In our case, that is, in the case of we Democrats in Exile (here, here, and here), it still remains to be seen how Obama's Big Fat Greek Tragedy will play out.  So, we don't know yet if we are to be tragically defeated, fooled by the Obama Trojan Horse, or duped by our own potential misperceptions of the new kid on the block.   It takes time and due diligence to discover Trojan Horses, and, you must have the will and the tools to seek the truth.   In this primary season, believe me, it takes discipline, time, and lots of willpower to seek the truth in the midst of Obama megalomania, media male domination, money, and mob-astute and relatively uncritical (power hungry) youngins.

It could go either way, but, like Laocoon warned the people of Troy in Virgil's Aeneid, I thus warn you of a likely Trojan Horse in our midst this summer, Senator Barack Obama.   Obama is more-likely-than-not NOT what he seems to be or what he represents himself to be, and the "flips" and "frauds" keep piling up.  I wonder if Oprah will bring Obama back on her show to ask him to apologize for facilitating fraud, similar to the lambasting she gave the cynical author, James Frey, about the lies contained in his book, Million Little Pieces.

A Greek tragedy is essentially defined as any story with a sad and unfortunate outcome, but the term also applies specifically in Western culture to a form of drama defined by Aristotle often involving a great person who experiences a reversal of fortune.  This quote from Aristotle's Poetics says it all.

A well-constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue, rather than double as some maintain. The change of fortune should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad. It should come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty, in a character. . .

The practice of the stage bears out our view. At first the poets recounted any legend that came their way. Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses. . . A tragedy, then, to be perfect according to the rules of art should be of this construction. Hence they are in error who censure Euripides just because he follows this principle in his plays, many of which end unhappily. It is, as we have said, the right ending.

Like Christ said as quoted in Matthew, Chapter 7, a house built on sand will not likely withstand rain, floods and wind.   Denial can only take you so far.

My advice about the Obama/DNC Trojan Horse?   Just Say No Deal!

Here's the hot links to keep your PUMA fires burning.

• You Can Effect Real Change.  Highly recommended post with link to survey to influence Democratic Party platform.  This is another opportunity to influence the DNC.

• Hustlenomics! Super Delegates Listen When CASH Is Talking.  Go there to find the names of superdelegates who have endorsed against the will of the voters in their districts (you know, for Obama WHEN Hillary won in their districts).   Write or call them and let them know how you feel about their undemocratic practices and choices.  This is another opportunity to influence the DNC.

• The Denver Group's New Ad -- What does Senator Obama's grandmother know that Senator Obama and Howard Dean don't?

• Are the Superdelegates for Sale?

• Who Kidnapped Digby?

• Chris Matthews Says Something that Makes Sense

• Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem, PART 2 [REVISED]

• The Plan to Kill PUMA

• The Shallow Left

Over at The Democratic Daily and a few other spots on the Internet, I have been running an advertisement (see graphic to the right). In addition, I wrote a letter back on July 11 to the New York Times asking them to follow-up on Senator Feinstein's promise to them to hold hearings on primary reform in July 2008. Of course, I never heard back from the New York Times.

I thank Ms. Leavey for making me aware of The Hill's article, because, otherwise, I may not have found it so soon.

I am not a regular reader of The Hill, and although I requested updates directly from Senator Feinstein's office, none were ever made.  So, the "news" about possible primary reform hearings, now to be scheduled allegedly in September 2008, was conveniently low-key.  And, apparently the hearings are going to be conveniently low key -- "the hearings will be limited and won’t be conducted in a way that diverts Democrats’ focus from the general election."   I recommend reading the whole article.

It is clear that whatever Senator Feinstein's motivations are for holding primary reform hearings, whether it is to hold out a carrot of hope for the disenfranchised voters of this last primary season, or it is for genuine reform, she is not going to be "controversial."   In other words, Feinstein is not going to actually take testimony about how bad things went this last primary season, but is going to try to stick to "constitutional issues" and "general testimony."

Her excuse for NOT starting the hearings of which she is quoted as saying "there will be more than one hearing" was essentially "we couldn't start the hearings without the participation of DNC and RNC leaders, who are preoccupied at this time with the conventions."   My thoughts?  There is a lot of testimony to gather, so hearings could get started using the testimony of experts on primary reform, and gathering data about what happened this last time that indicates a need for change.  We don't need the DNC and RNC leaders to get the hearings started.

It is. Politics. As. Usual.

Senator Feinstein plays the good cop by holding out the idea that Obamacrats are (really) interested in maintaining some kind of high moral ground when it comes to the primary process, while the rest of the Obamacrats gleefully stomp down the principles of democracy in their megalomaniac march to the November elections.

