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

[Independent voter]

More misandrist whining from hillary's harpies. GAG ME!

Smeagol didn't give up until the end either, but like clinton was not electable from the get go.

[Michealene]

I wonder if you would be saying this if I never mentioned who I was supporting and talked about 2 things. Misogny and our Democracy. Would you have really read what I was trying to say?

[Michale32086]

With all due respect, Ma'am...

Yes.. There was sexism in the campaign.. Just as yes.. There was racism in the campaign..

However, Obama didn't win BECAUSE of racism..

Clinton didn't lose BECAUSE of sexism..

Obama made the rules work FOR him..

Clinton tried to CHANGE the rules for her..

That is why Obama won and Clinton lost.

It's really that simple...

Michale...­.

[Pfellah]

You talk about fair and honest elections -- I would think conducting the entire contest by the rules you established at the start is Rule #1A. We have one candidate who is trying to win the nomination by the rules set out at the beginning of the contest, and one who keeps trying to tweak the rules and move the finish line to something more advantageous, and the latter is the champion of fair democracy?

It's pledged delegates. Not battleground states, not a hand-picked subset of the popular vote (that doesn't include caucus states your opponent won), not "hard-working whites", and certainly not going back and trying to retroactively lawyer votes out of states you previously agreed wouldn't count.

Perhaps the Dems should use an all-or-nothing system within each state to more closely align with the general election. Perhaps a mistake was made in choosing such a drastic penalty in the Florida and Michigan decisions. But those decisions were made well before the campaign started and both candidates agreed to it. Once the race started, those are the rules. Even my pre-teen kids know you don't get to change the rules just because you're losing.

[ss1834]

The funny thing is, I have still not heard ANY Clinton supporter give me logical rationale for why Michigan and Florida should be counted. Let's restate the facts here again:

1. Michigan and Florida DNCs knowingly and willfully broke national party rules.
2. Both Clinton and Obama agreed NOT to campaign in these states
3. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot for Michigan
4. ONLY when it became clear that Clinton was going to lose, did she ask that "all votes be counted."

For one minute, do you really believe Clinton would care about these votes if she was ahead??? Get real.

But let's say, just for the sheer madness of it all, that we can all agree the votes should be counted in some way or another. Why in the world would the Michigan results stand if Obama wasn't even on the ballot? It makes absolutely no sense.

Please people, the logic is REALLY simple here. My 12-year old daughter gets it. And I guarantee you, she is neither pro-Obama or anti-feminist.

[4President]

You are as responsible for this mess as the Clinton campaign itself. Stop trying to hold the democratic party up to some constitutionally morale high ground. As they have for decades, they may choose their representatives anyway they like. We as citizens can vote in Government Elections for a candidate of any party, or unaffiliated with any party. We cannot act as though the Democratic Party, a private organization, owes the citizens of the United States a vote in their nominating contest. If you are so disaffected by a party's choice, choose a different party, choose to start a movement, but stop pretending that someone is having a right violated.

It is more simple than that!

Did anyone really want John Kerry as the nominee?

[writewoman]

So .... what would you do as DNC party chairman if each state decided to hold its primary whenever it felt like it? Nothing? Or would you make a decision (along with members of the appropriate committee) that tried to bring some order and fairness (imperfect ,of course, as is everything we humans do) to the process.

A meaningful sanction --- such as stripping the state of part or all of its delegates --- seems to me the only way of stopping a runaway state from upsetting the primary applecart. Furthermore, at the time of the decision, EVERY candidate agreed to abide by its terms.

Hmmmmn, I take that back. Seems like one candidate didn't really mean what she said at the time. Just as she later decided to ignore the parties' standard that winning depends on the number of delegates each candidate garners. If such behavior is your definition of "steely determiniation," I suggest you consult the dictionary and look up the phrase "scheming opportunis­t."

Hillary Clinton has made me ashamed of my gender instead of proud of it. I see her supporters advancing irrational, emotional and frankly, hate-filled arguments that make me cringe. And to compare the DNC to the dectatorship of Zimbawe is just plain embarassing.

So ... if I may paraphrase your canddidate,"Shame on you, Michealene Cristini Risley, meet me in Denever!"

[SamThornton]

It appears I may not be alone in being confused by the line(s) of reasoning in this post. Tossing out the red herring of comparing the political chaos in a third-world country to our political process, then drawing the willy-nilly conclusion that the DNC needs therefore to violate its own rules by assigning 100% representation to Florida and Michigan delegations seems particularly inchoate.

