General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"No more dynasties"--for women, that is
How often have we heard what great progressive heroes the Kennedy's are. JFK, RFK, Teddy Kennedy, and subsequent generations still holding elected office. FDR followed Teddy Roosevelt, and he is hailed as hero. We hear no allegations of dynasty for either family. John Adams and John Quincy Adams, a prominent family at the foundation of our nation. No problem. But dare a woman try to seek elected office after her husband held it, or anyone suggest his daughter might some point in the future run for office, and we suddenly hear calls of "no more dynasties."
Chelsea was raised in a wealthy family. Hillary became rich. That, we are told, makes them unfit to serve. Meanwhile, FDR and JFK, born into far wealthier families, are heralded as icons of progressivism.
I'm here to call bullshit. Attacking women for what causes no comment in men is sexist, pure and simple. Oh, I can't be sexist. I support Liz Warren and Tulsi Gabbard. I don't disparage every woman on the planet. How could I be sexist? Plenty of people like Obama and liked Bill Cosby back in the day but still insist black people are by nature lazy or criminals. Respecting one woman or person of color doesn't mean one is immune to racism or sexism.
When people repeatedly condemn women for what they excuse in men, that's sexism, pure and simple.
And using sexism because you resent one woman--like Hillary Clinton--is no better. It's till sexism.
The whitelash that Toni Morrison wrote about as sweeping Trump to power is not limited to the GOP; nor is the malelash. Millions of women and men see through the bullshit excuses. We know that sexism was no small part of the busters and other third party voters' decisions to put Trump in office rather than vote for our nominee. We noticed that men whose main political focus had been what they insisted was male oppression refused to vote for Clinton in the GE, and we know it was because of gender. The millions who participate in Pantsuit Nation talk about this stuff all the time.
The MRA contingent has largely been banned or moved on to more misogynist pastures (I'm talking about you, Jackholes), but sexism (and racism) continues to play a force in politics across the political spectrum. If it didn't, we would not have a sexual predator in the White House using his position to excuse another sexual predator. And we wouldn't be hearing about how "dynasties" are un-American while hailing the Kennedy's and Roosevelt's as heroes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DK504
(3,847 posts)"And using sexism because you resent one woman--like Hillary Clinton--is no better. It's till sexism."
It's mindless, ignorant and blind sexism born out bullshit from FUX and the Dem pray refusing to come out to her defense the way people attacked her.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)highly competent and fierce, and that scares the hell out of some people.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Neither Hillary NOR Bernie should run in 2020.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)of what women across the country face, whether in politics or any other realm. THAT is why tens of millions of women have taken her treatment and loss so personally. She is emblematic of us. That is why I have her picture on my sig line, when I didn't during the campaign. It's less about her per se that what she symbolizes.
The smartest, hardest working, most qualified candidate to run in generations was savaged, and it was because of her gender.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 7, 2017, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)
(on edit: at least it wasn't the dominant thing of the anti-HRC left, a group who were defined by their views about the issues).
What the RIGHT did to her was despicable and I've always said so.
What they did should never have happened.
But what the hell was the Left supposed to do about it?
We couldn't have backed her from the moment she declared her candidacy, for God's sakes.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 5, 2017, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)
She was regularly insulted with the foulest and most misogynistic language. Some of the worst I saw was from the so-called left. It's really great for you to tell me that the left didn't engage in sexism, like you know all about what that experience is like. Now go to AA and tell them that them that no one on the left is racist, that it's all in their imaginations.
That you can sit there and act like you have authority on the subject is galling, but not surprising.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Were there some people claiming to be Sanders supporters-some of whom, it later turned out, were right-wing infiltrators-saying horrid things? Of course-and I called a lot of them out on it at the time.
There were also a ton of threads in which the thread title just HAPPENED to make a point of calling Bernie a "Socialist Jew" and falsely accusing him of not WANTING the votes of African-Americans, Latinos, women, and LGBTQ voters and implying that virtually ALL of Bernie's supporters were arrogant young white men who sneered at the rest of the world.
Those threads just as bad as anything anybody ever said here about HRC or her supporters.
Are you seriously going to argue that nobody on the Left had a legitimate, issues-based reason to oppose HRC in the primaries?
That we all OWED her an unchallenged nomination just to prove we weren't misogynists?
(I'm not talking about the fall-and the vast majority of people who had backed HRC's main opponent DID work for and vote for HRC-I spent a good part of the fall begging those who said they couldn't to change their minds, for the record).
Now, we need unity. And you are fighting to keep us from uniting. We can only win in 2018 and 2020 if we bring everyone who backed both primary candidates, and those who didn't vote in the fall out of alienation, together in a coalition for change.
What you are doing here is going to make that a lot harder.
Please just say what you need to see and hear in order to stop posting threads like this.
We all agree that sexism, racism, anti-LGBTQ bigotry and religious ethnic prejudice have no place in this party-what is it going to take for you to at least consider trusting that, and to stop demonizing parts of this party and parts of the Left for the worst things said by a small number of people in an internet forum in the heat of a presidential primary campaign?
WomenRising2017
(203 posts)between the candidates, although I believe that Hillary Clinton laid out more detailed plans.
On social issues, Senator Sanders appeared dismissive.
On foreign policy issues, it wasn't even close. Senator Sanders show a clear lack of experience and understanding in this area.
as far as your comment
"That we all OWED her an unchallenged nomination just to prove we weren't misogynists? "
Hillary Clinton was not unchallenged. Misogyny did play a part in the primary, as well as the General Election.
We will get nowhere, if we continue to ignore that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that the Sanders campaign had no legitimate reasons to happen-that the people who opposed HRC in the primaries would have supported a candidate who ran on her program if only that candidate had been male.
This simply isn't true.
The insistence that it was what drove anti-HRC voting in the primaries reads as if it's a retroactive effort to delegitimize the other major primary candidate-what purpose is served by trying to do that? It's not as though the result in the fall would have been significantly different if that candidate hadn't run at all or if none of that candidate's proposals had ended up in the platform.
