me that they're doing something right. I mean, sure, it may be a great rub or hussle. Maybe this is a grand manipulation and Obama is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. But if he succeeds in making people feel like they're a part of a positive force, a force of change, a dynamic vibration, that's something I can get behind.


Worst case scenario with a silver lining:
Obama is elected and is in fact an evil robot.
All those disenfranchised voters, who care about this shit, continue to pour their energy into fixing this diseased machine.

Memetic ripples, etc.
pass it on

[AFK]

to the OP.  I hope you are able to get people outside of PD.COM to read it and understand it. 

I feel similar about Obama.  You hear it in the media a lot.  Hillary was supposed to win the Dem nomination.  Obama was supposed to be the token Black guy, and the feel-good, Cinderella story.  You know, kind of like Gonzaga was in the NCAA March Madness a few years back.  It was going to be good for a few months, a nice side-story, but eventually we were going to be talking about how Hillary would beat Giuliani (yeah that one didn't quite work out either). 

Do not be mistaken, the record turnouts at the Democratic Primaries, would not have happened without Obama, or someone in Obama's position.  That his campaign inspired so many first time voters IN A PRIMARY, is quite a notable acheivement.  It is hard to get people interested in the actual General Election, much less a primary or caucus.  In Portland, Maine, when we had the Maine Caucuses, they had people lined up for 4 blocks to get in and vote.  That has never happend before for a Caucus in Maine. 

I'm with Vex.  If Clinton and Howard Dean orchestrate some sort of take-over or pre-emption of the popular vote, then I won't vote for any of the Dems either.  For a party that was supposedly so outraged by how Bush stole the election from Gore, they certainly have a short-term memory.  It's either that or unabashed and blatant hypocrisy.  I'm not sure I want either having any form of power in the White House.  We've already had 8 years of that shit. 

I'm amazed at how everyone is assuming that the Dems would do something like that... so far, the only voices I've heard spouting nonsense about superdelegates, appear to either be part of Clinton's team or the FAUX News team....

On Countdown lastnight, Keith Olberman put up a couple of quotes from two separate Superdelegates in which they comment about their concerns for Obama, particularly the Wright situation.  So it is more than Fox and the Clinton team.  Don't be mistaken, if the Democratic party believes that Clinton has a better chance at beating McCain then Obama, they will find a way to engineer a Clinton victory.  Democrats and Republicans share the similar ideology of "do whatever it takes to get elected." 

I'm not assuming that the Democrats would do it, but I'm not going to give them the credit, as Politicians, that they wouldn't do it. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

In the Parable of the Gong, the young Discordian Golden Rod learns that it's his choice whether or not to wait at red lights. He then decides that in order to demonstrate his freedom, he must run every red light. His newfound freedom leads, ironically, to a dogmatic approach to choices.

I feel sympathy for his plight. Personally, I strongly resist two-party hegemony. I agree with Ratatosk in that both parties suck and neither are capable of enacting the types of changes we'd like. In past years I've voted third party, green party, independant party, trying to rally for Anybody But These Two Con Artists. I don't have to tell you about the two man con. It's there, and it's awful.

Vex and RWHN's efforts as of late have pointed out to me that I shouldn't just discount a democrat or a republican because they're a part of the two party hegemony - just like we shouldn't just run red lights because we can. And I thank them for that.

Any candidate who succeeds in making the "rationally apathetic" masses care - signifies to me that they're doing something right. I mean, sure, it may be a great rub or hussle. Maybe this is a grand manipulation and Obama is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. But if he succeeds in making people feel like they're a part of a positive force, a force of change, a dynamic vibration, that's something I can get behind.


Worst case scenario with a silver lining:
Obama is elected and is in fact an evil robot.
All those disenfranchised voters, who care about this shit, continue to pour their energy into fixing this diseased machine.

Memetic ripples, etc.
pass it on

A very good point Cram... myself, I voted Democrat in 04 because I decided that were the Republicans my employees (Oh, yeah... they are) I would have fired the lot of them for incompetence, so I voted to replace them. I had no illusion that Kerry would be better... but that wasn't the point. Bush fucked up way too much to keep his job, IMO.

