Sore losers strike back?

Special Snowflake Soledad O'Brien, Wasserman Schultz beg for viewers; Twitter users would rather have root canal

Citizens From 18 States Ask Obama to Secede From the Union
(They're asking politely--why can't we oblidge them?)

Democrat-Boycotting Libertarian Eric Dondero on Whether He Would Let a Democrat Drown

To call those who are rubbed raw about President Obama's reelection victory, maladjusted is a polite characterization of their behavior.

Somehow they pretend that the Republicans hadn't tried to outright disenfranchise voters and buy the election to win.

They've been spared a dishonest victory. Who takes sincere pleasure in winning by cheating? Doesn't winning at any cost illustrate the saddest, most pathetic instincts there are in human behavior?

No matter who wins, the voters lose

And the loss is self-inflicted.

Already conversations are underway about presidential race for year 2016. More often than not, voters who complain and write off the political process will not engage with other voters in the effort required to draft a candidate to run for office.

Instead, most voters will wait around over the next four years, looking in from the outside as party leaders, loaded campaign contributors and political operatives decide what candidates will be "viable"--worthy of their support, primarily; then there is that secondary consideration--will voters support them?

For once can't we, the people, do the foot work for a presidential candidate that makes the exploratory committee and party machinery obsolete? Voters have the numbers to make this a reality; lacking only the coordination and political will.

How goes the cliche? If you don't vote you have no right to complain. And complaining never drew any voter closer to the decision making process that nominates and ultimately elects a candidate president.

Are you citizen enough?

The word is in from rank and file opinion makers evaluating President Barack Obama`s speech Thursday night, accepting the Democratic Party's nomination for president.

In spite of the consensus that the president gave a defensive, lukewarm speech, he offered one very crucial idea. Consider it a planted seed whose growth will depend mostly upon the efforts of voters--a notion reinforced throughout his speech.

Taking the word citizenship, President Obama redefined its scope as a criticism of the extremist wing of the Republican Party. Calling it "a word at the very heart of our [nation's] founding, at the very essence of our democracy", the president went on to expand its meaning. Its significance bounds beyond the relationship an American has with his or her country.

Citizenship means that "this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations." Yes, the statement could benefit from specifics, but it can be wielded in two ways.

First, it is a rebuke of the libertarian idea that privileges individual freedom above all else--even over accountability to community and government. This arrangement may please a few of the anarchy-minded, but it has never represented the United States at its best. (A well-known political leader with a libertarian bent has questioned the morality of desegregated lunch counters if the restaurant owner opposes them.)

Second, it works as a pointed jab at the fanatical "birther" movement--those motley masters of suspicion who cannot countenance the documented reality that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii after it joined the United States as the fiftieth. Redefining citizenship calls attention to the shameful way the "birthers" have squandered their own citizenship for a cause that veils their own deeply held prejudice.

The irony in all this is that it took a man who has been wrongly, incessantly accused of not being a citizen, to reconstitute the meaning of citizenship.

Throughout his speech, President Obama reminded supporters about their participation as voters and activists, making possible the gains achieved by his administration. "You were the reason," he insisted repeatedly, "You did that."

This isn't just some pivot from the "Yes, we can!" chant that seasoned campaign events back in 2008. The refrain, "You did that!" is meant to remind voters how indispensable their input and participation are to the political process.

Though there's lots of hollering and tally making over the big game known as campaign fund raising, how can average income voters ever get a word in edge-wise?

This brings the conversation back to the word citizenship, the idea of citizens acknowledging their obligation to one another, their mutuality. To be very specific, a voter must think of  impact his or her vote has on their peers when casting the ballot.

In today's electoral politics, there is no greater urgency than voters working together to bridge the influence gap between wealthy elite interests, who can buy an election, and everyone else.

When money is no longer coin of the republic

It is strangely comforting to watch as the Barack Obama campaign for re-election gets the short end of the fund raising stick. For the third consecutive month the Mitt Romney camp, along with its super pac surrogates, raked in millions more than than the incumbent president's organization. Too big to succeed could be one factor among others that buries Mitt Romney's campaign. Go ask Meg Whitman.

However, if Romney's financial braun prevails, then take a page from the things-must-get-worse-before-they-get-better manual. It would better serve this nation's long-term interests, for voters to watch the torrents of money washing into the election process--amplifying the echoplex of crass attack ads on radio and television. Then the electorate can go on pretending as though their influence over elections and governmental policy isn't already outspent into oblivion.

So, why not question our election culture's prevailing philosophy? That money makes the candidate? Yeah, okay--what about debating policy ideas? What values will prevail? And what happened to the one-citizen-one-vote fairness among all eligible voters?

Who has time for such quaint ideas? Mere distractions beneath the high-octane roar of the money derby.

Indeed, free speech is at stake here. If the corporations aren't allowed to wield their exploding bill folds to prop up either candidate--or both--then the First Amendment stands vulnerable to the tyranny of... democracy.

No matter which side you take on the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, arguing that the fundraising gap matters reinforces the delusional notion that money matters more than the exerted will of a U.S. citizenry. So, how long it will take for a plurality of voters to decide they are under no obligation to choose between bought-off Candidate A and greasy-palmed Candidate B--who knows?

However, it is fascinating that both the Romney and Obama camps go so far as credit small donors--those giving $250 or less--for comprising well over 90% of donations received respectively.

If that's truly the case (one can dream, no?) why shouldn't the presidential candidates and their supporters come to an election-landscape-titling the consensus? Why not adopt the $250 level as a campaign finance maximum? Why shouldn't voters demand it if both the incumbant and challenger are willing to acknowledge the measure of small donors' participation?

If ever such an opportunity emerged--that would be the day when votes became the coin of the republic.