Those who supported her main opponent did so because they sincerely preferred what he had to say-and they would have supported him if he had been female and Secretary Clinton had been male.
Misogyny did not play the dominant role in minds of those who backed Sanders-the role it played was exaggerated here on DU because this is an internet forum and such places bring out the worst in people.
I respect your right to have supported the candidate you preferred-and most of the people who backed the other candidate campaigned for her in the fall-but that doesn't mean no one had any valid reasons to support other candidates in the primaries.
WomenRising2017
(203 posts)she encouraged and welcomed the challenge, and won the primary, overwhelmingly.
You may not want to admit it, but many anti-HRC voting was based solely in misogyny. That is not debatable.
It also played a major role in the General Election.
Primaries are contentious. This one was no different.
However, it does not go unnoticed, that Hillary Clinton worked very hard, and succeeded in bringing her supporters to the polls in 2008, for President Obama.
Senator Sanders on the other hand, claimed many of his supporters would not support Hillary Clinton, and it was not his job to win them over.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's not like MOST of the Sanders voters were driven by misogyny, or even any more than a small minority. When you claim that they were, it's like you are saying there was no valid reason for Sanders to run or for anyone to support him.
There's simply no reason to assume that HRC would have done better if Sanders hadn't run or if she had faced no significant primary opposition at all.
Such conditions made no difference for Al Gore or John Kerry, after all
Do you really believe it wasn't possible for a person of decency and good will to prefer Sanders to HRC on the merits of each as a candidate?
WomenRising2017
(203 posts)on his ideas.
The problem is, that once his platform was rejected, and he lost the primary, he continued, and still continues, to bash the base of the party that he campaigned for.
He wasn't exactly a good advocate for Democrats in the fall when he continued to hint that there was no difference between the two parties. He wasn't a good advocate for the Democrats when he refused to rally his base to vote for the Democratic nominee. And he is not a good advocate now, when he says that Trump voters are not racist/sexist/bigoted. They are. And there is nothing liberal or progressive about abandoning our core values.
I know many good people who preferred Senator Sanders to Hillary Clinton. Although it was clear to me that many did so due to bias/sexism.
Again, she had the better platform. She had the better plans. She was our only chance to retain the White House.
So please, explain to me why you preferred Senator Sanders over an incredibly talented, incredibly experienced, incredibly knowledgeable, and our sole chance of keeping the White House blue?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I felt that we needed someone who would stand up to corporate power and the very wealthy-the forces that does more than anything else to limit our ability to change things in this country. And I wanted a candidate who would not be casual about intervening militarily in other countries-especially since we are now in an era where military intervention isn't achieving anything.
I was looking for someone who cared as much about those on the bottom in our society-including those held down by class as well as those held down by identity-as those on the top. Someone who wouldn't accept the argument that we had to stand by and do nothing when "the market" decreed that whole regions had to be left to die out economically.
And I wanted a candidate who would reconnect the party with the idealists and activists who had elected Barack Obama, but who were essentially told to go away once the votes were in-people who had been given the clear impression they'd be given a role in shaping the agenda but found out instead that they weren't wanted for anything OTHER than getting the vote out-and would work with those people to win elections by winning the argument, by making a positive case for supporting OUR party rather than just saying how horrible the other party was.
Also, I felt that it while it was always likely that HRC would be nominated, the Democratic Party NEEDED and still needs to embrace the people the Sanders campaign connected with-to address what they cared about as much as possible and to make it clear to those people that this party was a place where they could work for what they cared about. I hope you don't disagree with the idea that we NEED them. Had we run a fall campaign designed to embrace those voters as much as those in the current coalition are embraced-and we could have run that campaign with HRC as nominee-I think we could have built a solid enough base of support to withstand what Comey and the Russians did.
Finally, while the Sanders campaign didn't express itself well at the start of the campaign on race and gender issues, I believe there was no actual difference in actual antiracist, anti-oppression commitment. Bernie was the only presidential candidate in 2016 to actually say the WORDS "Black Lives Matter", and had a criminal justice reform program on his website before Hillary did. There were flaws in the ways the Sanders campaign approached some demographics, but the campaign never deserved to be accused of not caring about the needs of those demographics.
Those were the reasons I backed Bernie, and I'd do it again.
I accept that HRC won the nomination and campaigned for her with good grace throughout the fall-but it's not necessarily correct to say Bernie's platform was rejected. A LOT of Clinton supporters, on this board and elsewhere, said they were with Bernie on the issues but simply felt HRC was "more electable". And a lot of Bernie's ideas ended up in the platform.
She was a qualified person, and would have been a good president. I mourned the result in November as deeply as you did. I respectfully disagree with your claim that she was our SOLE chance of holding the White House. There were few if any votes only HRC could get in the fall. Any candidate who put out a strong program for economic change, especially one that called for an economic revitalization strategy for the Upper Midwest, could have beaten Trump.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)was what you took away from Bernie.
And you still believe that he was truly stumping for Hillary, and not just against Trump?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie had always said he would endorse and campaign for the nominee if anyone else was nominated.
The guy can be blunt and, at times, stubborn. I'm not sure I'd want to be on his staff.
But I truly believe his opposition to Hillary was not about fear of a female president.
If he had had THAT issue, why would he have spent two years trying to get Elizabeth Warren to run?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And talked more about her being "better than Trump" far more than he talked about her qualifications.
Plenty of Sanders supporters didn't believe anyone of decency or good will could support Hillary - especially after Sanders made the distinction that He was the "candidate of the people" and Democrats needed to "decide if they were the party of the people or the party of the corporations."
Many Bernie supporters seem to feel that you need to dislike Hillary in direct proportion to how much you like Bernie.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)a conviction that tinkering around the edges wouldn't solve any of our problems.
It was about making the impossible possible-which is what movements for change have always been about.
