LATE NIGHT MUSINGS IN THE NATION'S CAPITOL

I'm finally sitting in my hotel in Washington, D.C. after a loooonnnnggg day of meetings and a business dinner and reflecting on what I feel for this city. I travel here several times a year for work, which has always been a kind of thrill since it's the center of our government and the hub of our political system, and because it fills me with pride to look around at so many memorials and distinguished, even famous, edifices my company has built and contributed to the skyline of our capitol city.

But this trip I'm reminded of my visit during the 2004 presidential election, when one of my priorities was to make it to DNC headquarters and collect all the Kerry paraphernalia I could to take with me back to Dallas. Kerry was not my first (or second) choice for Democratic presidential nominee, but I had no problem throwing my wholehearted support to him. I have no such inclination now. I still haven't decided if I can even bring myself to vote for Obama, who of ALL those running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, wasn't on my list at all. At first I assumed that Barack was simply attempting to raise his recognition level in order to support a run in 2012 or 2016. It just wasn't credible to me that someone with such limited experience, thin resume and practically non-existent list of accomplishments (apart from two well-selling and self-serving personal journals) could be a viable candidate for the presidency at one of the most critical times in our nation's history.

But thanks to a venal DNC, cynical party leaders, and a once-again complicit and trivial media, we have what is perhaps the most unqualified candidate of a major party ever. Jiminy cricket, even the totally inept Ulysses S. Grant had better credentials!

I feel like I'm moving through a fog of unreality. At every juncture I see shades of W's campaigns in 2000 and 2004. The fact that we're talking about a Democrat now instead of a Republican doesn't change anything. Lack of governing, executive or legislative inexperience, ignorance of public policy issues, and personal arrogance and sense of entitlement are just as worrisome to me in a Democrat as in a Republican (even W had more experience than BO, though I think it's fairly obvious that Obama bests him in the arrogance sweepstakes). Nothing matters except that the media is fascinated and charmed by The Chosen One (whether W or BO) and despises the alternative (Al then, Hillary now), and when the victor gets the spoils the media revels in its power and the glory of Access. Too bad for the rest of us.

I've voted nearly straight Democratic (two exceptions that I can remember) for more decades than I like to admit, not as a knee-jerk reaction but because the values of our party were, to me, vastly preferable to those of the opposition party. I can't say that anymore. I just plain don't trust that those time-honored Democratic values are shared by Obama or our current party leadership. And I'm unwilling to associate myself with a candidate in whom I can find no compelling vision for the nation, no core principles, no new solutions for the many, varied and critical problems we face, and no burning desire to advance the well-being of the common people that can compare with his burning ambition to elevate his own status (don't get me started on the faux presidential seal, the Invesco Field convention acceptance speech, the Brandenburg Gate rally, oh my!).

So it's a sad visit compared to four years ago. I so remember the elation The Sage and I felt in 1992 when Bill Clinton was, against all odds, elected president. We've been waiting a very long time to once more have that kind of confidence in our national leadership, and we surely thought that this would be the year that was.
And as much as I admire, appreciate and support Hillary, it just ain't about her. It's about Obama. And if I hear or read one more implication that if I don't support him I'm a racist, I'll be more than tempted to throw a really, really big wad of money John McCain's way.

Has anyone else ever observed that hotel toilet bowls seem to be much smaller and lower to the ground than those in our homes? Been meaning to ask that question for about 30 years.

OBAMA RULES?

Must-read for the day.

So Obama's taking over the DNC. Moving its headquarters to Chicago. Assigning state party staffers to his presidential bid (wonder how the down-ticket pols in those states will appreciate THAT). Demanding that all fundraising be coordinated through the Obama campaign. Removing elected convention delegates who initially supported other candidates and replacing them with Obama loyalists.

