#Democratic Convention

[jackass-democrats]

Kamala Harris like the democrat party are all for any ISM.

As always, never buy anything made in china. Don't ever trust a democrat and NEVER leave your child alone with one.

[originalleftist]

Thoughts on Harris's Acceptance speech.

First, there's obviously the inherently historic nature of the moment itself- the first woman of colour ever nominated by a major party in the US, and hopefully soon our first woman President.

A lot of it is what you'd expect in such a speech, though delivered well- thanking supporters, talking about her own history, and promising to be a President for all Americans, and listing her/her party's policy positions.

Her speaking on her family history was interesting, particularly her mother's decision to reject an arranged marriage, describing this as an act of self-determination to which she and her sister owe their existence.

She also didn't shy away from talking about Trump's criminal convictions, sexual assault verdict, or January 6th. Good. Send a prosecutor to stop a felon.

She also did a very good job relating her experience as a prosecutor to representing the public interest, how an injustice toward anyone is an injustice toward everyone. She really showed how that experience will inform her service as President. Very well-done.

Ooh, and talking about America leading in space. Nice. As a space program enthusiast (and was hoping for former astronaut Kelly as VP, until Walz blew us away), it's nice to see it at least get a mention.

She'll get a lot of pushback for her remarks on Israel from the Left-wing of the party, but its good to see her unambiguously denounce Hamas's atrocities, including sexual violence, and affirm her support for Israel's security. However, she also reiterated her call for a ceasefire, and Palestinians' rights, including explicitly the right to self-determination. She showed perhaps the most fire in this section of her speech.

A side-note: I really appreciated the shear unabashed emotion on Tim Walz's face as Harris accepted the nomination. Both because men are often discouraged from showing open emotion, and seen as less manly if they do, and because it shows that Walz will be a candidate, and Vice President, who is not thinking of himself, of his own grudges or goals or ambitions, but who is 100% behind his President, with his whole heart. Harris chose him very well.

[joansiesbeloved]

Jack, Eunice, Joan, and Ted at the Democratic National Convention. Circa, 1960.

[backtonormallife]

[forsssnaken]

US POLITICS: for anyone on the fence about who to vote for or voting at all...

this is coming from a young voter btw. i'm 18.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

DNC Convention

+

WHY I LOVE JOE BIDEN

Joe Biden was not my choice his first two times at bat (which in hindsight I now think was my mistake), but when I heard him say why he was running in 2020 (that he decided he had to run when he heard Trump’s response to Charlottsville), I knew he was the man for the times.

Joe Biden is the best president I can remember in my life. I was only nine months old when FDR died, so he’s someone in the history books - my choice for Number Three of the Three Best Presidents in American History: Washington, Lincoln and FDR; one created the country, one saved the country and one transformed the country. I was too young to know that much about Truman, though I once met him as a teenager, and after studying him historically he’s tied with Joe Biden for Favorite in my book. I used to think of LBJ as the most effective president (domestically) but he enacted everything with a huge progressive Democratic majority that made it easy. Biden accomplished more with a one vote majority in the Senate and six in the House. Truly Amazing.

Looking at Joe’s 50 years in public office, his steadiness is his major attribute; that’s often been boring for much of his career, but it’s absolutely priceless during a crisis such as he faced when he entered office. His list of accomplishments as president is stunning.

I like that Joe’s known what Jesse Unruh taught me in 1975: “If you can’t drink their booze and fuck their women and vote against them the next morning with a smile on your face, you have no business in this business.” Not that I think for a minute that he’s ever done either of those things, but he obviously mastered the ability to “go along to get along” and to find a way to work with people he was diametrically opposed to in the service of progress, and for taking campaign contributions then never quite going full “ROI” and losing his soul. Heknew his beliefs. That’s a real accomplishment in politics, a true talent.

And then this summer he demonstrated his true greatness in the toughest character test a politician like Joe Biden could ever face. And he carried it off in the manner of a master: going “public” with his decision to withdraw his candidacy for re-election in the most damaging way possible to Trump, and then masterminding the succession in such a way that all the idiots in the Democratic Party were so flummoxed they couldn’t do anything but go along with his decision. That’s the work of a real master politician.

He only got half the applause he deserved last night. Maybe not even half.

[TCinLA]

[jangillman]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by David Harris Jr (@davidjharrisjr)

[deadpresidents]

Is there any serous alternative to Biden being the nominee at this point?