Not hatred of women.
And remember, it was later shown that a lot of the so-called "bros"-not all, but a lot of them-were actually right-wing trolls who showed up here and other places in Cyberstan just to stir up shit.
BTW...do you honestly believe that there was no online ugliness among HRC supporters? You don't remember the red-baiting? the veiled and not-so-veiled antisemitism(thread titles that used the phrase "socialist Jew" can't be called anything other than antisemitic).
I want to move PAST the primaries.
To do that, we need to stop perpetuating the artificial division between HRC/Obama people and Sanders people. Let's just be people-and let's work together on what we agree on.
Let's support social justice AND economic justice-two sets of issues that are distinct, but were never actually in conflict with each other. We ALL need a society free of bigotry and we ALL need a society that isn't dominated by greed and increased concentration of wealth in the hands of a few). We need a party of change and a movement for change-from-below.
Can't we just move forward on THAT basis?
niyad
(129,515 posts)Response to Ken Burch (Reply #75)
Post removed
mcar
(45,661 posts)
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Issues, my aunt fanny.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)An anti-politician candidate rose up to challenge someone who had spent half her life in politics. Much of it on the national stage. Getting anywhere near wall street spelled corruption to a lot of voters. She made that mistake. There were also legitimate concerns about her role in the mass incarceration that is the result of something she promoted.
Some voters hate the banks so much, that they fell for the idea that 45 was so wealthy that he didn't need them and would not be beholden to them.
It should not be such a difficult task for us to acknowledge that there were some mistakes made as part of an effort to improve future electoral performance.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)to both the con and the alternative. Why we can't stop pretending there were no miscalculations on our side is beyond me.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)I'm settling into more of a narrowed and simplified definition of Democrat; Democrats vote every election, and vote for the Democrat EVERY FREAKING TIME! It's that simple for me.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nothing would have been different in the fall if she'd been nominated without opposition, OR if our platform(the platform the fall campaign almost never mentioned in the tv ads) had had no language to the left of her original proposals.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)The left as a whole backed her, but it's down right dishonest and disingenuous to pretend that the savaging from the so-called left did not happen, or that misogyny is somehow absent in the left.
This past election has made it impossible for anyone who is an honest observer to pretend that misogyny isn't baked into this society, and that the left isn't as guilty of it as the right. The way that women in general were savaged online and when they dared to attend rallies etc. proved otherwise.
The double standards, the death threats, the doxxing, the people hurling abuse etc. is undeniable. For those being honest about what happened and is still happening.
kcr
(15,522 posts)"I won't vote for her just because she's a woman" "Her voice is so shrill!" "Fuck her with a brick!" That last one was right here at DU.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They didn't reflect the vast majority of Sanders supporters, and I'm not sure what those of us who didn't do that could have done about the minority who did.
At this point, is calling out the minority, the small minority of Sanders people who indulged in that more important than building a majority anti-Trump coalition?
Can we ever beat the Right in the future if the party perpetually anathemizes the entire Sanders movement over the actions of some I the primaries?
What, exactly, do you want here?
kcr
(15,522 posts)I never claimed it was the vast majority. I'm just saying it happened. And any supporter who tries to erase this history is no ally, no matter how much you think you condemned it at the time.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)People who supported him, in the prohibitive majority of cases, did so on the issues. They would have supported a female Bernie against a male Hilary, or a black Bernie against a white Hilary, or a trans Bernie against a cis Hilary. That was what I saw while actually working in the Sanders campaign.
It's frustrating that there still seems to be a widespread refusal to accept that-such a refusal can sound like a continuing effort to retroactively minimize, trivialize, or even delegitimize the Sanders phenomenon.
If there was sexism among some small faction of Sanders supporters, it was wrong, but it doesn't discredit the entire campaign, or the movement that carries on in the campaign's wake. Nor is Bernie himself responsible for it.
Sexism has no place in politics. Obviously.
At the same time-this isn't fully equivalent, but it does matter-the argument that a person must support a female candidate against a male candidate in order to prove that person is not a sexist has no place there either.
What do you need to hear in order to let this be put to rest and the work of unity commenced?
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #96)
Post removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)His campaign just did a bad job at communicating with other demographics.
What's the point in continuing to attack the guy?
He's not going to run for the presidency again.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Critiques are not "attacks," and every politician knows this.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is that clearer?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I keep hearing is the implication that the ONLY real reason anybody voted for Bernie was hatred and fear of the idea of a woman being president.
Heated things were said(and on both sides). There was more than a little antisemitism in some of the arguments against Bernie. And rather than just saying the Sanders campaign wasn't effective in reaching out to some demographics, the campaign and the candidate were smeared as not caring about and not WANTING the votes from those demographics, claims that were despicable lies-as was the insinuation that Sanders SUPPORTERS were collectively indifferent to the need to fight racism, sexism, and anti-LGBTQ prejudice.
It was a nastier campaign that it ever should have been, and I condemn all the nastiness from anyone who purported to support the candidate I did. But it wasn't one-way and no campaign could claim moral superiority on its tactics.
Putting HRC's political difficulties down predominately to sexism, the Russians and vote suppression implies that the campaign made no major mistakes and that we should just keep doing things exactly the same way. It reads as an excuse to avoid open discussion and change.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)There was a lot of it on the far left - that you clearly weren't aware of, or didn't want to be aware of.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Mike Nelson
(10,912 posts)...I could not believe I was on DU, and reading that comment. I will never forget it.
Mike Nelson
(10,912 posts)...there was never a "dynasty" for Hillary. Jeb Bush - a Bush-Pierce - was related to Franklin Pierce, George HW Bush, George W Bush - three Presidents. A Rodham, Hillary was related to zero Presidents, but married to one Clinton.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)What's wrong with that?