Look, I'd love to be shed of all this worry. I'd love to come back to the Democratic Party, support its presidential nominee, and work to defeat John McCain and the Republicans. But I'm not in a place where I can do that. Every day new evidence surfaces that suggests Obama is an authoritarian with a hidden agenda, backed by a DNC that will no longer tolerate dissent in the ranks, that devalues traditional Democratic voters in preference for a "new coalition" of youths, AA's and the "creative class." The shrinking of the Big Tent is troublesome to me, and the consolidation of power in the hands of one man is antipathetic to the grassroots tradition and strength of the Democratic Party.

THE LEVERAGE THEY WANT US TO SURRENDER

Violet speaks, you listen.

I've said repeatedly on this blog that one of my greatest disappointments and sources of anger of late has been the insistence of the DNC and party leaders that we Hillary supporters just give in, buckle under and unite the party, despite the treatment we and our candidate have received. Hillary is virtuous enough, and loyal enough to the party, to do just that. Many of us are not. We have waited a very long time for women (a majority of Democratic voters and of U.S. citizens in general) to have some leverage within the Party, only to be asked to take it in the a** as usual while we and our standard-bearer continue to be demonized and discredited. Sorry, folks. If Obama wants my vote, he has to earn it. I say again, I will never vote for John McCain, but I desperately hope that millions of Hillary supporters will continue to say, "Convince me" before surrendering their vote to someone so arrogant as to believe it's his due and prizes the votes of Rethuglicans and Indies over loyal Democrats. Anyone who disparages my vote, I assume, just plain doesn't want it.

And that's the bottom line. I'm convinced that party leaders want to rid us of any vestige of Clintonism -- and that surely includes us Hillary voters.

You know, I was actually excited about Obama's candidacy at one point. It takes a lot to alienate a party loyalist like me.

Now my friend Sally opines that it's the media and the bloggers who are at fault, and that Obama didn't contribute to the fray. I don't buy it. Obama is every bit as responsible -- it's HIS campaign that says he's not going to waste time courting Hillary voters. It's HIS campaign that spread the lies about the Clintons' alleged racism and contacted the media to accuse Hillary of wishing for his assassination (her RFK remark). It's Barack himself who said, "You're likable enough, Hillary" and repeatedly conflated the failures of the Bush administrations with the Clinton years. Obama benefited from the media's misogynistic flaying of Hillary and her women voters, and he NEVER SAID A WORD.

No, Obama HAS to come courting if he expects my vote. I want a good, solid reason why I should reward him and the DNC for their bad behavior.

And the John-McCain-as-the-alternative scare tactic ain't it. That dodge has been successful too many times. It's lost its punch for me.

PUMA. PUMA. PUMA.

THE END OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

It may still be called by the same name, but it's not the party I've been voting for since I cast my first vote in 1968. It's no longer the party of the working man and woman; it says it doesn't need us any longer. It's not the party of equal rights; it's the party of misogyny and sexism. It's not the party of the "one person, one vote" principle; it's the party of elite insiders awarding unearned votes to their chosen candidate and favoring undemocratic caucases over primaries. It's not the party of political courage; it's the party of words without substance and consequences.

Riverdaughter calls yesterday "a day that will live in infamy," and I completely agree. In every other race over the past 40 years where my favored candidate was defeated, I was able to rally loyally around the Democratic banner, assured that our standard-bearer would be an immense improvement over the Republican. I cannot and will not do this in the GE this year. The only slightly legitimate arguments for Obama over McCain concern Supreme Court appointments and ending the war in Iraq. Obama himself has delegitimized them by voicing support for the John Roberts appointment, and his own advisers have said that he won't end the war anytime soon. We've not heard the breath of a plan for withdrawing our troops, and Obama has demonstrated an ignorance of foreign and domestic policy that equals McCain's. So where's the advantage in our sucking it up once again for a party that disdains us, our contributions, our experience and our judgment?

