IMHO, the Clintons really damaged their legacy in the past five months. But good luck to them now, and good luck to us all.

Don't forget the "contribute" link at the bottom of the email!

Clintons really damaged their legacy

I have to disagree. But whatever... Time to put the anger where it belongs.

I heard a clip of her speaking at AIPAC yesterday and she used the words "Barack Obama will be a good..."
One can question whether she waited too long -- but Jeebus, people, she got half the friggin' votes! -- but it sounds as if she's going to bow out with class.
As it happens, I voted for someone else. But she was as good as any of them.

Re: the Clinton legacy. A year from now, win or lose, I hope we'll remember that time in the 90's when we had a President who could travel overseas and be greeted by cheering crowds.
Who knows? It could happen again.

I hope you were authorized to release this information!

In any case, the time for healing and rebuilding of unity has at last arrived.

Supporters of the Democratic ticket need to put top priority on preventing the Republicans from stealing the third presidential election in a row by means of voter disenfranchisement and fraud. The Republicans have learned a lot from 2000 and 2004 about how to successfully perpetrate such a theft, and they are gearing up to do it again this year.

It will be a close election, and McCain doesn't need to win it to become president -- he only needs to get close enough to steal it.

The other priority for supporters of the Democratic ticket must be finding a way to counter the propaganda of the corporate media, which, like Republican Party, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. and will use all of the mighty resources at its disposal to aid McCain's campaign (ignoring his lies, trumpeting the fake phony "maverick independent straight-shooter war hero" BS stereotypes) while conducting an onslaught of character assassination against Obama.

America's corporate rulers want their man McCain in the White House and will use the mass media that they own and control -- the media from which most Americans get most of their information -- to ensure that result.

Yeah, yeah. Bygones. Now, Hillary, get out of the way.

If the word narcissism didn't exist, we'd have to invent it to cover this exit.

Either candidate would make a good leader, as would Edwards, Clark, and many other Dems. Obama has the charisma, but Dems will need to be UNITED to fight the slime coming his way. But the slime would come no matter WHO was nominated.

Just remember as you read the blogs, many of the vicious negative posts are probably from repug trolls. That's all they've got this time around. They've got nothing but psych-ops to try to keep us down. Don't let them do it.

People who think someone should NOT run for President accuse the candidate of narcissism: Clinton, Nader, etc, Romney, etc. Those who are supported of course are just simply magnificent heroes out to save the world.

Cut out the narcissism crap. All the candidates are full of themselves, which is why they are running for President. What does Obama have that a thousand other people don't? Or McCain? Our approval of their candidacy is what. Nothing else.

They are all political hacks and self-loving. Face it and get real, and cut out the self-indulgent self-justifying pyschobabble..

In any case, the time for healing and rebuilding of unity has at last arrived.

No, let's smirk and gloat a little more and tell the old folks how glad we are they're dying, shall we?

A gracious concession email from Sen. Clinton. Onward to the main battle against Green Jello Man!

http://tinyurl.com/5j2mc8

Is she ending it, or just suspending it?
I will believe it when I see it.

IMHO, the Clintons really damaged their legacy in the past five months

The Big Dog's plummeting favorability ratings in polls strongly support this notion. But in five or 10 or 20 years...who knows? A little time, a little perspective...he could rebound quite a bit.

"I wanted you to be one of the first to know..."

And how many other millions of people got this, and were "one of the first to know"?

And how many other millions of people got this, and were "one of the first to know"?

If I'm Barack Obama, I let Hillary Clinton choose the vice-presidential nominee -- on the condition that it can't be her. Give Hillary a list of potential veeps (including people who were in her camp) and let her select one. Moreover, make this public; throw the ball in her lap. Is her campaign about ideas, or is it merely about herself, her ego?

This way, Obama takes the high road and lets her participate...but he defines the terms, making it about what she stands for, not about her. As it should be.

The group that was destroyed over the past five months?

The netroots.

Good job guys.

You showed the netroots was no different from the Christian Fundamentalists in how you were willing to listen to conspiracy theories and paint people you disagreed with as murderers, dupes, traitors, and in this case racists.

You showed the netroots was quite willing to back biased media, and you were quite willing to push the talking points of the day down, regardless of the truth of those talking points. Even now, many in the netroots think that Clinton was saying or claiming or insinuating that Obama was a Muslim.

