We Can Stop Ducking the Waves of Misogyny -- Our Democracy Teeters on the Brink.

Wake up America. We are so close to losing any semblance of democracy in our country. Yes our country. America. Think I exaggerate? Take a moment and think over the last eight years and then, think again.

In a recent blog I wrote about the election situation in Zimbabwe and the United States lack of action in a country that is violating human rights every moment of every day. A place so emotionally mutilated by a syphilitic dictator that Zimbabwe has bled an estimated one quarter of its population to neighboring countries. I kept asking why the world is standing still as this crisis unfolds: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michealene-cristini-risley/the-estimated-cost-of-hum_b_103772.html

When I posted my recent blog, I received a comment from a reader that really stuck me. It made me stop and think again about the meaning of democracy, and the current application of it in our country. The comments from mgloraine read:

"The US will not be in a position to help anyone conduct fair and honest elections if we cannot have a fair and honest election here. This is a source of tremendous frustration for liberals/progressives confronted with the dozens of active human rights horror shows taking place today. We want to urge our Congress and our government as a whole to take action against the brutality and we want the common people to have a voice in the running of their own country. But if we take our eyes off of the US elections for an instant, we can be robbed of our own voice - again!! And how can we point at Zimbabwean politicians beating the opposition into submission and cry "foul!" when the Maliki regime in Iraq -which the US installed - is doing the very same thing, brutalizing and killing Sadrist Shi'ites in Basra and Sadr City in order to rig their upcoming election results?

I'm not suggesting that American's shouldn't take action, but it's really difficult to see how we can intervene in Zimbabwe when our own democracy teeters on the brink."

Wow! Mgloraine, you are right. Our Democracy has been unraveling for some time...and so many of us like tiny ostriches stick our heads in the proverbial sand and chant "all is okay, all is okay" Well, it's not.

I looked up the origin of the word Democratic in the dictionary -- just in case the definition had changed. I read this: "Democratic is characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization."

So my first question is directed to the Democratic National Committee. How could you possibly have made a decision-especially after the 2004 election-that would prohibit a single vote from being counted? Where does that arrogance come from? In Florida, how could you not take into consideration that the vote was set by the Republican dominated legislature? Sound familiar? Hmmm.

Once again Florida is part of a "potential situation" in the Presidential election. Only the Republicans didn't to push their own agenda, the Democratic National Committee did it for them! Can you imagine the glee echoing down the hallways of the Republican National headquarters on Our Democratic strategy? Yes, there is an "s" word involved with the DNC and it rhymes with cupid.

After Saturdays decision to give both Michigan and Florida's votes a ½ vote, many people are unhappy. For me, it is not about Obama or Clinton right now, it is about our system and how we are failing to operate as a Democracy. I have read that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want the process to be over. So what. Who are they? Elected officials. We have forgotten what the word "elected" means.

Frankly, I am so tired of the word "feminism" used as a derogatory smear. The fact that I support Senator Clinton -- can I not be a supporter without being brandished as a feminist. Frankly, I could care less what sexual organs are attached to her being. To me she is the best candidate, period.

In the dictionary feminism is defined as attributed to women, considered to be a characteristic of, or in grammar it is used to represent a class of words or forms that refer to being female. That's it. How did it become such a repugnant slam against a gender? I am happily married women with three young, terrific boys. I don't burn my bras; I care about my husband, my family and my community. I care about issues having to do with all of us; women and men.

In fact I just celebrated my 15th wedding anniversary. My husband has been written about often in my blog and is a terrific man. We have had our ups and downs but have had the grace and the courage to work through issues. Golly -- we even talk about the issues. He is a Republican by voting record and I am a Democrat on paper. We have many a "lively" discussion on how he could have possibly voted for President Bush twice. And we laugh. He many not support my candidate but he never invalidates it as a feminist choice.

I went to the Democratic Party's website: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html
The Democratic Party boasts "A national vision-based on the strength and power of millions of economically empowered, socially diverse and politically active Americans. - our Party's founders decided that wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule." Silly me, and I thought wealth was a prerequisite to running for President!"