George II
(67,782 posts)Baconator
(1,459 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)My god. If you are, it's worse here than I thought. And I thought it was getting very bad.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)It happens all the time; it's why we've had 45 straight presidents who were/are male. And don't tell me sexism didn't play a part for many of Dump's voters. Besides, nobody is saying to vote for someone ONLY because she's a woman; there are multiple factors in play. In Hillary Clinton's case, she was by far the most qualified candidate. the fact that she is a woman was definitely a bonus.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)I would hope that folks vote for those qualifications that you referenced and not for something that a person has no control over.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Thank you.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"It's not enough to vote for her because she's a woman"
"If you MUST vote for a woman, vote for Jill."
From people who would have torn your head off if you had dared say to them,
"It's not enough to vote for him because he's black"
"If you must vote for a black man, vote for Herman."
Cha
(316,711 posts)get your own chunk of trump.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They were vile, but they don't define the Sanders phenomenon and it's not right to hold those remarks against everyone who backed Bernie and everyone who supports the values of his campaign today.
LisaM
(29,487 posts)"I'll vote for a woman, just not her". How many times did we hear that?
And, I'm not diminishing the historical significance of having an African-American president, but it would be equally significant to have a woman president, and I feel as if we were gaslighted in 2008 and in 2016 into not being able to be joyful over that.
I also saw people saying it was more feminist to vote for Bernie than Hillary and that was simply an untrue statement.
I think there was harm from the left, and it left a deep wound.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody is diminishing the importance of that.
And we will, and sooner rather than later. It's simply inevitable.
(I doubt we could have said that about the possibility of electing a black president had Obama been stopped in 2008. I can't imagine any black person ever seeking the office again if HRC had narrowly won the nomination at the last instant.)
It was just the insistence that the first woman we nominated HAD to be HRC.
Why DID it have to be HRC, btw? What was so special about her compared to any other woman who might have run?
A lot of people who didn't support HRC would have supported Elizabeth Warren, and were begging her to run(Bernie actually wanted Warren to run first). Why, to your mind, would she have been less acceptable as the first female nominee than HRC?
In my experience was the stands on the issues HRC took-particularly on continuing to use force in the Arab/Muslim world and on trade-that drove a large chunk of progressives away from her-and among the Sanders supporters I knew, those stands would have been held against any male candidate. In addition to the issues, it was about not wanting a "ruling families" election-remember, in the fall of 2015, it looked like we might end up with a HRC-JEB! contest. There's nothing sexist about being uncomfortable about that-especially since it's likely that, had we had a race like that, we might have been looking at decades of nothing but Clinton-Bush races in the fall.
There were some people who claimed to be Bernie supporters(online, you really can't tell for sure who is actually who and whether a person who says they support a particular candidate actually does so-and it turned out later that some of the "bros" were actually right-wing trolls who just showed up here to be shit-disturbers)who said horrible things and I condemn any actual Sanders people who were driven by sexism-that was never what Bernie wanted the campaign to be about and it didn't define the Sanders phenomenon.
LisaM
(29,487 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)HRC was not the only woman who could possibly have sought the nomination.
Nor the only woman or the only Democrat who could possibly have won.
If Warren had run, Bernie wouldn't have and there would have been no significant division within the party.
LisaM
(29,487 posts)I'm not going to debate with you. It's always pointless.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We'd all have voted for Warren if she had run.
And I campaigned for HRC in the fall, as did MOST Sanders supporters.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)who might have run?"
Are you SERIOUSLY asking this? Because it sounds like a joke.
Even Obama said that she was the best qualified candidate to run in decades.
That sentence from you is so baffling, I just can't believe it...then again, it shouldn't surprise me coming from you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I did campaign for her extensively in the fall.
I asked that because the idea was pushed so extensively that it HAD to be HRC if it was going to be a woman.
It would have been just as feminist to nominate Elizabeth Warren.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)and that's no what you said. You said "Why DID it have to be HRC, btw? What was so special about her compared to ANY other woman
who might have run?"
A ridiculous statement, to say the least
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Other things that mattered were foreign and trade policy and the way this party and the government relate to corporate power.
Nothing we've done or are doing by force in the Arab/Muslim world is ever going to have any progressive or feminist effects.
It's unlikely that "victory" in the old military sense is possible
It doesn't matter which particular despotic force wins power in which country. All despotisms are essentially the same there.
And it's crucial that we re-examine the whole "free trade" thing-trying to get markets open is all very well, but that needs to be done without forcing workers into a race to the bottom.
Those things (especially trade, where our ambiguity on the TPP gave Trump ways to split away some of the vote that should naturally go to this party) matter deeply.
And the way our party and its candidates relate to the activist community matters. We need to be on the side of those working for change from below.
I don't condone the decision of anyone to vote third-party in the fall...but there were choices our party made at the convention(and I'm not talking about the choice of nominee)that made it much harder to persuade some people NOT to vote third-party, while failing to gain us votes from anywhere else on the spectrum.
lapucelle
(20,946 posts)No one dismisses that option out of hand for men like Romney, Gore, Biden, or Sanders.
That's why it's called a double standard.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)... speak for themselves.
lapucelle
(20,946 posts)Some of us are listening to what the popular vote mandate said. Clinton received 3,000,000 more votes than the winner in the general and won the primary handily. And although she lost the delegate count in 2008, she still received 16,000,000 votes and took it like a girl: no whining about "rigged systems" when things didn't go her way.
After the losses that Sanders and Biden have taken in primaries past and Gore and Romney took in general elections, the idea that they would ever run again should be dismissed out of hand as well..
Unless, of course, those men are different for some reason.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)All of the issues that we saw during the campaign compounded with the loss itself would make it very difficult.
I think (hope?) the party will use the time between 2016 and 2020 to pass the torch to a new generation of leadership.
lapucelle
(20,946 posts)They are, however, allowed to make mistakes, admit their errors, and evolve in their perspective. In fact, Vermont Democrats recently elected a former Republican lieutenant governor as the chairman of their state DNC.