My current political view then is something like this:

Hillary Clinton: Hell No. There is no evidence that Hillary has any desire to work across party lines to get consensus. There is strong evidence that half the country (or close to it) has an epileptic fit when the name Clinton is mentioned. These two issues alone, cause me to consider her unfit to represent ALL of America as President (no matter what the current asshole in Chief thinks... the job of President is representative of everyone, not just the Base).

John McCain: Don't like his stance on the war, but it currently doesn't appear substantially different from anyone elses... except that I think he'd like to fuck with Iran, should the opportunity arise. However, I think he would close GitMo, it appears that he would reverse several of the bad decisions put in place by Bush. He appears to have serious concerns about global climate issues and isn't held captive by either the Neo-Cons or the Religious Wrong. On top of that he has a history of working across party lines, even in defiance of his own party. All of that is good.

Barack Obama: Nice guy, good speaker, some very good rough ideas and some State level cross party work (but then Bush had that). It doesn't appear that most of the country actively hates him... so thats a good score above Hilldog. He does seem more interested in peaceful resolutions rather than war, which is also potentially positive.

If it comes down to McCain and Obama, then I probably won't know who I'm voting for until November. If its Hillary vs McCain, I'm voting McCain gladly.

I agree strongly with Cram, there's no reason to 'not vote Dem/Repub' simply to be iconoclastic or to go against the machine...

We can run red lights if we wish, or we can not run red lights if we wish... but I do find it somewhat concerning when people actually think that THIS red light WILL be DIFFERENT.

[guest7654]

Well forgive me for thinking that you are all a bunch of Obamafags.  Obama  and Hillary will both tell you that there are major differences between them and McCain and minor differences between eachother. 

There is no evidence that Hillary has any desire to work across party lines to get consensus.

1. She is more moderate than Obama, who is one of the most liberal senators.  2.More experience.

McCain will continue to fleece the bottom (read "the people") for the benifit of the top.

So yes, McCain = bowl of shit.
Hillary and Obama = cake.  Obama would agree.  So be good fanbois if Hillary wins and vote for her.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well forgive me for thinking that you are all a bunch of Obamafags.  Obama  and Hillary will both tell you that there are major differences between them and McCain and minor differences between eachother. 

There is no evidence that Hillary has any desire to work across party lines to get consensus.

1. She is more moderate than Obama, who is one of the most liberal senators.  2.More experience.

Example or GTFO

McCain will continue to fleece the bottom (read "the people") for the benifit of the top.

Example or GTFO

McCain, who voted against the Bush Tax Cuts is gonna rape the little guy? McCain whose 2000 tax proposal make a major point of cutting off loopholes for corporations, focusing the brunt of the tax relief to the 39k->80k income bracket with a decent chunk going lower, and only 4% going to higher income groups... will rape the little guy?

I'll give you that he'll continue the mess in Iraq and possibly extend the mess to Iran... but his actual experience indicates someone that has tried fighting for saner taxes and cooperation between parties.

Hillary has a wee bit of experience, with absolutely no impressive work done during that experience, at least none that I've seen.

Obama has no experience yet, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[guest7654]

Well forgive me for thinking that you are all a bunch of Obamafags.  Obama  and Hillary will both tell you that there are major differences between them and McCain and minor differences between eachother. 

There is no evidence that Hillary has any desire to work across party lines to get consensus.

1. She is more moderate than Obama, who is one of the most liberal senators.  2.More experience.

Example or GTFO

The National Journal found that Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record based on 107 "key votes" in the Senate in 2007.  Counting all votes he also has a more liberal voting record.

McCain will continue to fleece the bottom (read "the people") for the benifit of the top.

Example or GTFO

It is the Republican way.

Mr. McCain paid a visit to our offices last Friday, and he now says the supports extending the Bush tax rates, even admitting they helped the economy emerge from recession "Without a doubt. Without the slightest doubt," he told us. "Absolutely."

Wall Street Journal

But yes, McCain would be much better than Bush.  Easily apparent since Rush and Coulter seem to hate him.  But still a bowl of shit compared to the other two, in my opinion. (and probably Obama's and Hillary's opinion as well)