Movement conservatives have flirted with the idea of withholding their votes from McCain to prove to Republican party leaders that their votes are essential to Republican victories. Democratic insiders appear to believe that that won't happen with Clinton backers, but they're simply, once again, not listening to voters. This is not a case of first-choice, second-choice. We do not accept Obama as our leader, and will not no matter who he selects as his running mate. The extent of party leaders' tone-deafness (and include the media in this as well!) is the popular meme that choosing a female such as McCaskill, Napolitano or Sibelius will placate Clintonistas and cause us to fall in line behind BO. Are they kidding? McCaskill is such an idiot that she openly declares that her CHILDREN persuaded her to support Obama. In fact, I've been appalled all season by the number of otherwise-seemingly-intelligent Dems who have set aside their own judgment in favor of that of their adolescent and young adult children. Some leadership! I listen to, and respect, my own adult children's views, but as a parent I exert a little more leadership in my own family.

Get this, Dem leaders: Hillary is not interchangeable with "any woman." We support her because of her specific policies, her resume, her history, her character. We reject Obama for the same reasons. And we are now rejecting our party because it first rejected us.

SINGIN' THE PARTY BLUES

Well, it's done! Our oldest daughter is married and left for her honeymoon yesterday, and all is well. This felt like one of those month-long tribal weddings, with activities from Thursday through Tuesday (the wedding was on the Saturday before Memorial Day) and oodles of out-of-town guests (all of whom, fortunately, stayed in the hotel and not with us). We're exhausted but satisfied, and the newlyweds are deliriously happy.

So on to politics. I'd decided to resist at all costs any discussion of politics during the week to avoid conflict and keep the peace among our numerous and diverse family, but it proved impossible and, frankly, unnecessary. Other than a couple of our twenty-something sons who are lukewarm Obama supporters, both the Democrats and the Republicans are uniformly appalled and bewildered at the notion that Barack Obama will be the next president. The Repubs among us had several themes to their conversation: (1) How could you Democrats be so stupid to nominate such a completely unqualified, unvetted candidate over the very qualified and well-known Hillary Clinton? (2) There's so little we actually know about Obama that the thought of him as POTUS is downright scary, and what we do know about his associations only exacerbates that fear. (3) The military wing of the family would feel vastly better about Hillary beating John McCain since so many of our flag officers have endorsed her; that means a great deal to them, as they're all relatively comfortably economically and national security is their top issue.

My older sister and her ex-fighter-jock husband had come to us directly from their annual reunion of Vietnam-era fighter pilots, where they'd discussed the race and the mystery that the Dems would shoot ourselves in the foot and risk losing an election that should have been a slam-dunk for us this year. My brother-in-law quoted one of them as saying that if you want an old war hero who most everyone respects but few really like, vote McCain; if you want someone who will give speeches talking about bringing us all together while dividing us, vote Obama; if you want someone who will actually find solutions to the problems we face, vote Hillary.

So now the festivities have ended and I'm catching up on the news and developments. More than ever it appears that we're on a runaway train, and the media and Democratic Party leaders are shoveling the coal as fast as they can. They want this thing wound up, and they're going to get their way. Clearly, they want the Clintons destroyed and discredited more than they want electoral victory. They're giddy at the idea of booting the working class non-AA's and older women out of the Party and replacing us with ... what? Some amorphous young voters who have no historical memory, no party loyalty (theirs is reserved for the person of Obama, not ideology) and no real agenda other than the thrill of their own influence? The young Obama supporters in our family first backed Ron Paul. How's that for ideological consistency?

I continue to have hope because Hillary inspires it with her dogged determination to do what is best for the country despite the personal cost. But I realize the odds are greatly against her chances of winning the nomination. I will not, ever, vote for John McCain, and I will not vote for Obama. I have not the slightest modicum of confidence that Obama would be an improvement over McCain in either foreign or domestic policy. And don't hand me that sad "it's the Supremes!" argument. BO had to be talked out of supporting John Roberts, of all people, for SCOTUS and for what? Political expediency. There is no CORE to Obama that can be identified, no principles for which he would fight, and his much-vaunted "judgment" is a myth supported by a single speech made at no cost to himself. Other examples of his good judgment are almost impossible to find and are overwhelmed by the myriad of instances in which he has been exposed as a Chicago machine-style politico who has associated himself with the most hateful, divisive elements in our culture.