And if that is not enough for you to cough up your last meal, the website continues with "The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream."

Wow. Sign me up! Our founders decided that wealth and status was not an entitlement to rule-that each of us can earn a piece of the American Dream, that all of us have a voice. So when did the Democratic Party lose site of that initial charter? Who decided that wealth and status and power-were the way to operate within the party? Who changed the rules? I wonder how long ago did this country lost it way? How truly different are we than Zimbabwe or South Africa or even Russia? I am scared of the answer.

Remember the Disney movie, Mulan, where a young girl disguises herself as a man to save her father from going back to the Chinese Army to fight against the Huns. She realizes that her father is old and weak. Her fear is if he goes to war, he will never return alive. Mulan decides to put her life at risk and pretend to be a man. Chi Fu, a cabinet member of the Emperor discovers that Mulan is a woman-This is after she has saved the whole battalion from certain death.

Never mind her heroism, Chi fu drags her out of the tent and throws the wounded girl into the snow saying, she is a "Woooman". Oh my God! As Mulan lies in the snow, Chi Fu goes over her crimes, and speaks as if he is looking at the most vile, poisonous snake in existence. A snake that betrayed them and nothing short of death would ease her transgressions.

I would have given up on this race 1,000 times -- but not Senator Clinton. I see her push forward with steely resolve and commitment -- with a focus on the end goal. Traits that for me define women in our history that have risked their lives to create a better country. Isn't it time that 51% of Americans voices get heard? Frankly, no matter what candidate you vote for, all Americans should be heard.

So why do I care so much about Zimbabwe? The situation there is horrific and overwhelming. I care about another country, because I can have impact. I have more impact halfway around the world than I do in my own country. Teetering on the brink-indeed. Chi fu must have had a lot of sons.

Follow Michealene Cristini Risley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@mcrisley

Comments

[FogCityJohn]

Everyone should remember that posts like this are part of a coordinated strategy on the part of the Clinton campaign to delegitimize Obama's victory in the primary. As is typical of most pro-Clinton posters, the author simply ignores the facts. In Florida, the state legislature voted overwhelmingly to move the state's primary to before February 5th. The Democrats went along willingly, and video of the whole travesty has been posted here on this site. In Michigan, the issue would never had arisen had Clinton supporter, Gov. Granholm, not pushed to have the primary moved up. This was in no way simply a Republican hit job.

Also unmentioned here is that Clinton's supporters on the DNC were UNANIMOUS in voting to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. And this includes Clinton attack dog Harold Ickes.

I realize that ALL of my points have been made many times before. But insisting that people confront the facts is the only way to counter the mendacity of posters like this, who seek to accuse either Obama or the DNC of somehow "disenfranchising" voters. Bill Clinton once famously said, "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on." He and his wife (and posters like this one) are clearly using that fact to their advantage now.

[jmpurser]

Thank you and keep up the good work. I'm tired of seeing wacko blogs like this and it's good to see a meaningful response to remind people what happened in the real world.

[strifeknot]

Hillary did not lose the nomination because she has vagina, and our democracy is not teetering on the brink because the DNC didn't give Hillary the nomination on a silver platter. She earned fewer votes and fewer delgates. Get over it.

[SamiNJ]

If i hear one more time that it's the Republican legislatures fault in Florida and the Dems had no choice,.... I am going to scream! that shows you just are a headline reader and do not research. It's false. Look it up,... listen to every chance the Florida Dems had to right the situation and yet they chose to go along to be one of the first. It's a disgrace. Enough with the victim talk. You claim to be a Democrat yet you want Clinton who has been the most divisive along with her surrogates against her own party members. All in the name of what is fair. Pick at the scab that was 2000 gore v bush..... An aboslute Disgrace and you will be lucky if she is welcome back into the fold. I for one hope she is because our party benefits from having a fighter in the ranks... not everyone can be soft-spoken Harry Reid. But my God in heaven above.....Mulan?!?!? Are you kidding me? Clinton's campaign was an arrogant misstep after arrogant misstep.