Good luck. Where I come from, overkill usually UNDER-impresses.  And, where I come from, you know, the planet we live on, anger consistently trumps fear, any day of the week.

Dear Honorable Senator Clinton:

Thank you for asking about what matters.  As noted in your "About HillPac" page, what matters to me is that democracy and voters are respected -- "HILLPAC respects voters and works to protect their votes. We believe that every vote should be counted and that voters' voices should be heard, not just on Election Day but every day."

I understand that, so far, you believe in party unity, but there can be no unity when the party ignores the popular vote, disenfranchises voters, and opts for centralized power over the will of the people.  Unity cannot take place in an atmosphere of disrespect for democracy, democratic processes, and the will of the people.

So, what matters to me is that you stand up for democracy and honor the will of the people and make sure that you are on the nomination ballot at the Democratic Convention.

In my opinion, this country needs a viable third party, and the women of America, along with a bunch of men could create a viable, long-term, third party.  True coalition building does not happen in two-party systems. You have the potential to be the first modern-day independent president.

Thank you for your consideration.  Take care, and best wishes.

Mark (www.DemcratInExile.com)
Proud Member of PUMA

Why?  Because, as you will note from the links, they have done it all, and more -- UPDATED - The New American Disenfranchisement and Democratic Disenfranchisement -- the Final Report.

You CAN see the Republican ads now, can't you?

Update No. 1 (July 27, 2008) -- More About the DNC's Low Moral Ground.  Here are a few more excellent posts about how the DNC has caught up with the Republicans in bamboozling voters.

• The Donna Brazile - Karl Rove Connection -- In order to "save" the Democratic Party, Brazile resolved back in 2003 that she might have to destroy it first. And who better to help her in this lofty pursuit than her new best friend, the man neoconservatives call "The Architect", by Rosemary Regello, posted at The City Edition on July 24, 2008.

• Bamboozling the American electorate again. "Strategy involved G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama, stripping battleground delegates, threatening violence at the convention, and (if necessary) declaring martial law to prevent November's general election. Meanwhile, revelations about the Illinois senator's ties to Chicago political fixer Antoin Rezko and Iraqi war profiteers are downplayed by the press. For their part, Democratic Party leaders have circumvented the official nominating process, declaring Obama the nominee by breaking their own rules and allowing superdelegates to 'vote' before the convention."

• The Caucus Factor.

• Texas Caucus Fraud.

Check these PUMA-licious posts:

• It’s not about Obama vs. McCain
• The Title Bout at Alegre's Corner
• Fowler’s Foul Note Contradicts February Remarks
• I’d rather cocktail with Riverdaughter than Taylor Marsh, anyway!
• PUMA Politics for Dummies
• Preston on Politics: PUMAs stalking Obama at CNN.com

None of the plans described at FairVote.org or CenterForPolitics.org exclude caucuses. Neither does Senator Feinstein's 2007 legislation nor, apparently, Senator Nelson's recent legislation. This is a major drawback.  There is just no way that caucuses should be allowed, unless only for the purposes of having an advisory role.  They clearly do not measure up to the primary principle of democracy -- one person, one vote.  This is widely accepted among experts and the population, but runs up against stiff resistance from certain states and power brokers, who apparently want to hold on to archaic forms of power.

The best elucidation of what an ideal primary process would consist of is found in the New York Times editorial of June 8, 2008 -- Primary Reforms.  The NYT editorial points out clearly the need to (1) eliminate caucuses, (2) revise the schedule of voting, (3) revise how delegates are allocated, and (4) eliminate superdelegates. The NYT also recommends clear rules with respect to penalties for violating scheduling rules.

In my opinion, if the primary scheduling process was done fairly (like a rotating lottery, or eliminating state schedules entirely -- see below -- there would likely be no states who would feel "left out" and want to seek exemptions from the scheduling rules.)

Memo to Feinstein: If you want the most democratic process to occur during the primary season, this is what you would do.

• Eliminate caucuses.   Do you need any proof as to why they are fatally flawed?   If so, I will elucidate.   Just request more information, if you can't get that concept.

• Eliminate all state schedules.   I don't know why this hasn't caught on, except for maybe states just want to have more power and don't believe in voters' rights and powers.  This is so easy.  The concept is "Vote Anytime, Count Often."   My understanding is that Jonathan Soros originated this idea which you can read more about at Vote Early, Count Often at the NYT.   I think Mr. Soros should have named the concept Vote Anytime, Count Often, because it is NOT really about voting early.