And you showed that regardless of how the netroots fought for social security, and health care, and to get us out of Iraq, and most notably, how the netroots fought for MORE partisanship, not less, you ditched all of those stands for the bipartisan unity schtick. I am hopeful this doesn't give us Joementum in the future.

As an actual progressive liberal, I am hopeful this will destroy the netroots. The behavior of many, Hilzoy included, was shameful, and ignorant.

So goes identity politics.

Even now, many in the netroots think that Clinton was saying or claiming or insinuating that Obama was a Muslim.

Which, as far as Clinton knows, he's not

[the netroots] ditched all of those stands for the bipartisan unity schtick.

Actually, the netroots was strongly behind Edwards until his campaign failed, and then gravitated to Obama, mostly because of the war. The netroots was practically founded as a response to Democrats' capitulation on the war, so even if Obama wasn't their first choice, Hillary was never going to be in their good graces.

The Democratic Party is not united right now and Obama and his supporters have a lot of work to do to heal the rift, I for one doubt that’s even possible. The Obama supporters are very hostile to other Democrats who are not true Obama believers which is not a good long term strategy. I suspect that cockiness will not go over well with swing voters either. Some are still very hostile but they can’t win in the general without us. As I’ve pointed out many times on the Huffington Post, which was a complete waste of time, Hillary and Barak split the primary vote almost even, he didn’t win in a landslide, but hard core Obama supporters speak and behave as if he did. They also believe Hillary supporters have no where else to go so they can continue with the hostility, they will not swing to McCain so they can continue to take us for granted. Big mistake…, they marginalize us and ignore history at their own peril. Hey Obama supporters, ever heard of Reagan Democrats?

So goes identity politics.

...which apparently are limited in your aggrieved thinking to race? Are you sure you want to go there, with the mile-wide trail of blog comments out there that frankly attribute posters' support of Clinton to her gender?

Accusations of "identity politics" too frequently are translatable into "I'm mad that my preferred demographic didn't win." You used to hear this crap mostly from white men who pompously believed that they always voted completely outside of demographic considerations and were terribly saddened by the obvious bias of minorities, women, gays and lesbians, etc. I suppose that having supporters of the female candidate un-self-consciously level this charge at supporters of the biracial candidate is, um, progress of a sort.

At any rate, the ill-behaved lunar episode doth protest too much. The netroots will survive this contentious primary season fairly intact, your hopeful predictions of gloom and doom notwithstanding.

Gamoboa - very intelligent analysis of the candidates and issues there. If you want to vote Republican just do it. For myself, I will go with the candidate whose stand on issues are closest to my own and generally won't be a screw-up as a president.

I was a Clinton supporter and between McCain and Obama, Obama is the only choice.

Gamboa - very intelligent analysis of the candidates and issues there. If you want to vote Republican just do it. For myself, I will go with the candidate whose stand on issues are closest to my own and generally won't be a screw-up as a president.

I was a Clinton supporter and between McCain and Obama, Obama is the only choice.

I'll wait till Saturday before I start singing Kumbaya....hope she sticks to her word.

As for her legacy, I think the primary season did hurt her. There were numerous cringe-inducing moments of pandering, ugly Rovian-style politics, hints of a Nixonian southern strategy, and of course the ever present ego. All of which lessened my desire to support her.

I'm sure her supporters will claim that Obama engaged in similar pandering or politics, but frankly I didn't see it that way. Obama never brought up race in the various ways the Hillary did. And he didn't try to link Hillary to nefarious individuals as Hillary did (Rezko, Farrakhan etc.), and Lord knows he could have. He never cozied up to the likes of Fox News or Richard Scaife. He didn't whine and play the victim at every turn. He didn't create 3am ads attempting to scare people to vote for him. And he certainly didn't compliment McCain while bashing Clinton.

But probably the one act that I still can't believe she attempted, and successfully got away with, is changing the rules of the nomination process after-the-fact. When she first mentioned that Michigan and Florida should be seated (after she won them and it was apparent she needed them to take the nomination of course), I was amazed at her chutzpah. But the fact that she actually got them to change the rules....well, I can't put into words how disillusioned I am with Hillary.