[zippywpinhead]

just ask them why a Dem would introduce a bill that he or she was opposed to- ask them why they all voted for it, too. And when they reply with the lame rejoinder about the paper trail amendment, ask them why they simply didn't attach it to another bill, rather than voting as if if this was the only chance they would ever have to decide the issue. Ask them how much sense it makes to vote for an amendment that facilitates vote accountability when it's attached to a bill that nullifies those very same votes by making their primary not count. Ask them also about the good faith clause in the DNC rules that would've given them an out had they voted against the bill, even had they lost that vote (so much for the big, bad Republicans pushed us around theory)...

[Dadoodaman]

For the last time: the Republican-led FL legislature did not force the early primary date without the express complicity of the Democratic legislators.

Seating ANY delegates in MI and FL was a GIFT to those states AND Hillary.

Seating delegates on any basis other than 50/50 was a GIFT to Hillary.

The "primaries" held were completely unreliable. They reflect the choice of those who went to vote a) on the property tax item on the ballot and/or b) chose to vote even though they were told the vote wouldnb't count. What slice of the population does THAT represent? a) people with property and b) who the heck knows?

Get a grip on the facts. Review before re-taking the exam. Next.

[Seeker5]

How does huffingtonpost.com decide which articles to include on its website? Regardless of the author's political views, this is simply a poor piece of writing.

It's like a English Comp 101 submission. The points don't follow from one to the next; outrageous conclusions are "based" on unrelated premises. Further, the author displays either a lack of factual understanding regarding many of her central issues or a cynical disregard of those facts. She therefore treats as forgone many conclusions that are instead absurd: i.e., the claim that the recent decision of the leadership of the Democratic political party on how it should enforce its internal primary rules is of a kind with the general election fiasco in 2000 (only similar on the most superficial level); the claim that the democratic system in this country is not very different from that in "Zimbabwe or South Africa or even Russia" (is there a better way to flag a blatant emotional appeal than lumping the U.S. in with dictatorships?--other than referencing Nazi Germany, of course); and the claim that wealth, status, and power control the outcome of the Democratic party primary (surely a surprise to Senator Clinton who held commanding lead in these categories at the beginning of this process). Finally, the author's finale--and the only apparent support for the titular "waves of misogyny" she evidently sees in this campaign--is a reference to the unfairness of Disney cartoon set in China's feudal past.

Talk about a fairytale.

[Raven]

You're right about one thing, Michealene.

Our democracy does indeed teeter on the brink.

We have an idiotic and insane president who has established systematic torture, abolished habeus corpus, lied his way into an illegal war of aggression, and disgraced us as Americans around the world. And despite all her claims of leadership, your candidate hasn't lifted a single solitary finger to stop any of it.

We are, indeed, in a heap of trouble.

None of it, of course, relates in any way to the nonsense you're spinning here about Hillary's shameful campaign to change the rules midcourse.

Except that she has been and continues to be part of the problem. In the case of the unsanctioned primaries in Florida and Michigan, her hypocrisy is shockingly transparent.

Americans are sick and tired of politicians manipulating the truth in our name.

And that, Michealene, goes for your candidate as much as anyone.

If you'd really like to do something to save our democracy, please do it. But here's a hint: this is not the way.

[PuppaX]

1) America is not a democracy.

2) The Democratic Party is not a democracy.

3) No one argues that ideally everyone's vote should count. In this case, though, Hillary is saying the opposite. She is the one pushing to disenfranchise the "uncommitted" voters in Michigan - people who actually showed up JUST TO VOTE AGAINST HER. By not protesting this ruling last August she disenfranchised all of the people who never had their voices heard (because they didn't vote) and never got to know the candidates. Not until it was too late for Obama to introduce himself to these voters did she begin her protests.

I do agree that the initial ruling by the DNC was foolish; I think they should have halved votes like the Republicans did, thereby penalizing those states while still giving them attention from each candidate.

[paganmist]

They threatened to halve the votes.