What will I do downticket? Cast my vote on a person-by-person basis. The Democratic Party leadership has betrayed its base and its principles, and I'm prepared to check out of politics until my confidence is restored. It's taken a lot to turn me against the Party. I could have easily supported any one of the early nominees. I could even have backed Obama in the early days, before we knew much about him and I was simply thrilled at the prospect of an African-American being a viable candidate. But again, that was before he began to diss universal healthcare and talk about "fixing" Social Security, before he demonstrated that all he has to offer are teleprompter-assisted speeches and Republican talking points, before he gave evidence of an arrogant and entitled attitude that has exacerbated the racial and gender divide in the country rather than unifying anybody. But it is not just Obama, David Axelrod and his campaign that I resent. It is Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and practically the entire media, all the elites who determined that they should select the nominee, not the voters, and who have given evidence of an animus against the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, that is unseemly and threatens to split the party right down the middle.

As soon as Obama is confirmed as the party nominee, I will immediately switch my registration to Independent. How many more formerly loyal Democrats, I wonder, will do likewise?

NOT ONE CENT FOR TRIBUTE

Finally. A major columnist has gone public with the sexism and misogyny exposed by Hillary's run for the presidency.

Marie Cocco calls them out.

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Yes, Marie, that clarion silence has pushed this formerly loyal Democrat to questioning not only the leading candidate (who has also been silent, that husband and father of two daughters) but the leaders of the party and other prominent Democrats. How can Caroline Kennedy justify it? How can George McGovern, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi?

I'm still struggling with what to do with my vote if Hillary doesn't win the nomination. But it's supremely easy to determine that the DNC will not win even one of my contribution dollars, which will to a cent be disbursed to candidates who have endorsed HRC.

BY WHAT HISTORICAL STANDARD IS OBAMA THE FRONTRUNNER?

Obviously, Violet and I are of the same generation. We learned the same political lessons:

One of the first political facts I learned was this: winning the California primary in June 1968 meant Robert Kennedy had a serious shot at taking the nomination, even though he’d entered the race late and was behind in delegates.

But of course Bobby was murdered a few hours later, so that was the end of that.

I learned about this as a child because my parents were trying to explain to me why another Kennedy had been killed and what it meant for the election.

“Why did California matter so much?” I asked them. “How could he have gotten the nomination if Humphrey already had the party behind him? And what about McCarthy?”

It was thus that I learned about the realpolitik of nominating contests. A lot has changed in the process since 1968, and all to the good. More actual voting, fewer smoke-filled rooms. But what hasn’t changed is the purpose of the whole thing: to settle on the candidate with the best chance to win in the general election.

If I had a time machine and could go back to 1968 or 1972 to chew over a thought experiment with one of those old pros, the conversation might go like this:

Violet: Okay, hypothetical situation. Let’s say we’ve got two strong candidates. Candidate A wins the Iowa caucus. Candidate B wins New Hampshire. Then Candidate A catches fire and in February wins a bunch of caucuses and small primaries in mostly Republican states. Racks up the lead in delegates. But then Candidate B comes roaring back and wins New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania. Who’s the front-runner?

Old Pro from 1968/72: Are you kidding me?

Violet: No, really — who’s the front runner?

Old Pro: Candidate B, of course. What’s the matter with you?

Violet: But Candidate A leads in pledged delegates!

Old Pro: Candidate A is the guy who had a good February? But then loses in all the big states?

Violet: Right.

Old Pro: You’re actually asking me this question?

Violet: But don’t the pledged delegates count?