And her current attempt to strong-arm the VP slot isn't appealing either.

gomboa, the difference is that we wouldn't be writing what you wrote if Hillary had become the nominee. Mostly we would have brushed ourselves off, swallowed our pride, particularly over such an uber-hawk like Hillary, and voted for her.

A lot of people, I think, were drawn to Hillary because she was "the winner," and really don't understand that after you lose a primary, you pick up your pride, move on, and support the party's nominee (assuming you agree with the party's stance on the issues).

Please don't forget to notice how many of the paragraphs in that letter begin with the word "I".

No, I despise all identity politics, just as much as I despise your own apparent bias/disenfranchisement/bullying/dismissal of anything a caucasian male might say because you think it's related to their skin color or what you perceive as their elite position in the upper tiers of society or failing that, just their bigotry.

The democrats have to stand for all, equally, regardless of race creed gender color religion age or anything else.

So blow me, I'm white and Jewish and not qualified to have nonracist thoughts according to you.

No, I despise all identity politics, just as much as I despise your own apparent bias/disenfranchisement/bullying/dismissal of anything a caucasian male might say because you think it's related to their skin color or what you perceive as their elite position in the upper tiers of society or failing that, just their bigotry.

The democrats have to stand for all, equally, regardless of race creed gender color religion age or anything else.

So blow me, I'm white and Jewish and not qualified to have nonracist thoughts according to you.

Obama never brought up race in the various ways the Hillary did

June 15, 2007: The Obama campaign releases a memo referring to HRC as (D-Punjab). Among the things for which Obama campaign attacks HRC is her work founding the US Senate India Caucus. The campaign demands that the memo not be attributed to the Obama campaign.

You can make that statement about race as much as you want, you might even believe it, but it simply isn't true.

just as much as I despise your own apparent bias/disenfranchisement/bullying/dismissal of anything a caucasian male might say because you think it's related to their skin color or what you perceive as their elite position in the upper tiers of society or failing that, just their bigotry.

You also apparently despise reading comprehension. I didn't say, or even imply, that caucasian males' opinions should be dismissed, nor did I comment on "elitism" or "bigotry." (Goodness, but you've got a flair for the melodramatic.) What I said was that the "argument" you were presenting against "identity politics"--that is, accusing someone else of practicing them while being blind to your own--is something one usually used to hear mostly from white males oblivious to the fact that identity politics aren't just for the other guy; no one is wholly immune to them.

Or do you think we got 43 white, male, mostly Christian, straight (or closeted) presidents by a what-are-the-odds flip of the coin?

There was race-based voting in this campaign season and there was gender-based voting as well. Having hysterics over one while pretending the other doesn't exist (or being completely unable to discern it) says more about you than it does about what really went down the past few months.

He didn't create 3am ads attempting to scare people to vote for him.

You mean like the ad he put out in Ohio that said her health care proposal would force everyone to buy health insurance, regardless of ability to pay? Or when he slammed her for being fake on NAFTA, all the while assuring the Canadians it was just politics?

... The Obama campaign releases a memo referring to HRC as (D-Punjab). Among the things for which Obama campaign attacks HRC is her work founding the US Senate India Caucus.

You can make that statement about race as much as you want, you might even believe it, but it simply isn't true.

The memo was stupid & offensive, though not for the reason you're claiming. The "D-Punjab" reference was a stupid attempt to create a link between Clinton's work on the Senate India Caucus & the offshoring of American jobs. It was offensive to Clinton, in all fairness, because it's a gross misrepresentation of her work, but it wasn't racist. It was, in fact, based on a joke that Clinton told at a fundraiser hosted by an Indian-American supporter:

"I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily, after being introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab."

The Obama campaign took the low road, and it was right that they should have been called on it, but it wasn't racist.

Identity politics in the democratic primary?

Well of course. Notice how Inkblot's campaign didn't even get off the ground. There is obviously a huge faction of anti-cat folks out there.

I would never vote for a person whose name ends in "blot." But I am not a species-ist.

I wasn't intending to hammer on this but the assertion that the 6/15/07 "D-Punjab" memo wasn't racist simply isn't credible.

One of the items used to attack HRC in that memo was titled

"Gupta Said Democrats’ Stand On Outsourcing Was Poll-Year Rhetoric."