It was ineffective.

The Democratic leadership of MI and FL didn't *care* about losing their delegates. In video footage of the hearing, they were smug and treated the sanction as if it was a joke. Debbie Weisermann Schultz shrugged it off with an, "Oh well, the nominee will probably seat the delegates at the Convention."

The only thing that mattered to them was that the state had an "impact" on the race before everyone else, and voters be damned.

[PuppaX]

I understand that they would have gone ahead with the primary anyway, but it would have still have offered a deterrent to other states without taking it out on the voters.

[DeMaria]

One thing I disagree with about your depiction of the unfairness of MI and FL. We probably need to revisit the current rules and find a better way to organize our primaries, but the current rules were the rules in place, and MI and FL knowingly violated them, knowing the consequences. So where do we draw the line?

On the subject of democracy itself, I couldn't agree more that ours is in serious trouble. It's not just that the current pay to get elected system is anything but "free" and certainly not equal as defined in your dictionary, but there's another missing component that may not be in the dictionary, but would be in a more lengthy examination of what democracy is. And that missing element is an informed electorate - something we have not had certainly in the years since 1999 where we have been lied to, mislead and misdirected again and again. You can't say that we have an informed electorate now, and every time a candidate lies or uses diversionary tactics to fool people and distract them from the issues, or uses propaganda to make our process a single-issue contest, we lose... democracy loses.

An informed electorate and a free and equal participation.

And Mrs. Clinton is not innocent of the kinds of tactics that divide and distract or flat-out lie. That is the saddest part of this whole story.

[paganmist]

How dare you?

How *dare* you?

You refer to Zimbabwe to describe what's happened here? How DARE you? Can you truly be so ignorant as to believe that these things have even a *slender* basis for comparison?

http://www.mrsuper.org/2008/05/florida-michiga.html

The above is a well-documented time-line of how this Two-State Fiasco came into being. It details:

How, when Michigan protested the nominating order in 2002, the DNC created a committee to ascertain the fairness of the nominating order, and to work out fair solutions for all states;

How *all* states were allowed to apply for an early slot in 2008 via petitions and proposals detailing why it would be beneficial to them;

How of the 11 states that submitted applications requesting an early slot and stating their case, Florida couldn't be bothered to;

How when the 2008 nominating order was decided by Fair and Democratic process, ALMOST EVERY STATE agreed that the four early states would be Iowa, S. Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada. The only state that voted against... was New Hampshire!

Where has Democracy failed the people of Michigan and Florida?

- The DNC worked for over a year with Michigan and Florida to craft primaries that would fall within the nominating order that these two states HELPED DRAFT!

- The DNC offered Florida $880,000 to help them set up a primary process within the party's guidelines!

[paganmist]

(cont.)

Furthermore, these were not shady, back room deals - there was news coverage of these proceedings. There were hearings which could be attended by the constituents of Michigan and Florida. At any time, the voters of Michigan and Florida could have taken their wayward Democratic delegation to task. For *years* these Americans - graced with beautiful Democracy - could have spoken up, protested, *changed* what they didn't like.

Without fear of being beaten, raped, or killed!

Democracy has not failed the Democrats of Michigan and Florida.

Nor have the DNC or the Democratic Party.

They have failed themselves.

They failed to elect leadership with a desire to preserve their precious privilege to vote in their party's primary, for it is a *privilege* to vote in a *party primary* -- not a right.

They failed to cherish their rights by exercising them, and dare complain about something they could have prevented!

They failed to take their leadership to task! EVEN NOW, at this very instant, they STILL refuse to hold their state leadership accountable!

To compare the folly of these voters and their leadership to Zimbabwe, to the struggle for Civil Rights, to slavery - SLAVERY!

To make those comparisons, Ms. Risley, is beyond wrong. It is *disgusting*.

It is morally and ethically reprehensible. It belittles and devalues the lives and heritage of millions of men and women. I don't have words strong enough.

I keep thinking, with fists clenched:

How *DARE* you?