It's not impossible. It's absolutely doable if President Biden made the decision to withdraw and release all of his delegates. That would result in an open convention -- something that hasn't truly happened since 1952 -- where basically anybody could end up with the nomination. If Biden did step aside and released his delegates, he could endorse Kamala Harris since she is his Vice President, but in an open convention, he couldn't control the process and deliver the nomination to her. Anybody could jump in the race at that point, and the delegates at the convention would just keep balloting until someone reached the magic number needed to clinch the nomination. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe in an open convention, the nominee would need 2,349 delegates to clinch the nomination.

It would be much more difficult and far more unlikely if the President didn't step aside and there was a movement to remove him. Not all of the delegates that Biden won during the primaries are "committed" to voting for him. There's a certain number of delegates that are "pledged" to support him and a certain number "committed" to voting for him, depending on the rules under which the delegates were won during the primary process (I know...it's confusing). The "committed" delegates are required to cast their votes for Biden on the first ballot of the convention due to the rules laid down by their respective state parties. The "pledged" delegates have more freedom and could shift their support to someone else. It would require a majority of delegates to vote for someone else on the first ballot to open the convention at that point. That's a lot more difficult because the President has a lot of leverage and can lean on delegates to maintain their support, especially if he keeps party leadership in line behind him.

If there is any positive out of the debate debacle and the discussions about whether or not President Biden will step aside is the fact that the Democratic Convention isn't until the middle of August. So there are almost two months for the President to repair the damage and prove that he had the worst night of his life but can still do the job, or for the mechanisms required to replace him as the nominee to run their course.

I'm hopeful that the President will recognize that just as he saw it as his duty to run in 2020 to stop Donald Trump, it is now his duty to step aside in 2024 for someone else to stop Donald Trump. But hope is different than belief, and I think it's difficult for anybody who has wanted and worked all their life to be President of the United States to willingly give it up.

[newyorkthegoldenage]

The second Madison Square Garden, which actually was in Madison Square, on January 17, 1924. It was preparing for the Democratic National Convention in June (and July. There were 103 ballots). Its seating capacity was normally 13,000, but was increased to 20,000 for the convention.

Photo: Associated Press

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Alana Goodman

CHICAGO—The longtime leader of the Anti-Defamation League, who now serves as director emeritus, expressed concern about Jews being forced to meet in "secret locations" at the Democratic National Convention due to security threats and anti-Semitism.

"I know in my heart that in the future, it will be better, for Jews in America, then [sic] it is today. But I fear it will never be the same," said Abraham Foxman in a Twitter post on Wednesday.

"After 50 years fighting anti-Semitism in America, I could not have imagined a time Jews would have to meet in secret locations in Chicago at DNC."

Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, served as director of the Jewish civil rights organization from 1987 to 2015. The ADL is now run by Jonathan Greenblatt, a former Obama aide, who has steered it in a much more partisan direction.

Foxman’s comments come as Jewish groups holding events on the sidelines of the convention have kept their meeting locations a closely guarded secret.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America held panel discussions with former U.S. ambassador to Spain Alan Solomont and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), but attendees were required to register before receiving the location. Private security and metal detectors were present at both events.

The Israeli-American Council only disclosed the location for its "Hostage Square" discussion to attendees a few hours before it started, the Times of Israel reported on Wednesday.

The security concerns appeared justified. On Tuesday, pro-Hamas agitators disrupted a DNC event with hostage families hosted by Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group. The protesters shouted, "Zionism has got to fall" and "Shame on you" at attendees. Dozens of anti-Israel protesters were also arrested after clashing with police near the convention Tuesday night.

Jewish Democratic leaders acknowledged the concerns about anti-Semitism at the DNC but also downplayed the divisions within their party.

Wasserman Schultz, speaking at a JDCA event on Thursday, said she had "angst for over a week over what the reaction would be" when the parents of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, one of the eight Americans being held captive by Hamas, spoke at the DNC on Wednesday.

Wasserman Schultz said there was a lot of "hype about how many protesters there were going to be," and she felt relieved when there were no disruptions from the audience.

But Democratic politicians have also seemed reluctant to mention Israel’s war with Hamas and the Oct. 7 attacks on the convention stage. None of the prominent Jewish Democratic speakers—including second gentleman Doug Emhoff, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro—mentioned Israel or the hostage crisis in their remarks.

The only speakers to broach the subject were Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison, who are aligned with the left-leaning anti-Israel movement. Both politicians called for an Israeli ceasefire.

President Joe Biden briefly acknowledged the anti-Israel protests in his speech on Monday, saying the activists "have a point."