All candidates are "flawed"; they are, after all, human beings. The impossible standard of flawlessness was imposed on one candidate alone. The male candidate's record of fraud and dishonesty was normalized while the woman's mistakes were dissected and criminalized. And what passes for journalism nowadays gleefully participated, no longer gatekeepers with a function so important that We the People demanded it be protected, but rather infotainment stars generating clicks and ratings all in the service of revenue.
I'd like to see more experienced Democratic leaders mentor newer members because there is much to be learned about institutional expertise and political gamesmanship. We don't want to make the same mistakes that Republicans have made with fresh-faced, telegenic young ideologues who have no idea whatsoever how to actually get anything done.
pnwmom
(110,190 posts)And the only things that stopped her from winning the rigged electoral college (rigged originally to help the slave-holding states, and still helping the rural states) were 70,000 votes in 3 states; and 2 letter bombs dropped by James Comey.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)... to be competitive.
Modern media has turned the whole process into a reality show and charisma is as important now as actual qualifications.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Baconator
(1,459 posts)In any case, it should be about the win.
Is there absolutely no one else in the party who will have a better chance at a victory?
Not a single person?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)And to your second question, that was not the point. The point is that losing once in the GE doesn't mean a candidate can't run again and win
Baconator
(1,459 posts)I'm saying that it would be very very difficult.
I just have a hard time believing that there is not a single person in the entire party that doesn't have a better shot at a win.
Do you really think that there is no one who stands a better chance? Not one?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Baconator
(1,459 posts)Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In all of those cases, they've aged out.
I wasn't singling out HRC on this.
I've done previous OPs arguing that NO ONE who ran in 2016 should run again...or, at a minimum, at least not in 2020.
As a practical matter, it has never gone well for us to renominate someone who was nominated and not elected before.
And there's this to consider...what if she was nominated and Trump went through with his threats to arrest her?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I seem to remember having that as my sig line for quite a long time...
Fuck Plutocracy
Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)problem is that only helps one side.
The same people who told us she couldnt be trusted are trying to set us up for more losses.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"Fuck her with a brick." - right here on DU
"She's a corporate cunt" and many other similar names - On the "Bernie for President" FB page.
The threats and vicious mysogynist names from "the true progressives" ....
"Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), listed as one of the top five most liberal senators in Congress and a member of Congress since 1983, was called a "fascist bitch" by Sanders supporters who booed when she took the stage. "
http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2016/Misogyny-Rules-The-2016-Election-1213/
“Students don’t always understand that Hillary [Clinton] is criticized a lot more for what she’s wearing or whether she smiles or not or whether she’s perceived as ‘yelling,’” Sturgeon-Jarrett explains. “You see other candidates yelling and not getting to fallback for it. Yet when Hillary Clinton raises her voice, everybody makes it an issue. I’ve had students say, ‘Well, I don’t want Hillary yelling at me. It would be just like having my mom or my wife as the president.’
All these articles and analysis are based on "nothing" then?
https://www.bustle.com/articles/163868-dont-let-donald-trump-distract-you-from-the-lefts-insidious-sexism
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/17/bernie_bros_out_of_control_explosion_of_misogynist_rage_at_nevadas_dem_chairwoman_reflects_terribly_on_sanders_dwindling_campaign/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/24/these-6-charts-show-how-much-sexism-hillary-clinton-faces-on-twitter/?utm_term=.8252457a64ca
Response to DK504 (Reply #1)
Post removed
IronLionZion
(50,817 posts)
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)The people that complained loudest about Hillary or even the idea of Chelsea (who's has consistently said she has not interest in politics) with no dynasties!1!1!!! are the same ones pushing FOR Joe Kennedy III.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)and if you point that out they'll either ignore it or divert from the issue.
calimary
(89,034 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)
moriah
(8,312 posts)I am not sure how long before I will be able to eat guacamole now.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I don't think either he or Chelsea Clinton are "unfit to serve" but I also don't think they should get automatically rushed to the front of the line due to their last names.
I suspect if you compare the Chelsea and Joe Kennedy threads, you'll see a lot of the same arguments from a lot of the same people, so I'm not sure if your gender point holds up vis a vis DU.
(I had a lot more esteem for Chelsea Clinton before she decided to suggest that medical marijuana was killing people, science be damned. 
)
And I think too many people believe the "right last name" is a magic talisman to win elections. It isn't.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)at least in regard to JFK and FDR. I've had those discussions with people, and they dodge the issue.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Whereas they made a bee line for the mere mention of Chelsea's name and a statement that she WAS NOT seeking office. Besides, that's not the only time the issue has been discussed. How many times do you hear the anti-Clinton contingency talking about getting back to the party of FDR and JFK? All the fucking time!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)My attitude about Chelsea is identical to my attitude about JKIII.
I do wish people would do some self-examination as to the wiring in their own brains that causes this impulse to seek out the offspring of leaders-- (as well as this idea that we need some magic potion to win elections.)
I think it's interesting from the perspective of understanding the human animal.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)It wasn't about you.
Nobody is seeking anyone out. The press did a story on her. That was enough to cause outrage. It's absurd. I can only imagine if some Sanders junior ran for office. Jeeze, merely endorsing him insulates someone for life. Tulsi Gabbard can be all cozy with Sarin Assad, and anyone who criticizes her is the enemy. The children gassed don't merit a mention. She endorsed Bernie. What else could possibly matter?
It's hardly unusual for children to follow in their parents' career path. There are families of plumbers, doctors, lawyers. Children go into family businesses. My sister-in-law is Chinese. When she chooses a doctor of Chinese medicine, generational experience is an important factor. Did you ever turn down a workman because his dad had worked in the business? I bet not.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And yes, there is an argument to be made that people who grow up with an understanding of how the business works have an advantage in terms of doing it well- whatever the business.
But meritocracy as a guiding philosophical principle of our party isimportant, too. And again, both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton himself came from middle class obscurity.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)but I don't think that is what is going on in that Chelsea Clinton thread or why it has over 100 comments.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)I've never heard anyone talk about dynasties because he is from a political family. And below someone mentioned Justin Trudeau, who we were all jealous wasn't our president during his visit to the White House.