Old Pro: You’re talking about nominating the guy who lost New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Florida? Jesus! You’re outta your mind!

Violet: But what about his delegates?

Old Pro: Fight it out at the convention if you have to. Geez. That’s what conventions are for. Look, you don’t get to be the nominee because you were popular in February in Utah. For chrissake, if you can’t win the Democratic primaries in California or New York or Massachusetts or Florida or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, you don’t get to be the Democratic nominee. Unless you’re Hubert Humphrey. Wait a minute, Humphrey isn’t still alive, is he?

Violet: No. But the party bosses really love Candidate A. They say Candidate B needs to drop out so Candidate A can be the nominee.

Old Pro: They want the winner of all the big states to drop out so the party favorite from February can be the nominee? Goddamnit, it is Humphrey, isn’t it? Christ, he must be like 100 now.

Violet: No, he’s dead. See, the two candidates we’ve got are both strong. They both have a lot of devoted supporters and they’re really close in pledged delegates and popular votes.

Old Pro: What do their numbers look like against the Republican?

Violet: Close, though when you look at the state-by-state polls and the exit data, Candidate B looks stronger in a match-up against the Republican than Candidate A.

Old Pro: And you’re still asking me who the party needs to nominate?

Violet: Well, the supporters of Candidate A say that if Candidate B will just drop out, then the party will be able to get behind Candidate A.

Old Pro: It is Humphrey!

And so on.

Look, I’m not ignoring the fact that Obama has fervent support. I’m just trying to get at the sheer freak factor of the insistence that he is the de facto nominee, even after losing all the big states. I’m too old and my head is too full of memories for me not to recognize the surpassing strangeness of it.

SEXISM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

An irony of all ironies.

If Condi Rice were on the Republican ticket, we could compare the level of respect accorded to her by Republicans with the now infamous Democratic pastime of denigrating, ridiculing and hating the only serious female presidential contender we've ever had. And why have we never had a serious female presidential contender? Oh yeah, because we live in a culture that has a long history of denigrating, ridiculing and hating women.

Republicans would never stand for the media to treat Rice or any other woman on the Republican ticket with the vile disrespect showered on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Democrats have benefited from and all but begged corporate media to insult Hillary, and thus all women, with daily barrels of misogyny. With Condi Rice on the ticket, I'm guessing sexism becomes a firing offense at MSNBC. And I'm guessing Rush Limbaugh begins to look like a sensitive and gracious gentleman next to sexist thug Bill Maher.

Why am I a Democrat? I forget.

Just saying ...

No, not "sexism," just IOKIYAR. It's okay to be black or female if you're a Republican, and while one mustn't note the number of blacks and women in the Democratic Party without conflating them to "identity politics," one's recognition of the number of blacks and females in the Bush administration is fair and balanced. It enables one to point out how noble are the Republicans to promote and advance the few minorities/women they appeal to, while Democrats are the inheritors of a legacy of pandering. That's the view of the right.

The view of the left seems to be, we honor our minorities but see no problem with belittling, demonizing and slandering our MAJORITY, which is FEMALE. Unless, of course, they belong to the Village standard for women-who-belittle-and-demonize-other-women in order to be admitted to the BoyZ Club, the fringe membership, that is, allotted to "women who know that their place is to (publicly at least) agree with and worship the Boyz."

Geez, is it really that obscure to the Democrats Who Matter, that women are increasingly angry about the wanton sexism and misogyny that have been revealed on the airwaves and in the campaigns this cycle? I mean, we've grown to expect this kind of thing from Republicans, but from the Democratic Party? It's become increasingly clear that the party of the little man really means it -- THE MAN, not the woman.

I'm getting so tired of this s**t that each day I pledge to myself that I'm going to take a break from it all, focus on family and work (which is overwhelming but satisfying) and get some little peace and sleep on a regular basis. And every day, something convinces me anew that this is a battle worth fighting, for our national security and standing in the world, and for our American culture and the well-being of our people.