That item refers to a quote by Vinod Gupta in March 2004 regarding policies of the Democratic party (hence the use of Democrats' rather than Democrat's) and has little connection to HRC. The item really makes little sense in terms of the outsourcing debate but does introduce the fact that Vinod Gupta had contributed funds to HRC's senate campaign in 2000.

That bullet point serves only to point out that HRC got campaign contributions from Indian-Americans.

I know that the Obama campaign has used HRC's joke as their lever for introducing and explaining the memo. That doesn't change the product or their intent.

Obama never brought up race in the various ways the Hillary did.

Yeah, rrrriiiiight Joe.

Those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama.

The campaign 'analyzed those tears' and went into turbo race-pimp mode in SC and the southern states. It's what Obama's narrow delegate lead was built upon.

I wasn't intending to hammer on this but the assertion that the 6/15/07 "D-Punjab" memo wasn't racist simply isn't credible.

... That item refers to a quote by Vinod Gupta in March 2004 regarding policies of the Democratic party (hence the use of Democrats' rather than Democrat's) and has little connection to HRC. The item really makes little sense in terms of the outsourcing debate but does introduce the fact that Vinod Gupta had contributed funds to HRC's senate campaign in 2000.

Sorry, but you're gonna need a bigger hammer than that, because the bullet point you reference (at the bottom of the final page of the link, PDF warning, blah blah blah) deals *specifically* with the outsourcing debate. The point about Gupta is an attempt to link Clinton with an American company (Gupta's InfoUSA) that outsources both technology support and database work to vendors in India. Pointing out that Gupta is a Clinton fundraiser is a crass attempt to question Clinton's commitment to American jobs, but -- unless you've got something better than what you're offering -- it's not in any way racist.

Just in case I'm not being clear, I am not here to defend the Obama campaign's suggestion that Clinton values profits over principles or that she's in any way responsible for offshoring trends in recent decades. That's simply ridiculous, and it had absolutely no place in the primary campaign. But unless you're going to claim that any kind of economic nativism -- ugly as it is -- is de facto racism, then you don't have a leg to stand on. And if that's the leg you choose to stand on, then your criticism extends to the lion's share of Congress -- especially some of its most liberal members.

From rk:

June 15, 2007: The Obama campaign releases a memo referring to HRC as (D-Punjab). Among the things for which Obama campaign attacks HRC is her work founding the US Senate India Caucus. The campaign demands that the memo not be attributed to the Obama campaign.
You can make that statement about race as much as you want, you might even believe it, but it simply isn't true.

I'm sorry, is Hillary Indian?? Also, wasn't she the one that jokingly referred to herself as the Senator from Punjab? Why yes she did. Obama's campaign was playing off her own comment to point out her investing in, and receiving money from, Indian companies that took away American jobs. There was absolutely nothing racial about it.

From elmo:

You mean like the ad he put out in Ohio that said her health care proposal would force everyone to buy health insurance, regardless of ability to pay?

This is scare tactics?? I think you are confused. This was an attack on her policy proposal which he also brought up in debate after debate. But Hillary's 3am ad essentially claimed that Obama can't keep you or your kids safe.

Yeah, rrrriiiiight Joe.

What a wicked rebuttal steve-O...nice work! Thanks for contributing....

turbo race-pimp mode sounds like it could have been part of the Indy 500 package on my Ford Extinction, but I stuck with the tinted glass.

Are we still going to be yelling at each other through McSham's inauguration?

Thersites,
We are democrats. We're going to be yelling at each other till the end of time!

But unless you're going to claim that any kind of economic nativism -- ugly as it is -- is de facto racism, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

I wouldn't argue anything of the sort. But economic nativism aimed at generating animosity toward a specific ethnic group and to anyone perceived to be close to that specific ethnic group is racist. The D-Punjab memo wasn't directed at outsourcing in general; its sole purpose was to link HRC to India and Indian-Americans (as Joe so ably points out).

One of the bullet points (the investment in India) was related to a company that had nothing to do with outsourcing and was for a business that couldn't have possibly been performed by Americans (the main business is a chain of bill payment and cell phone recharging shops in India).

The memo isn't a coherent argument regarding outsourcing. Where it does mention outsourcing no country other than India is mentioned.