[jackassdemocrats]

Pro-Palestinian Hamas Terrorist Protests Disrupt DNC 2024, Clashing with Security Forces!

[originalleftist]

Hillary Clinton getting to stand there on the convention stage and talk about Trump's 34 felony convictions, while the crowd chanted "Lock Him Up!", is some long-overdue karma.

She looked like the cat that caught the canary, and I don't blame her one bit!

[commonsensecommentary]

Border Czar Kamala Harris will be in Chicago for the Democratic Convention in just a few weeks. Will she have some helpful ideas, or is she still searching for the “root causes” of illegal immigration? Here’s a hint, Kamala: Look in the damned mirror!

[backtonormallife]

Kamala Harris speech.

Democratic Convention

22 August 2024

Can the Democrats’ support be any clearer?

[eretzyisrael]

by Jessica Costescu

"Israel also has no right to exist as a racist, white supremacist, settler-colonialist, apartheid, Zionist state. It is on its last legs, as is the U.S. empire," U.S. Palestinian Community Network national chairman Hatem Abudayyeh told the crowd. "And once we're done here this week in Milwaukee, we'll move south to Chicago and do the same with tens of thousands of protesters in August, telling Genocide Joe, Killer Kamala, Baneful Blinken, and their cabal of top Democrats that 'From the river to sea, Palestine will be free'!"

The demonstration reflects the far left's dissatisfaction with the Biden administration's handling of the Israel-Hamas war. After the Oct. 7 terrorist attack, President Joe Biden described America's support for the Jewish state as "ironclad" and "rock-solid." Since then, however, he has capitulated to his party's progressive faction, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and withholding arms from Israel.

"We have to play our part in the belly of the beast to stop the genocide, to end U.S. aid to Israel, and to stand with Palestine," Abudayyeh said at the rally. "Trump in Milwaukee this week and Genocide Joe Biden in Chicago next month shouldn't forget that the vast majority of the world stands with Palestine and its right to self-defense and resistance in Gaza."

In the past, Abudayyeh—who is also a spokesman for the Chicago Coalition for Justice in Palestine—defended the Oct. 7 terror attack and expressed support for terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Abudayyeh echoed Freedom Road Socialist Organization member and Chicago middle school teacher Kobi Guillory, the first person to speak at the rally.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

DNC convention

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 18, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 19, 2024

On August 18, 1920, the Tennessee legislature ratified the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by a vote of 50 to 49. The deciding vote came from Harry T. Burn, who supported suffrage but was under pressure to vote no. His mother had urged him to vote yes despite the pressure. “I believe in full suffrage as a right,” he said. “I believe we had a moral and legal right to ratify. I know that a mother’s advice is always safest for her boy to follow, and my mother wanted me to vote for ratification.”

Tennessee was the 36th state to ratify the amendment, and the last one necessary to make the amendment the law of the land once the secretary of state certified it.

The new amendment was patterned on the Fifteenth Amendment, which protected the right of Black men to vote, and it read: 

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Like the momentum for the Fifteenth Amendment, the push for rights for women had taken root during the Civil War as women backed the United States armies with their money, buying bonds and paying taxes; with their loved ones, sending sons and husbands and fathers to the war front; with their labor, working in factories and fields and taking over from men in the nursing and teaching professions; and even with their lives, spying and fighting for the Union. In the aftermath of the war, as the divided nation was rebuilt, many of them expected they would have a say in how it was reconstructed.

But to their dismay, the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly tied the right to vote to “male” citizens, inserting the word “male” into the Constitution for the first time.

Boston abolitionist Julia Ward Howe, the author of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” was outraged. The laws of the era gave control of her property and her children to her abusive husband, and while far from a rabble-rouser, she wanted the right to adjust those laws so they were fair. In this moment, it seemed the right the Founders had articulated in the Declaration of Independence—the right to consent to the government under which one lived—was to be denied to the very women who had helped preserve the country, while white male Confederates and now Black men both enjoyed that right.

“The Civil War came to an end, leaving the slave not only emancipated, but endowed with the full dignity of citizenship. The women of the North had greatly helped to open the door which admitted him to freedom and its safeguard, the ballot. Was this door to be shut in their face?” Howe wondered.

The next year, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony formed the National Woman Suffrage Association, and six months later, Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe founded the American Woman Suffrage Association.

The National Woman Suffrage Association wanted a general reworking of gender roles in American society, drawing from the Seneca Falls Convention that Stanton had organized in 1848.

That convention’s Declaration of Sentiments, patterned explicitly on the Declaration of Independence, asserted that “all men and women are created equal” and that “the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” It listed the many ways in which men had “fraudulently deprived [women] of their most sacred rights” and insisted that women receive “immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.”