[AllaboutME]

Stop crying. I am a Latino woman and I am really begining to believe that White Feminst really have a sense of white entitlement.

Get over your yourselves as white women moved into the workforce, much of that caretaking work did not go to white men who sort of took up and helped out, but it fell on women of color—African American women, immigrant women—who stepped in to do much of the domestic labor and childcare provision, so that white women could in fact become a part of the workforce. So to, for example, make an argument like black men had the right to vote long before white women is to ignore that black men were then lynched regularly for any attempt to actually exercise that right.

[SamiNJ]

As a white woman myself, I say AMEN! There was a great entry by someone to that exact point about Latino and African American women in the workplace... If i find it I will link it. I agree wholeheartedly. This whole sense of unfairness to Clinton in the media or by men or "self-hating' women themselves is just cringe-worthy. It's an insult to actual sexism, racism and the like. Just remarkable that Hillary Clinton is the posterchild for the poor unfortunate woman in the man's world. What a load of crap. She should be the poster child for NEPOTISM.

[Pupster]

Yeah, what other candidate for the president brags about their "lifetime of experience" of being someone's wife. Her first -- FIRST -- elective office was 7 years ago, which was bought on the coattails of her husband's term, his donors and his pardon of Puerto Rican terrorists to win the PR vote in NY.

Everything she has in politics has been handed to her for who she was married to. Is that not entitlement?

[Siryn]

Where was this kind of commentary last year, after ALL the candidates, HRC included, approved of the punishment? There was no "civil rights" discourse about the infraction of the party rules then. In fact, it wasn't on HRC's radar until she realized she had a potential source of votes.

[gulopartisan]

SImply logging the truth, please: I've never heard anyone object to HRC's candidacy on the grounds that she is a woman. Not once. It's a bit like OJ and Tyson screaming "racism" 'cause we don't like 'em.

And comparing the election problems in America to those of countries where candidates are routinely murdered and citizens are butchered on the streets is precisely the sort of "How about MY pain?" narcissism that stereotypes white feminists. Being patronized does not equal being beaten, raped, or murdered. Believe me, you'd see the differences early in the latter. Live with it.

[charley0008]

What absolute, self serving, thoughtless nonsense!
The real tragedy that is Zimbabwe today is deserving of much more earnest consideration than the shallow disregard you show by using it to illustrate your 'emotional, 'over the top', unfounded whine about your lack of 'influence' here at home.
Your silly suggestion that you could have more influence in Zimbabwe rather than your own country shows a breathtaking depth of ignorance and disregard for reality.
Intervening in another country, or even assisting in another country, is complex, fraught with danger & almost overwhelming problems, not to mention a tide of human suffering that at times feels like it will engulf you. I have been there!
I am a feminist. Proud of it.
But women like you make me absolutely nuts, when you resort to self indulgent whining & over the top comparisons. We are talking about representation to a damn Convention!
Not quite the same as being hacked to death by a machete when you try to vote!
Further if you want to whine at least have the grace to get your facts right. the Dem. Party of Florida, requested the change & supported the GOP date even though they were advised by the DNC not to do it. The Republican party also penalized Florida by taking away half of their delegation so you & the rest of Florida were not singled out.
If you want to whine, carry on. But leave the tragedy of Zimbabwe & other countries out of it, their

[JimR]

"my first question is directed to the Democratic National Committee. How could you possibly have made a decision-especially after the 2004 election-that would prohibit a single vote from being counted? Where does that arrogance come from?"

Oh give me a break. First, MI and FL broke the rules on setting primary dates. Talk about arrogance! And they were punished for it. And Ickes and Clinton agreed with that punishment. Why should those states be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, the other states be damned (though you could say the same about IA and NH, but I digress)?

Second, let's not pretend that all votes count in primaries. In several states, if you are a registered independent, YOU CAN'T VOTE! Where's the faux outrage over that?

Third, I think it's important to make a distinction. We are not electing a president right now. What we are electing is a party nominee for the general election, during which everyone gets a vote. That is when it is very important to make sure all votes count.

And finally, remember the superdelegates? Their votes carry much more weight than that of your average primary voter. "One person, one vote?" More like "one person, one delegate," which is equal to thousands of popular votes. That hardly sounds representative. But I bet if Hillary Clinton got enough superdelegates to overturn Obama's lead in pledged delegates, which does come from the popular vote, that you would be OK with that.

[Michealene]

Listen, I agree that they broke the rules. I think that both candidates agreed to abide by the decision. I think the end result here is lousy not for either campaign but for the democratic party. I am talking about earlier in the process-that the DNC did not think through the implications of what they were doing. Your other points are well taken and frankly the whole delegate issue, the independent voter not being able to vote unless designating a specific party-I am outraged I just didn't include them all in the article. You are hearing me only as a supporter of Clinton, that is not WHAT this article is about. All of this issues are really critical issues that disenfranchise potential voters.

[Michale32086]

It's important to note that Harold Ickes stated himself that the ONLY REASON they are championing FL and MI now and not before is because now, they are behind..

"What has changed is that now we are behind."
-Harold Ickes

That's a quote and it shows the lack of integrity of the Clinton campaign.

Michale.....

[TheHoobie]

Ms. Risley,

When you ask “Who decided that wealth and status and power-were the way to operate within the party?” I ask “Who had more wealth and status and power within the party at the beginning of this endless primary: Senator Clinton or Senator Obama?”

When you say “Isn't it time that 51% of Americans voices get heard?” after having said “The fact that I support Senator Clinton-can I not be a supporter without being brandished as a feminist?” and “...he never invalidates [my choice] as a feminist choice” I have to wonder: Who is defining your choice as feminist more than you are yourself?

To the question “Isn't it time that 51% of Americans voices get heard?” I respond that Senator Clinton does not speak for me or for millions of other women who support Senator Obama. I am getting very tired of the assertion and assumption that Senator Clinton speaks for me simply because we are both women. I assure you that she in no way spoke for me when she talked about “hardworking Americans, white Americans” or referenced RFK’s assassination, comments that at best were incredibly insensitive and at worst incitements to racism and chaos.

I don’t understand the point of your last sentence (“Chi fu must have had a lot of sons.”). Are you implying that Chi Fu must have a lot of male descendants on the DNC RBC, half of whose members are **women**?

[Michealene]

Yes, I totally agree that Clinton had more money. The point was, that is not what our democracy was founded on. Funny, this must of touched a cord because I keep getting emails about Clinton Vs. Obama. This is not what this article is about.

I think it is lousy that most of our presidential candidates come about because they have the money to run-NO MATTER WHO IT IS.

In terms of feminist-look in the paper and on television. People who are supporting Senator Clinton are being labeled-this. I didn't make it up.

[TheHoobie]

Ms. Risley:

Again, I'm afraid I don't understand your logic. You agree that Clinton had more money ($250 million at the start of the primary race, as I understand). Then you must agree that Obama had less. To my mind, the front-runner status of the candidate who paid off his student loans, like, YESTERDAY, and who is funding his campaign with $25 and $50 donations from "small donors" like me---NOT the candidate who has $109 million in the bank---is a huge blow and a VICTORY against the idea that you must be wealthy to run for president. So, yes, I see Obama's candidacy as much more closely representing, *by your own definition,* the principles our democracy was founded on.

(Plus, starting off $250 million and then needing to loan her campaign $20 million does not give me confidence in Clinton's fiscal management skills.)

Also, you misunderstand me. I never questioned your assertion that Clinton supporters are being dismissed as simply "feminist." NOR did I imply, as you seem to do, that the feminist label is a "bad" thing---worthy of being refuted rather than proudly owned. I only questioned something that looked odd to me---your irritation with being dismissed as though your choice was "merely feminist" while writing things like "Isn't it time that 51% of Americans voices get heard?," as though women were a monolithic voting bloc. Once again, I assure you that Senator Clinton does not speak for THIS woman.

[TheHoobie]

Also, you never answered my question about Chi Fu and his all-powerful sons.