Then there are the "waves of misogyny" which the author merely mentions as if they actually exist. And then "feminism.­" I'm not sure from the post whether the author considers herself a feminist or not, or whether she considers this a good thing or a bad thing, or whether she can even define what a "feminist" is.

Back to the drawing board, Michaelene Cristini Risley. Maybe an editor would help.

[TheHoobie]

Ms. Risley,

I have to say I'm having trouble following the thread of your argument in this post. Was the repetition of the paragraph about your husband a typo? I am not quite sure what "Chi Fu must have had a lot of sons" means, especially coming from a woman with three sons. Do you mean that he must have a lot of descendants on the DNC RBC (half of whose members are **women**)? I'd be happy to read any clarifications of this article.

I have a question about your question:

"Who decided that wealth and status and power-were the way to operate within the party?

I agree that the party should not operate this way. But who began this endless primary season with more wealth and status and power within the party: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

As to your statement that "Isn't it time that 51% of Americans voices get heard?" I can only respond that Senator Clinton does not speak for me or for millions of other women who support Senator Obama, and I am getting more and more tired of assertions and assumptions that Senator Clinton speaks for me simply because we are both women. I assure you that she did not speak for me when she referenced "hardworking Americans, white Americans" or when she brought up RFK's assassination, comments that were at best incredibly insensitive and were at worst incitements to racism and chaos.

[RabidRightRebel]

Talk about a fairy tale. Now the reason why Clinton should continue is because a Disney female character did not quit.

Listen I do not in the care that the Senator is a woman, what I do care about is her suggesting that McCain would be a better President than Senator Obama and her earlier kneecapping strategy. Over the last month she has grown in strength and shown a lot more character but that does not undue her earlier misdeeds. While I am willing to go as far as to say that had she campaigned in the positive manner that she is doing now throughout the campaign, she quite possibly would have won, but she didn't and now she has to except her loss. But that loss is not so bad, to lose to a candidate as exceptional as Senator Obama is nothing to be ashamed of.

Not only has she shown that a woman can be a very viable Presidential candidate she as also shown the Democratic party how to connect with poor white voters. For both of these things she deserves our thanks. Let's hope that she does not squander that thanks by being a poor loser.

[4President]

Grown in character? I have to take offense. Character is not being the first mainstream candidate to tout her superiority with the racial majority. Character is not suggesting that a presidential nominee may be killed during the course of an election, regardless at what point in the election it may occur. Character is not adopting principle or cause for political purposes (Note we haven't heard about that Gas Tax legislation she was promising a month ago). 52 people were killed in the aftermath of the Zimbabwe elections. Blacks were kept from voting decades after being afforded the 'right to vote' via poll taxes, intimidation, etc. Senator Clinton has shown her character in the past several weeks, but it has been shrinking. Her approval ratings are proof enough!

[MzTexas]

Why did you expect a candidate who has continued to win and win big to "quit"? Where is the logic in that thought? You guys have been listening to MSNBC too much.

[RThM]

How is it that Clinton lost the race to collect delegates if she continued to win and win so big? Or would your "logic" have us believe that ONLY states in which Clinton won were to be counted and NONE where she lost? That's just plain stupid and sane voters are over such drivel. The fact is that they both side won some states, as a whole, and both sides lost some states, as a whole. But Obama accumulated more delegates over time during the process than Clinton and now he has the nomination. The voters have spoken.

[Michale32086]

Just to make sure everyone is clear.

There is no Constitutional right to vote in a party primary.

There is no federal law or state law that gives people the right to vote in a party primary.

The DNC and the GOP are private organizations and any election they run, the ONLY rules are the rules agreed upon between the DNC/GOP and it's members.

If the DNC or the GOP want to say that only green-eyed Vulcan males can vote, then there is nothing in the US Constitution or Federal or State law that can prevent it.

Michale...­..

[Citizenofreality]

You ask "WHO CHANGED THE RULES?" I'll be happy to tell you who changed the rules, one of the people who "changed" the rules is named Harold Ickes, a prominent member of Senator Clinton's campaign team. In August of last year as a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee Mr. Ickes voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates if they held their Primaries early. Mr Ickes said, "We stripped them of all their delegates in order to prevent campaigns to campaign." Terry McAuliffe another prominent member of Senator Clinton's campaign team screamed at Carl Levin in 2004 when he suggested moving up Michigan's primary, "If you do that, the whole system collapses! The rules are the rules." Funny isn't it how they were on one side of the issue until it became apparent they might need these delegates. I wonder to at how an election can be called an election when there is only one candidate on the ballot? That is exactly what occurred in Michigan.

