General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's 19 months until the election
Why do people insist it be resolved today? The Democrats so far have one declared candidate, just one. That bothers the people who oppose her, who have vacillated between comments on her campaign donors and the Iraq war vote to sexist attacks on her appearance and deciphering supposed cryptic messages in her logo. Someone asked why we all have to rally behind Clinton. We don't, not yet anyway. My suggestion is people relax. Wait until some other candidates announce and then argue FOR the candidate you like rather than limiting yourself to attacks on Clinton. It's still a very long time until the election. I know some DUers have been playing fantasy presidential politics for a couple of years now, and it's unfortunate so much energy is taken up in cable news-like prognosticating and hand wringing about potential candidates.
How about people address issues and policies that concern you, issues that you would like to see the Democratic party and the eventual nominee adopt? Saying you dislike Clinton is not enough, especially when there are yet no other declared candidates. What issues do you care about? Do you want to see the influence of big money in politics lessened? Do you want to ensure there is no war with Iran and encourage a rollback of US military entanglements around the world? Rather that beating one another over the heads about our respective views of a single candidate, why not focus on issues and reforms that matter? Because if the only goal is ensuring Clinton not be elected President, most loyal Democratic voters will not go along with it. You need to stand FOR something, not just against Clinton.
Another note. I've seen a lot of sexist crap posted over the last few days in the name of "progressive" reform of the party. No progressive reform can be accomplished through sexism. When people rely on sexism or diminishing the rights of LGBT Americans or any other group, the impression is that the reform some want is more regressive than progressive.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)I guess.
or something,
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Seems like some "progressives" would rather help a Republican win the White House then help elect a Democratic President who isn't "pure" enough or who doesn't cater solely to their "economic populist"* issues. I've got three words for you: The Supreme Court.
*What about the economic rights of women, or LGBT Americans, or minorities in general? Notice how it's always this generic "economic populism", and it's almost inevitably uttered by those who remain silent or worse on issues affecting women, minorities, LGBTs, etc. Because we don't want to be "divisive" or "distract from more important issues".
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)Her positions and policies are!!!
NOTHING!!!
Don't even get me started on the hair and the staged events....
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)from a third party senate race from a small state with a presidential campaign, with absolutely no concern for the dramatic differences in running for the two offices. If I compared Sanders' money with the local school board candidate, he'd come out looking like he was money grubbing. It would be dishonest, as is the other comparison.
There is an important issue about the role of money in politics to discuss, but they aren't interested in that. As far as I can tell, it's all about defeating a single candidate.
H2O Man
(73,321 posts)until Mayweather vs Pacquiao!
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)So far Clinton is the only candidate we have to discuss. There are many on people's wish lists, but none have declared yet so we can only focus on what is available. I agree 100% with you that sexism regarding Clinton is wrong (as it is in all cases) and I believe her record and positions should be the focus. However, how do propose that those things be discussed? For instance, when her vote on the IWR is brought up her supporters immediately counter with "other Dems voted for it too", or when her close ties and financial support from Wall Street is mentioned, again the supporters downplay this as nothing more than today's political expediency. Is this the kind of debate we should resign ourselves to until the primaries are finished?
I'll have zero problem checking the box by her name in the GE, as I have done for every single Dem candidate since my first opportunity to vote, but until the time comes that there is only one name on the ballot I want the people asking for my vote to make it clear why I should vote for them.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)It may be a factor in your decision whether to support a candidate, but it is not an ongoing issue. The ongoing issue is the role of the US in the world and our current and future military involvement, military spending, etc...
Yes, there is a definite handicap in not having another candidate declared. That's why I suggested just relax and post about issues. you don't have to decide who to support today. I haven't. I'm going to wait until close to the caucuses, until I've seen debates. My decision will depend on who runs and the issues that arise through the course of the campaign.
Instead what we now have is a situation where people are arguing against Clinton and FOR nothing, which gives the impression that their only concern is defeating her. I also think there is a problem in personalizing major issues like the role of money in politics, in pretending though that is all about Clinton. It ignores the severity of the problem. Clinton was defeated in 2008, and look what happened to the role of money in the political system since. It only worsened. Clinton's ties to Wall Street are a symptom of the problem, not its cause. The cause is the nature of campaign financing, a problem that thanks to SCOTUS can only be resolved through constitutional amendment. I myself favor one requiring public financing.
If your only goal is to argue against Clinton, none of what I said matters. That presumes people care about more than a single candidate. Some do not, which is their right, just as it is the right of others to not put much stock in their views.
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)Yet your OP was directed squarely at those questioning Clinton's motives and positions and nowhere did I sense your desire to see the vitrol scaled back included a similar chastising of the posters who support Clinton and deride anyone who questions her record or positions.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)It's the posts that are all about opposing her and for nothing. Part of that is because we don't yet have another candidate, and some I suspect is because that is the extent of their concerns.
The anti-Clinton crowd has been influential. They convinced me, someone who refused to even consider her in 2008, to have a look at her. For two years I've been inundated with posts about how terrible she is, posts that project onto her all of the ills of capitalism and the American political system. They have pissed me off. There are only so many vapid arguments one can read before reacting against them.
I'd call myself leaning Clinton, but I don't decide until somewhere just prior to the election. The effect of all of the anti-Clinton vitriol over the past two years, however, has to make me lean, something I've never done about a candidate this far out before. Still, I won't vote based on reaction. I'll see how things unfold and decide when the caucuses come around. In the past, the candidates I preferred have always dropped out by the time it came to vote or caucus.
Take my word or don't. It's of no matter. My preferences aren't important to anyone but me anyway.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)The incessant cheerleading and disregard for legitimate concerns regarding her record and positions tend to turn me off toward her. To each their own I guess.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Almost all of those who desire an alternative to Clinton are supporting Elizabeth Warren. This claim is absurd
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)and the claim is not absurd. The foulest was a picture of an aged, ugly looking Clinton as queen. There are countless comments about her appearance, her hair, her clothes, etc. One post said something like "whose balls are bigger, Clinton's or Warrens."
It's not exactly subtle. You have to work hard to miss it.
That they support Warren means nothing. 1) Warren isn't running so any support is hypothetical 2) Even if they would vote for her, they are still invoking sexist crap against Clinton. One doesn't have to refuse to vote for a woman to invoke sexism for their own purposes.
There is sexist crap and even misogynist profanity used against conservative women all the time. Now they are doing the same thing against Clinton.
I'm not interested in debating this with you. Clearly you see only what you want. I've seen enough of your posts in the men's group to know where you stand on these issues.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and to suggest cause you support warren, you would not implement the TOOL of sexism, to degrade and dismiss, to devalue and degrade an opponent is incorrect. we see it often.
again, you will not see it so why bother.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)so why bother to throw out an accusation you can't prove
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)and described some of the posts. You ignored it. When someone linked to one of those last night he had a post hidden. I'm not going to link so someone can alert on me for a call out.