While the National Woman Suffrage Association excluded men from its membership, the American Woman Suffrage Association made a point of including men equally, as well as Black woman suffragists, to indicate that they were interested in the universal right to vote and only in that right, believing the rest of the rights their rivals demanded would come through voting.

The women’s suffrage movement had initial success in the western territories, both because lawmakers there were hoping to attract women for their male-heavy communities and because the same lawmakers were furious at the growing noise about Black voting. Wyoming Territory granted women the vote in 1869, and lawmakers in Utah Territory followed suit in 1870, expecting that women would vote against polygamy there. When women in fact supported polygamy, Utah lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to take their vote away, and the movement for women’s suffrage in the West slowed dramatically.

Suffragists had hoped that women would be included in the Fifteenth Amendment and, when they were not, decided to test their right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment in the 1872 election. According to its statement that anyone born in the U.S. was a citizen, they were certainly citizens and thus should be able to vote. In New York state, Susan B. Anthony voted successfully but was later tried and convicted—in an all-male courtroom in which she did not have the right to testify—for the crime of voting.

In Missouri a voting registrar named Reese Happersett refused to permit suffragist Virginia Minor to register. Minor sued Happersett, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision in 1875, the justices decided that women were indeed citizens but that citizenship did not necessarily convey the right to vote.

This decision meant the fat was in the fire for Black Americans in the South, as it paved the way for white supremacists to keep them from the polls in 1876. But it was also a blow to suffragists, who recast their claims to voting by moving away from the idea that they had a human right to consent to their government, and toward the idea that they would be better and more principled voters than the Black men and immigrants who, under the law anyway, had the right to vote.

For the next two decades, the women’s suffrage movement drew its power from the many women’s organizations put together across the country by women of all races and backgrounds who came together to stop excessive drinking, clean up the sewage in city streets, protect children, stop lynching, and promote civil rights.

Black women like educator Mary Church Terrell and journalist Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin, publisher of the Woman’s Era, brought a broad lens to the movement from their work for civil rights, but they could not miss that Black women stood in between the movements for Black rights and women’s rights, a position scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw would identify In the twentieth century as “intersectionality.”

In 1890 the two major suffrage associations merged into the National American Woman Suffrage Association and worked to change voting laws at the state level. Gradually, western states and territories permitted women to vote in certain elections until by 1920, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas, Alaska Territory, Montana, and Nevada recognized women’s right to vote in at least some elections.

Suffragists recognized that action at the federal level would be more effective than a state-by-state strategy. The day before Democratic president Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated in 1913, they organized a suffrage parade in Washington, D.C., that grabbed media attention. They continued civil disobedience to pressure Wilson into supporting their movement.

Still, it took another war effort, that of World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, to light a fire under the lawmakers whose votes would be necessary to get a suffrage amendment through Congress and send it off to the states for ratification. Wilson, finally on board as he faced a difficult midterm election in 1918, backed a constitutional amendment, asking congressmen: “Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and not to a partnership of privilege and right?”

Congress passed the measure in a special session on June 4, 1919, and Tennessee’s ratification on August 18, 1920, made it the law of the land as soon as the official notice was in the hands of the secretary of state. Twenty-six million American women had the right to vote in the 1920 presidential election.

Crucially, as the Black suffragists had known all too well when they found themselves caught between the drives for Black male voting and women’s suffrage, Jim Crow and Juan Crow laws meant that most Black women and women of color would remain unable to vote for another 45 years. And yet they never stopped fighting for that right. Women like Fannie Lou Hamer, Amelia Boynton, Rosa Parks, Viola Liuzzo, and Constance Baker Motley were key organizers of voting rights initiatives, spreading information, arranging marches, sparking key protests, and preparing legal cases.

In 1980, women began to shift their votes to the Democrats, and in 1984 the Democrats nominated Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New York to run for vice president alongside presidential candidate Walter Mondale. Republicans followed suit in 2008 when they nominated Alaska governor Sarah Palin to run with Arizona senator John McCain. Still, it was not until 2016 that a major political party nominated a woman, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, for president. In 2020 the Democrats nominated California senator Kamala Harris for vice president, and when voters elected her and President Joe Biden, they made her the first female vice president of the United States.

Tonight, on the 104th anniversary of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, delegates are gathered in Chicago, Illinois, for the Democratic National Convention, where they will celebrate Harris’s nomination for the presidency.

It’s been a long time coming.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON