Obama: Screw The Democratic Party

[[[ Here's a LATE-NIGHT UPDATE on the cynical politics of the "hope"-panderer: The Obama campaign has repudiated these flyers. But, reports Time's Mark Halperin (the italics are his), "Obama, in Reno Monday, makes explicit appeal for independents and Republicans to caucus for him." So, the flyer's out but the message is still on. ]]]

“Here in Nevada Barack Obama has put out a flyer reading, in part, “You Can Be A Democrat for A Day,” reports Taylor Marsh. who lives and broadcasts in Las Vegas. [UPDATE: Obama's campaign is doing this nationwide. Here's an official Florida Obama campaign release on how to be a "Democrat for a Day."] Then there’s the manipulation by Obama-ite leaders of the Culinary Workers Local 226 in Nevada that forced Obama on union members (more below). (Let’s not forget that Obama dissed unions as “special interests” — that is, when they supported his rivals John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.)

So THIS is Chicago-style politics! Barack Obama, stung by his New Hampshire loss, promised a “Chicago-style smackdown,” and he’s delivered. Beyond this shocking invitation to let Republicans invade Democratic caucuses, there’s the disturbing prospect that Republicans — knowing that Obama will be the easiest Democratic nominee to defeat in the general election — will do just that. Gleefully! God almighty. Is Karl Rove advising the Obama campaign now, beyond the pages of the Wall Street Journal? Don’t forget Larry Johnson’s warnings in “Why Are the Rightwing Republicans Hyping Obama?” — which should be re-read by every true Democrat.

Read all at Taylor Marsh’s blog.

P.S. IF YOU’RE FOR OBAMA: Please volunteer to be a copy writer.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Here’s more from izarradar’s MyDD.com diary, “Not On My Shift.” (I can see why izarradar is a member of the Writer’s Guild. She writes very clearly):

I’m a card carrying union gal, a proud member of the striking WGA (“We write. You wrong”). I learned about respecting the power of the rank and file from my father who taught me never to cross a picket line, and from my own days of walking a line I learned to love the rank and file as brothers and sisters. So every time a union endorses a candidate I pay special attention because I value the voices of union members.

Senator Obama received an important endorsement the day after he lost the New Hamphire primary. The Culinary Workers Local 226 in Nevada announced that he was their candidate of choice. I was impressed by the endorsement, and respectful of the 60,000 hard-working men and women who voted for it. The rank and file had spoken, and Obama was their man, I thought.

Turns out I was wrong.

Unions use various ways to decide upon an endorsement. Sometimes it’s a questionnaire, or maybe a ballot. Other times it evolves out of meetings. In most unions, the leadership will have the final say, but not before consulting with the rank and file. This isn’t the process the Culinary Workers Local 226 used to make its endorsement of Senator Obama. The rank and file wasn’t involved in the decision at all.

And now members are pissed. …

[...]

What’s the big deal, you might ask? The union leadership can’t force a member to honor the endorsement of Senator Obama. If a member wants to vote for John Edwards, or Senator Clinton, they’re free to do so. This is a democracy, right? The secret ballot protects our identity and our choice.

Well, that’s a problem.

This is an open caucus. Union members will be standing in the same room with other union members. Or maybe even their shop steward. Or their foreman. Or possibly even a union official. Everyone will know which candidate you’re backing. And if you’re a member of Culinary Workers Local 226, and you don’t caucus for Senator Obama???

That could make for a long shift on Monday.

If it were my union, I’d be pissed. And I’d use my voice to let the union officials know it. You don’t pay union dues for this kind of forced intimidation. …

Read all of the story in “Not On My Shift.”

So I guess that Chicago-style politics includes:

(1) Stuffing a Democratic primary caucus with non-party voters; and

(2) Intimidating union members to vote as the leadership demands.

I guess the politics of “change” means “changing the rules.”