The technique of linking a political opponent to a particular ethnic group and implying that such support is unseemly has a long tradition in the United States. Denying that the D-Punjab memo was an example of that technique is just silly.

You showed the netroots was quite willing to back biased media, and you were quite willing to push the talking points of the day down, regardless of the truth of those talking points. Even now, many in the netroots think that Clinton was saying or claiming or insinuating that Obama was a Muslim.
Bad Moon Rising

I Couldn't agree more. Just the mirror image of the rabid Republican wingnuts.

Y'all can leave the "holier than thou" at the door from now on. Or maybe not, since you have become the Democratic version of Evangilists.

From rk:

But economic nativism aimed at generating animosity toward a specific ethnic group and to anyone perceived to be close to that specific ethnic group is racist.

It wasn't aimed at any group. It was aimed at Hillary. If she had been doing the same thing with businesses in Ukraine, she would have been D-Kiev. You're attempting to make something "racist" that clearly isn't.

Whether the memo was 100% accurate is another story, but attempting to use it as an example of Obama race-bating is ridiculous.

Well of course. Notice how Inkblot's campaign didn't even get off the ground. There is obviously a huge faction of anti-cat folks out there.

That's it, I am just going to not vote because Inkblot didn't get the nomination. But, at least it won't be that stupid dog of Bush's. Inkblot would wipe the floor with that idiotic looking excuse for a canine.

This is scare tactics??

I'm sorry, I had no idea "scare" was such an exclusive verb. Oh wait, you used it as a noun...whatever. LOL. You're trying too hard there, Joe. That shit can be pretty scary if your living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Sure elmo, it's right up there with Bin Laden....

lol, and "scare" in the phrase "scare tactics" is an adjective, "scare tactics" is a noun...

Joe, you need to step back and regroup.

A little birdie told me working class families are not building bomb shelters. But they are pinching pennies...

... economic nativism aimed at generating animosity toward a specific ethnic group and to anyone perceived to be close to that specific ethnic group is racist. The D-Punjab memo wasn't directed at outsourcing in general; its sole purpose was to link HRC to India and Indian-Americans (as Joe so ably points out).

Sigh. That might be a useful point if the memo were aimed at generating animosity towards any particular group. Thing is, it's not. It's designed (shamelessly) to call into question Clinton's commitment to American workers over her commitment to her own aspirations -- financial & political. You have yet to cite the specific text that does what you claim it does.
I'm not sure what, in Joe's point, you see as vindication, but that's between you & him.

One of the bullet points (the investment in India) was related to a company that had nothing to do with outsourcing and was for a business that couldn't have possibly been performed by Americans (the main business is a chain of bill payment and cell phone recharging shops in India).

I have no idea what you're talking about, as you still haven't cited any specific text. And what you're suggesting here doesn't say anything about racism. It has to do with getting facts wrong. There's a difference.

The memo isn't a coherent argument regarding outsourcing. Where it does mention outsourcing no country other than India is mentioned.

No. The memo is a semi-coherent argument questioning Clinton's motives & judgment over fundraising and lobbying. And this is the point you're missing -- the memo was designed to slam Clinton, not the businessmen, fundraisers, & donors supporting her. That the memo came into existence at all is due to Obama's poor judgment on the matter, but that the context of it was related to India was because of the joke that Clinton made herself. Perhaps if she had established the Senate Caucus on Latvia and referred to the possibility of representing Riga, the Obama team would have been stupid enough to draft a memo out of that. That would make them a bunch of silly opportunists, but it wouldn't make them Slavophobes.

The technique of linking a political opponent to a particular ethnic group and implying that such support is unseemly has a long tradition in the United States. Denying that the D-Punjab memo was an example of that technique is just silly.

Sigh (again). The Obama campaign's implication has nothing to do with impugning Indians or Indian Americans, per se. It's a stupid attempt to question Clinton's motives & judgment. But don't let me steer you away from the ad hominem argument that's been working out so well for you this far.

... economic nativism aimed at generating animosity toward a specific ethnic group and to anyone perceived to be close to that specific ethnic group is racist. The D-Punjab memo wasn't directed at outsourcing in general; its sole purpose was to link HRC to India and Indian-Americans (as Joe so ably points out).

Sigh. That might be a useful point if the memo were aimed at generating animosity towards any particular group. Thing is, it's not. It's designed (shamelessly) to call into question Clinton's commitment to American workers over her commitment to her own aspirations -- financial & political. You have yet to cite the specific text that does what you claim it does.
I'm not sure what, in Joe's point, you see as vindication, but that's between you & him.

One of the bullet points (the investment in India) was related to a company that had nothing to do with outsourcing and was for a business that couldn't have possibly been performed by Americans (the main business is a chain of bill payment and cell phone recharging shops in India).

I have no idea what you're talking about, as you still haven't cited any specific text. And what you're suggesting here doesn't say anything about racism. It has to do with getting facts wrong. There's a difference.

The memo isn't a coherent argument regarding outsourcing. Where it does mention outsourcing no country other than India is mentioned.

No. The memo is a semi-coherent argument questioning Clinton's motives & judgment over fundraising and lobbying. And this is the point you're missing -- the memo was designed to slam Clinton, not the businessmen, fundraisers, & donors supporting her. That the memo came into existence at all is due to Obama's poor judgment on the matter, but that the context of it was related to India was because of the joke that Clinton made herself. Perhaps if she had established the Senate Caucus on Latvia and referred to the possibility of representing Riga, the Obama team would have been stupid enough to draft a memo out of that. That would make them a bunch of silly opportunists, but it wouldn't make them Slavophobes.

The technique of linking a political opponent to a particular ethnic group and implying that such support is unseemly has a long tradition in the United States. Denying that the D-Punjab memo was an example of that technique is just silly.

Sigh (again). The Obama campaign's implication has nothing to do with impugning Indians or Indian Americans, per se. It's a stupid attempt to question Clinton's motives & judgment. But don't let me steer you away from the ad hominem argument that's been working out so well for you this far.

Sorry, anyone who might be out there. Once was more than enough for my post.

Joe, you need to step back and regroup.

A little birdie told me working class families are not building bomb shelters. But they are pinching pennies...

If it's the same little birdie who gave you English lessons, I'd shoot that thing.

We're talking about scare tactics. Obama questioning how Hillary would enforce a mandate is not a scare tactic. Hillary suggesting that voting for Obama endangers your kids is.

Let's see, which is more important:
Extreme pleasure at the sufferings of the pre-adolescent psychotic supporters* of Sen. Obama if he, sorry, if He loses in November or the fear of what the country, its citizens, and its government will suffer under McBush?
Well, talk about taking all the fun out of an election...
*Thankfully, most of Sen. Obama's supporters don't fall into this category - if they did, my preferred candidate wouldn't have had any problems getting the nomination.

Joe, you are obviously a scary amateur. Let me clue you in...

One of the wingnuts' signature moves is to bait a brainiac like yourself into looking like an elitist prick. And it is scarily easy to pull off. You need to be more creative in your criticism or just ignore it...like the pros do.

However, to be honest, that was not the case in my comment to you, I just fucked up.

Obama questioning how Hillary would enforce a mandate is not a scare tactic.

Questioning? He flat out said she would 'force' it on us.

He flat out said she would 'force' it on us.

You are familiar with term "mandate" right?

You are familiar with the word "force" right?

lol, ok fine, we wouldn't be "forced" into paying for health insurance, but we would be "mandated" to. And if we didn't pay it we'd be penalized....how dare that Obama use a synonym....

What a pathetic argument you're making....

What a pathetic argument you're making....

Not really, those not able to pay would be subsidized...

But will the rest of us be "forced" to pay for it? Yes, which is exactly what Obama was saying. How does one qualify for these subsidies? What's the threshold? No matter what it is, there will be people on the bubble who will be forced to pay who may not want to.

Incidentally, I actually think Hillary's plan is good and hope Obama puts her in a position to implement it. But I also know that people will be forced to buy into it. Instead of denying that, and claiming that Obama was unfairly attacking her plan, Hillary (and you) should say, who cares, yes, people may be forced to pay for it, but the country will be better for it.

But claiming Obama was using "scare tactics" for pointing out that people will be force to pay for it is ridiculous.

My Republican sister left her party because the religius right took over. I am leaving the Democratic party for much the same reason. Fanatics and cultists have taken charge. Good luck with that.