[Veeve]

"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.­"

This is an abject lie and if the author had one ounce of intellectual honesty, she'd admit it.

Hillary lost. If you were supporting her, it feels awful. I empahize.

[cheforacle]

I do and have cared about Zimbabwe for a while. What is going on there is horrific. The fact that you would attempt to compare the FLA and MI primary problems with that indicates you have no idea how serious that problem is there. And BTW, Clinton supporters voted last year to take the delegates away from those states when they broke the rules. Their delegates will be there only with less of a say. As for the notion that the delegates in either of those states actually represent the will of those who both did vote and those who would have had the DNC and all of the candidates not said it didn't count, we'll never know.

[Countess]

After what we have witnessed during this campaign I regret having defended the Clintons when the right wing attacked them especially now realizing how reactionary she really is.

[hopeless277]

Hillary lies, cheats and steals. If that's what kind of president you want for your country, please move somewhere else. 70% of this country has had enough of that kind of 'leadership'.

[broilinginhouston]

Okay, let's see if I can get this straight. Because Florida and Michigan, as a consequence of violating party rules for the conduct of their primaries, are allowed half the votes they're otherwise entitled, that somehow equates this country with Zimbabwe. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Primaries (and caucuses) are a recent innovation in our presidential selection process. As recently as forty years ago, only a small minority of convention delegates were picked by voters. The nomination process was largely un-democratic, carried out in smoke-filled rooms and similar venues. If the unseating of a handful of delegates from two states is "Zimbabwean" in scope, then what are we to make of the political process that prevailed in our republic for almost two centuries? Under you're reasoning, it's a wonder that half the country didn't swim for Mexico!

Perspective, Ms. Risley. You need some perspective. Without it, we just look ridiculous.

[MzTexas]

The voters did not violate party rules, their legislatures did. Depriving anyone the opportunity to be a part of the U.S. election process is disgusting.

[OrangeSam]

Everyone will be part of the constitutionally mandated election process in November. No other federal elections are required or guaranteed by the Constitution. Got it?

[Lonestarmom]

The legislatutures were elected by the people...t­hey are the ones you should be angry with and vote out of office...t­hey represent the people so they are the ones who should pay with their jobs...The DNC has every right as a private political party to hold the states to the rules as they were set down over a year ago when NO ONE protested too much. This is not a voting issue but an issue for the state at the state level...

[SusaninIN]

No, they didn't, but they voted in a non-primary. You know one that wasn't sanctioned by the national committee and was held outside the time period allowed. You are right the voters didn't have a choice in this and I do feel for them, but I also feel for the ones who didn't get to vote for their preferred candidate, or didn't bother to vote being a non-primary, or voted Republican, or wrote in a vote which wasn't counted. By the way, if we are going to count all of the votes then shouldn't we also count the write-ins for Obama that were immediately disqualified and didn't show up in the primary counts? What about the caucas states who didn't turn in popular vote? Are they less important voters? And if the calendar is so unimportant, what about Collin Co, TX which the Clinton camapign is trying to have voided because they held their convention a day late trying to find a big enough place to accomodate the delegates? Oh, I know because Collin Co went to Obama. It's double standards like these that do not garner Clinton any sympathy.

[aftershock]

I assume you want to have all open primaries than correct? Because closing primaries to Republicans and Independents is "disenfranchising" in the same manner as giving a half delegation to both states (which I don't agree with, they should've gotten none), but I don't hear the Clitonistas wailing about the closed primaries that hurt Barack by disallowing Independent voters that would've helped him. This is about Clinton, and the Clintonites wanting to pad her delegate count at Obama's expense, nothing more nothing less. Claiming this "disenfran­chisement" argument is not only laughably silly, it's intellectually dishonest.

[gulopartisan]

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "deprived" is. Keeping in mind, for example, that HRC and her cronies think those of us who trudged to the caucus are not part of "the popular vote," that many people in MI and FL didn't vote because they were told the results would not matter, that Obama didn't campaign in FL because all the candidates pledged not to, and that Mr. Ickes' championing of voter rights all so coincidentally converges with a way to steal the nomination, I'm afraid I can't find a definition of "deprived" that fits. Oh wait. Did you mean to write "depraved"?