Whatever the outcome, the issues of gender and race have finally risen to the level of a national conversation -- among voters, if not pundits. I'm finding it more possible than ever in my lifetime since the 70s, for mixed audiences to address race and gender in our talks without embarrassment. There's often passion, and some heat, but at least we're TALKING. That's a positive result from this presidential race that has nothing to do with the Republicans or John McCain. We're witnessing within our own party attitudes that we've covered up and denied for years, we're pointing them out to one another, and, I have to hope, that at some point we're going to deal with, and overcome them.

Otherwise, we'll just be the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

OBAMA, NOT HILLARY, IS SPLITTING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

The greatest irony of Obama's political strategy, for me, is that people like me, who fought for civil rights (I was the only white teenager in my southern town who marched with my black friends and boycotted the local soda shop because they wouldn't seat blacks); who actually have AA friends; who've HIRED AAs when others whispered that it was risky because you can never fire them if they don't work out; and never allow a racial slur or prejudice in their hearing to go unchallenged; who have been excited and rejoiced that a black could be a viable presidential candidate; are now being challenged as racists because we select our candidates on issues rather than being swept away by a soaring rhetoric that seems unaccompanied by a record or concrete ideas that would give meaning to the words.

I define myself as a populist and progressive. I supported John Edwards and now support Hillary because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool "do something for the working man" Democrat. I believe in government as a force for the common good.

We know Hillary, we know her commitment, her heart and her history, so we feel safe that under her leadership, life for the majority of Americans will improve. It has nothing to do with race, but we are being bombarded with suggestions that yes, it does. And just as we rebelled against institutional racism, we are rebelling against the notion that because we prefer another Democratic presidential nominee, we are somehow tainted with a kind of internal racism ourselves. Nothing could be more divisive than to label lifelong Democrats in such a manner.

Today's must-read. And I mean, read it in its entirety!

His speech the other day had a peculiar theme: America's racist past can only be laid to rest by voting for Obama, which would prove that his accusations aren't true. What Obama does with his rhetorical strategy is turn something salutary - a proud vote by the African American population for a competitive AA candidate - into something corrupting - that a failure to vote for him is nothing less than an expression of (white) racism. The fundamental reason you typical white folks aren't voting for me is because you are driven by racism. He presented a peculiarly bastardized version of John Edwards' Two Americas; the enlightened one who will vote for him and the retrograde one which will not. And, by virtue of this speech being made in a primary campaign, the division is one that runs through the Democratic Party, not a marker of distinction between Democrats and Republicans.
...
This corrosive narrative is a cold and brutal campaign calculation in accord with Obama's continually demonstrated contempt for anything or anyone who denies him what he wants. He has accomplished what the Republicans alone could not do, split the party itself on race.

UPDATE: Who's negative and enabling the Republicans in the GE?

LOST

It's the last straw. I am truly, deeply concerned at what's happening among Democrats in the presidential primary race. Daily, we are finding out more disturbing qualities of Barack Obama, his surrogates and advisers, and the kind of support he generates among his followers. That support resembles nothing so much as the Bush/Cheney/Rove lovers, a "you're with us or you're against us" mentality, accompanied by threats of violence at the convention if Obama doesn't win the nomination (shades of the Florida recount). The unsupported, vitriolic attacks against Hillary Clinton and anyone who favors her as the nominee that abound through the so-called progressive blogs and the mainstream media, the race-baiting among those same outlets, has reached a point that I feel a frisson of fear that half the Democratic electorate have truly lost their minds and adapted the tactics and mindset of the enemy.

I have read and admired Josh Marshall daily for years now, but he's a good example of what I'm talking about. His recent post blaming Hillary for Obama's pastor problem is beyond nuts:

If Obama's the nominee, we will see no end of this kind of stuff. And there's probably some small benefit of getting a preview. But the simple fact is that we wouldn't be seeing this stuff now if it weren't for the fact that this is the kind of campaign Hillary Clinton's campaign has decided to wage -- often directly and at other times indirectly by not reining it in in her supporters when it crops up on its own.

Is he kidding? Hillary is responsible for the fact of Obama's close, 20-year relationship with a flaming racist pastor who has often, and repeatedly, expressed from the pulpit his hatred for whites, his conviction that America deserved 9/11, has cried "God d--n America" and many, many more exclusionary screeds aimed at dividing us? She's to be blamed for Jeremiah Wright's associations with Gaddafi and Farrakhan, and Obama's relationship with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn? I suppose it's also her fault that Obama spoke one thing to Ohio Democrats about NAFTA and then channeled an opposite message to Canada. But that's the situation we're faced with. The Obama rules have been accepted and advanced.

It's not good enough, for me, for Obama to say he doesn't agree with all of Jeremiah Wright's opinions. I was raised a Southern Baptist -- my husband even attended Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary -- and devoutly believe basic Baptist theology. But we left that church because we could not sit in the sanctuary and listen to pastors who decried the humanity and rights of homosexuals, who praised Bush's war policies. It would have been, in my mind, tantamount to a declaration of agreement with or tolerance of those views. When I go to church I go to receive spiritual guidance and Bible teaching -- and I reject that kind of guidance. There are other churches, and pastors, that preach the love of Christ, and that's where I find a home.

For Obama and his supporters to suggest that he could sit in the pew week after week for 20 years and listen to the most divisive kind of rhetoric, yet stand for "unity" and "hope" is, at the least, questionable.

But to get back to my original subject.

The language of the Obama campaign, suggesting that Hillary Clinton is running a racist campaign and denying her very real contributions to human rights and dignity, the use of Limbaugh/Hannity talking points against her, the irrational hatred of all things Clinton, the sexist and superficial slurs against her and, for that matter, all women, that has exposed the essential misogyny of the media and the progressive movement, has turned my stomach. I can't sustain the kind of anger and sorrow that has characterized my days for the past couple of months without suffering physical and emotional consequences. But I don't know how to get past it, and maybe I shouldn't.

I don't fit the usual demographic ascribed to Hillary supporters. I'm a college-educated, executive woman (though white and over 50). I don't ascribe to identity politics -- I fervently supported John Edwards until he dropped out of the race.

I spent several months being SO proud of our candidates, all of them, as I compared the Democratic debates to the Republican. How the race has degenerated into such a miasma, I don't exactly know. What I do know is that as a diligent observer of politics, I cannot ascribe it to Hillary. Rather, I believe it is a result of a credulous media and progressives who have repeated the mistakes of the 2000 presidential race -- accepting the specious claims of a relatively unvetted, un-Clinton-related candidate, to "a new kind of politics, "a gentler, kinder" rhetoric, a Reaganesque character who talks about "hope" and "unity" while practicing the very same brand of political machinations we decried in Richard Daley's Chicago machine and Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

As a veteran civil rights activist from way back in the '60s when it was both dangerous and unpopular for a white teenager in the South, I was both delighted and inspired by the notion that we could have a viable black candidate for the presidency, so don't throw any charges of racism at me. I have written repeatedly on this blog that if Obama won the nomination, I'd not only vote for him but support him in every way possible. But I've concluded in recent days, as have so many others, that if Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee I will sit this race out. I will never vote for John McCain, but I will also not vote for Obama. Nothing that I have learned so far gives me confidence that an Obama presidency would be superior. So I'll vote for every Democrat possible on the down slate, but I won't endorse a movement so wrong-headed and wrong-hearted.

My heart is breaking. I truly thought that after two terms of the Bush administration, that Democrats were ready to lead the nation in another, better direction. I feel lost among my own party. But I'm a patriot above all, and I don't like what I see happening. God help us.