The idea is to establish a national primary period that allows any voter in any state to mail in or go to a voting center to vote ANY TIME between, let's say, January 15 and June 15.  The votes would be tallied by the states about every three weeks and reported.  This voting scenario allows the voter to be in charge, not the states, and thus, there is no basis for states to try to jockey for an early voting position. It gives ultimate power to the voter to decide to vote early or vote later, to declare early, or to wait and contemplate.  The downside, of course, is power brokers lose (oh, cry me a river....) and those who desire a centralized DNC or RNC lose (oh, cry me a river, again....). The other downside is that exit pollsters lose, and the mainstream media loses power (oh, cry me a giant river...).  This is the way it should be, not centralized power, and not structured for the media's benefits and control.

The upside for states is that the process of making ballots and counting votes is actually simplified. Votes would come in spread out over a period of time that would allow states to likely NOT have to hire additional workers to process ballots.

This is the ultimate concept in voter power and thus, it is the ideal democratic scheduling scenario, bar none.

• Apportion delegates rationally.  Apportion delegates pro-rata, per state, on the basis of percentage totals at the end of the voting season.

• Eliminate most superdelegate tasks.  Eliminate superdelegate tasks except for emergency situations that might take place close to or after a convention, and set firm rules as to what would trigger superdelegate participation.

See all my posts on primary reform at PrimaryReform.net.

UNFORTUNATELY, Senator Feinstein DOESN'T CARE about the opinions of non-California residents and sent me an automated reply essentially telling me so. Thanks, Senator Feinstein.  Way to develop a national presence!

So, I am calling on all California PUMAs and Just Say No Deal! members to call Feinstein now, and let her know how you feel about primary reform and ask her to keep her promise to hold hearings.

Thanks, Mark

Before Senator Nelson introduced his primary reform legislation on June 6, the only recent primary reform legislation pending in the Senate was Feinstein's. 

The BIG PROBLEM with Feinstein's legislation is that it continues to allow caucuses and it continues to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to be first in the nation.  Memo to Feinstein: Not a chance!

The BIG QUESTION now is whether Feinstein will actually follow through on her promises to have hearings on primary reform this month.  Or, is Feinstein just fiddling while the DNC burns democracy to the ground?  

You can call or write to Senator Feinstein (click here).

Even Governor Edward G. Rendell is talking about primary reform.  Let me remind you, talk is cheap, Senator Feinstein and Governor Rendell.  It will take substantive action before the convention (among other things) to bring me back to the Democrats.  So, time's a wastin'.  I'm awaiting.

There are four plans that have been proposed for primary reform.   The oldest three are described more clearly at FairVote.org.  A "newer" idea is noted after this quote from FairVote.org.

Delaware Plan: Under the Delaware Plan, the states would be put into four groups according to population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-sized states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four consolidated primaries would occur on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning in March and ending in June. Although having valuable benefits, the main disadvantage to this plan is candidates having to compete in 12 states in the very first primary, which makes retail politicking harder, and the fact the states are always in the same order.

Regional Primary System: The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed the idea of regional primaries, with a series of regional primaries separated by a month and with the order of regions changing in every election cycle. While having the benefit of ensuring all states in a given 20-year period would have a chance to be among the first primary dates, it would make retail politicking very difficult.

American Plan / California Plan: The American Plan, more commonly known as the California Plan, features a schedule consisting of 10 two-week intervals, during which randomly selected states may hold their primaries or caucuses, with a gradual increase in the total population of states and territories holding primaries/caucuses. This 20-week schedule is weighted based on each state's number of congressional districts. American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, which also send delegates to both national conventions, are each counted as one district in this system. In the first interval, a randomly determined combination of states with a combined total of eight congressional districts would hold their primaries, caucuses, or conventions. In the second period--two weeks later--the eligibility number would increase to 16. Every two weeks, the combined size of the contests would grow by eight congressional districts, until a combination of states totaling 80 congressional seats (8 x 10)--nearly one-fifth of the total--would be up for grabs in the tenth and last interval at the end of June. What ordinarily would be the 7th primary date would be switched with the 4th primary date, to give all the big states a chance at having an earlier primary. As the political stakes increased every two weeks, a steady weeding-out process would occur, as less successful campaigns reached the point at which they were no longer competitive in these larger contests.

What is my choice?   None of the above.   Right now, I am leaning toward the kind of primary reform written about at Vote Early, Count Often, by Jonathan Soros.

I will do a more thorough analysis of Soros' plan in a future post.   Any comments?