Give me a dynasty over that buffoon any day.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'll give Chelsea a chance, if the question arises, just as I would the orange-haired kennedy lad.
She has the dual burden of high expectations and preconceived opinions. Im not convinced a life in politics is sonething she actually wants.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 5, 2017, 06:25 PM - Edit history (2)
Though she was a very effective surrogate for her mom. (Yes, I saw your link to the marijuana comment).
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Seriously. It's refreshing to see an online political conversation in which the participants can disagree without shouting each other down. We need more of that, for sure.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)We don't always see eye-to-eye on everything, but I respect the strength of her convictions, and I also know we do actually agree on most things, when you get down to brass tacks.
She also, dare I say it, has prompted me to reexamine my assumptions and look at an issue from a differing perspective on numerous occasions.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Most people don't pay much attention to non presidential races. By the time the primaries are over and the general election begins, both candidates will have name ID in the 90%+ range. Those who don't know who Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is are far too young to vote or won't be voting anyways.
In a downticket race, increasing name ID is one of the major challenges and gives an advantage to the incumbent. Campaigns will spend a lot of money on increasing the candidate's name ID and if they have it from something else (spouse/parents, another office, celebrity, etc) it is an advantage and saves the campaign valuable resources.
This is also how celebrities get elected to public office. I've joked around in my own congressional district the only person who can take out the incumbent congressman is The Boss.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hell, in 2008 we had all sorts of smart money people telling us we would be INSANE to nominate the one term African American senator with a funny name. We would be throwing away an easy win.
So I just think it's bad political calculus, and dated.
LisaM
(29,487 posts)Since when does the fact that two people in the same family held office comprise a "dynasty"?
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)LisaM
(29,487 posts)My eyeballs are exploding.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but mainly for the headline's unspoken assumption that Chelsea should have a political career at all.
Famous and rich parents intimately woven into the party's DNA are troubling, though the famous name is also an easy way to win elections. And Clintonism has helped bring us some progressive reform, or at least the possibility of such. It's possible to oppose dydnasties in principle, but to have that principle outweighed by circumstance. Y'gotta dance with the candidates you have, but you should also plan for the sort of candidate you want to have in the future. I hope that won't always have to be a child of privilege.
Hell, we're told today that Trump's son may be planning a run at NY's governorship. If we worry about dynasties at all, that one should certainly give us pause.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)not dynasties per se. Your use of "Clintonism" is part of the problem. Hillary is not an extension of her husband. He does not own her. She is her own person, and her positions are significantly more liberal than his were.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Their careers and wealth have each enhanced the other's standing, they've canvassed for each other, they attract similar demographics and their agendas have much in common.
I seriously did and do appreciate Hillary's apparent aim to take the presidency farther toward progressivism than her husband did.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Are people of color and women. The poorest citizens voted for both, as opposed to other candidates who tended to attract fewer Democrats, higher income voters, and more white men. Is it that you never actually looked at exit polls, or that you resent the fact that those demographics are important to the Democratic vote?
It sounds to me that you never bothered reading about Hillary's policy positions. To claim they mirrored Bill's from the 90s is factually false. Again we see how little policy actually matters to too many voters. Cultural signifiers, however do, which is why race and gender play such a significant role.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)And their appeal goes beyond minority and women voters.
Bill Clinton voters tended to be Hillary Clinton voters.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)"The Clintons." You really can't bring yourself to see the only woman who was a major-party presidential nominee as her own person.
Are you going to address why you are so opposed to "the demographics" of the poor, people of color, and single women--who are in fact the BASE of the Democratic Party?
JI7
(93,195 posts)BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Women have been excluded from the presidency for 240 years. The idea that the first women to be a major nominee for the office was part of a "dynasty" because her husband held an office that her entire gender was--and IS-excluded from makes the charges of "dynasty' suspect, particularly when those same people talk constantly about returning to the party of FDR and JFK, two other dynasties.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...because the sexism was and remains real. It was one of the better reasons, IMO, to have supported Hillary out of the gate. Let's pull that scab, I say, and that's how I voted in the general.
One trouble with the word dynasty is that some people read it as an absolute to either embrace or oppose utterly. I would just weigh it along with every other factor at work in an election.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Enough with the right-wing talking points.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Hoping for the day when the idea of a female president can stop panicking Americans.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)and it's not the woman card.
Gore1FL
(22,838 posts)The GOP rejected the Bush dynasty with Jeb, and as far as I know, he isn't a woman. Dubya ruined it for everyone--not that it didn't need ruining.
We don't need another Kennedy, another Johnson, another Carter, another Clinton or another Obama.
I wouldn't mind seeing a Warren, though.
caroldansen
(725 posts)BainsBane
(57,378 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
brer cat
(27,348 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)mcar
(45,661 posts)Joe Kennedy III and suggested him as a 2020 contender. But Chelsea Clinton isn't worth discussing because "dynasty." 
deurbano
(2,980 posts)BainsBane
(57,378 posts)We were all gushing about Trudeau.
SunSeeker
(57,514 posts)BainsBane
(57,378 posts)
genxlib
(6,082 posts)Our most recent example of a dynasty is the Bush disaster. Therefore, we might be a little more resistant to the idea now than in different times.
Having said that, I was a strong supporter of Hillary's and never considered it a question of dynasty. The reason being is that she worked at building her own resume. She took steps at various positions to build her knowledge. In the end, she was supremely qualified to be President based on her own body of work and not her last name.
The problem with dynasties is if people advance despite not getting the experience and qualifications.
If Chelsea wants to go into politics then I will be open minded to it. However, she would need experience at other levels of Government first. That is a standard I would hold to anyone; male or female, dynasty or not.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Great points! In this, as well as other political issues, women are looked upon with automatic suspicion.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,452 posts)raised in a wealthy family.
People have expressed concern that she should automatically be considered a viable candidate simply because she grew up in a political family. Especially as she has never once expressed any interest in running for elective office.
I almost hate to mention the Obama women (Michelle, Sasha, and Malia) since this may be interpreted as sexism, but again, I've seen people here gush over the possibility of any of them running for office, simply because they are the wife and daughters of a President. Michelle has made it crystal clear she has no interested in running. If either Sasha or Malia does move in that direction in the near future, by majoring in political science or going to law school for instance, and then actually running for office or taking up community organization, I'll be the first to congratulate them.
The second and third generation Kennedys who've gone into politics, did it at the beginning of their adult lives. They didn't just go off and do other things for several decades and then decided to run for office. Also, that family has notoriously discouraged its women from accomplishing much on their own, so Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is a notable exception in that she became Lt Governor of Maryland.
And people have complained bitterly about the Kennedy and Bush dynasties. The latter consists exclusively of male members. So your complaint that somehow sexism is the main thing at work here doesn't hold water. At least not for me.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)It was quite a nasty post and rightly hidden. MANY have said it about Hillary, including--in astounding irony--Susan Sarandon.
The article in question wasn't about Chelsea running. It was about her NOT running, and they still freaked out. The thread is still in flames.
I didn't mention Bush because no one here likes him, but they adore the Kennedys and Roosevelts. Therein lies the contradiction.
Life experience outside of politics is hardly a bad thing.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,452 posts)lucky enough to read it before it was hidden, it's gone forever. Heck, I had one of my posts hidden a while back, and couldn't recall precisely what I'd said that had incensed someone that much. Too bad. It used to be you could read hidden posts.
Also, there was never a real Roosevelt dynasty. Teddy and FDR were some sort of distant cousins, and off the top of my head I don't think any of their children ever ran for office.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)than a second Clinton wouldn't have been either, especially since Hillary isn't Bill's child.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,452 posts)You're right. A spouse or a sibling doesn't denote the start of a dynasty. I'd also suggest that word not be used until at least a third generation is involved. So yes, we can apply that word to the Kennedy family, but not really to the Bushes, unless I've missed knowing about a younger generation Bush running for office. And even if Chelsea Clinton, or either of the Obama daughters runs for office, still no dynasty.
Heck, people don't complain much any more about second and third generations of Hollywood families being in show business. Politics is just another career choice. And in reality, if someone who grows up in a political family decides to run for office, no one should be very surprised.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)but the fact is it was used regularly against Hillary, and today people started shouting dynasty again over an article saying Chelsea was NOT running for office.
Demit
(11,238 posts)He's the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office and, as I understand it, quite ambitious to go on to bigger things.
thucythucy
(9,043 posts)in the 1940s and 50s.
There may be others as well, including, I think, one of his grandchildren.
moriah
(8,312 posts)I can't speak to her time after leaving Arkansas but her reputation in school (we're within a year of each other and both went to the public schools in Little Rock, and one of my friends's mom's worked at Rose Law Firm and they knew each other far better) was a rather shy person who honestly didn't like, and certainly didn't trust, people who made much about her being the Governor's daughter. She didn't want to stand out.
A lot of gifted kids are shy when young, but that rep combined with the hell she endured under public scrutiny as an adolescent personally, plus the hell the media put the whole family through... NOT majoring in PolSci or pre-law, never running for office, and having children of her own now who might go through similar problems she endured because of her parents being so high-profile (not saying they aren't already famous, but I can't see her wishing *more* fame/flames on them)....
I have always thought the summit of her personal political ambition might be having a diplomatic role somehow -- would be serving the public, but not in a leadership or decision-making role. That also fits closer to her graduate studies than aspirations for executive office.
George II
(67,782 posts)...in the same sentence! Chutzpah.
One of these days we'll hear them saying, "I can't be sexist, some of my best friends are women"!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)People would still be saying "no dynasty" if Bill and Hillary had an only child named Charlie.
kcr
(15,522 posts)For just how ridiculously out of balance it is. Chelsea Clinton never even announced she was running for anything, yet hair on fire! because her mother was excoriated for the same thing, when she shouldn't even have been in the first place. She was a spouse. Yet how many sons of sons who are actually politicians get a pass?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I don't think the SONS of politicians should get a pass, for that matter.
What I think caused some of the trouble in '16-not all, but some-was the idea that progressives HAD to back HRC from the moment she declared just to prove they weren't sexist-even if the person they preferred to HRC was Elizabeth Warren. Would you at least agree that idea might have been pushed too aggressively? That it was unfair to imply that there were no legitimate policy-based reasons to prefer other candidates?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)without having changed on a single issue was very telling.
She was the "Canadian girlfriend" of the sexist left....
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Trump's daughter and son-in-law are two of his closest advisers. And don't forget his sons - as much as I'd like to. 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody here is letting the Trumps off the hook on anything.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)99% of those who opposed or who said they opposed HRC from the left would be fine with ANYONE progressive being the Democratic nominee in the future.
If she could at some point show dragon-slaying, truth-telling Bobby Kennedy-after-1965 values, Chelsea could be ok. At this point, we know nothing about her.
Are you arguing that we HAVE to keep nominating members of the Clinton family until one of them eventually gets elected president again?
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Good grief.
I was perfectly clear about my argument.
Since your criteria is operating a time machine back to the 1960s, are you prepared to transport back and remove FDR from office before he could terrorize America by succeeding his cousin?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If I had a time machine, I'd actually go back and replace him with Eleanor-she was MORE of a class traitor and came close to being the only former First Lady in American history to get blacklisted in the late 40s.
Can you think of any rich people who might possibly run in 2020 or 2024 who are remotely like that? There aren't even Kennedys who are like that now, as far as I know,
The issue here is class. We need to nominate someone-and at this point I don't care who it is-who is NOT part of the 1%.
Could be a woman, a person of any color, an LGBTQ person.
It just needs to be an outsider who has had some experience with living a life outside of privilege.
It sounds as though you STILL assume any lack of left enthusiasm for HRC in '16(or wariness about nominating Chelsea, who at this point doesn't even have any experience in elective office and hasn't, to my knowledge expressed any personal interest in starting a political career) as grounded in hatred of women.
It also sounds as though you still can't let go of the idea that we should view internal Democratic politics solely through a Sanders people v. Clinton/Obama people frame of reference. Isn't it time, at long last, to move past that and to start working for coalition and common ground?
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Is it really so impossible for you to consider sexism as an issue?
I didn't mention Sanders. Why are you unable to read what people write without imposing your own agenda on it? Do no one else's concerns or thoughts matter at all?
I am so not focused on the next presidential election. I have no idea who will run in the future, and I won't even think about a decision until they've announced in 2019. l will leave the obsession with national father figures to those who can't manage to care about anything else.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That was what anti-HRC sentiment from the RIGHT was largely about.
Ascribing left opposition to HRC mainly to sexism, rather than to her stances on some issues, seems to me to be an excuse to avoid having a real discussion of what did and did not work in the 2016 campaign. Those who preferred her main primary opponent did so mainly because they agreed more with what he had to say-NOT because he was male. Why is it still seemingly impossible for you to accept that?
We need an honest, respectful conversation about 2016-and we can have such a conversation WITHOUT dismissing Russian interference or vote suppression as factors.
What purpose do you feel is served by insisting that the main reason ANYONE, even people on the left, opposed HRC in the primaries, or might not be enthusiastic about Chelsea as a future candidate, was fear of a female president?
Are you going to keep pressing this point until everybody says "ok, there was no good reason for ANYBODY not to support HRC from the moment she declared her candidacy"?
If not, what is your objective here?
HRC would have been a fine president- but she's never going to run again. If she ran in 2020, it's likely that Trump would immediately find some pretext to put her in jail. Since that would probably put us under fascism for the rest of eternity...why risk it?
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Trying to have a discussion with you is pointless.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I denounce sexism wherever it occurs.
PdxSean
(574 posts)My understanding is that 80% of voting black men voted Clinton (13% for Trump). True, our sistahs outdid us at 94% for Clinton (4% Trump), but I don't think this means we (men) are thus anti-female leader.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)you'll note that I observed "millions of women and men see through the bullshit excuses."
That should cover the "not all men" concern.
I also think the fear of powerful women is greater among white men who are accustomed to privilege. That of course is not to say all white men but rather is a general impression.
Hekate
(100,132 posts)Gothmog
(174,853 posts)I agree with your analysis
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)My reasons for not being super Bullish on Clinton have nothing to do with those things, and it was point in her favor that she was a woman. The very act of electing a woman does work towards a more progressive nation in its own way, assuming we elect a progressive woman. Clinton exists in the same range as Obama and Biden for me. I prefer my candidates to be more liberal, but I'm still proud to have had Obama as our President for 8 years. I think he made as a kinder, more thoughtful and eloquent nation, at least in his time in office. I have no doubt Clinton would have wanted her legacy to be something great and would have worked hard to achieve it.
But over all, I still disagree with their political approach. It's hard to say that, without also acknowledging that clearly something about it works, since they have been the Democratic frontrunners. That they understand the system, and they work within it to make things happen, is a fair promotion of their approach, whereas I'm wary of it because I think it waters down their language and starts us compromising at the middle rather than from the left, where it would be easier for us to promote a clear advocacy of People over corporations, not people and corporations working together.
But I don't want to get too far into that. Yes, it is fair to recognize that sexism probably has a lot to do with the ease at which people reject Clinton, or find fault with her. It is not fair to assume that is why all of us do, and that there are no philosophical positions from which we might come that might make her less than THE ideal candidate for some of us. As to Kennedy, I've got disagreements there. He primaried Carter, who is a politician who's idealism I prefer. I appreciate the Kennedys' service, but I do not give them a pass on things, like, Ted's collaboration on no child left behind.
Again, not saying there aren't those for whom this was a deal-breaker, consciously or unconsciously...people have been raised in a fucked-up misogynistic and racist culture, and it manifests in ways we aren't even aware of, but lets not be too quick to make a blanket judgement about everyone who isn't a Clinton fan. For my part though, I voted for her in the GE, and post-primary, I was pretty hopeful that she was going to make us proud. I was pretty convinced she had it shored up, but here we are...
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Yet you preferred him to the more liberal candidate.
My OP is not about why people voted as the did. It's about the double standard I have observed in discussing women as opposed to men. Its trigger was the thread on Chelsea Clinton that said she was not going to run for office, yet the mere mention of her name caused outrage and cries of "no more dynasty."
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I was actually paying attention to politics when I was 6 years old. That's just been an understanding i've come to since, but maybe my impressions of the two from my limited knowledge are not rooted in that particular year and what they both fought for at the time.
As to Chelsea and politics...I understand an aversion to legacy, but I also understand why it would be silly to squander very talented people who live and breathe politics and want to make a difference. I'm not sure Chelsea is there. I'm still irritated by her "I've tried but I just can't care about money" line. That certainly shows its not her wheelhouse as of now.
I'm posting some info since I was young at the time and so my memory isn't specific on the subject. Yet the entries below don't provide specifics on issues, just that he was considered more conservative. I think part of it was that he was a Southerner and businessman, as well as public about his faith. That was unusual at the time.
1976
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976
1980
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980
Many people think of Carter as liberal because of his post-presidency, but he evolved significantly over the years.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Allow me to name a very few dynasties.
Ford
Rockefeller
Kennedy
Carnegie
Mellon
Romney
Roosevelt
Trump (a family of thieves)
Daley (a Chicago Family)
and many more.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Royal families, the remnants of aristocracy, business families. There is nothing particularly American about it. It goes back millennia.
uponit7771
(93,491 posts)BainsBane
(57,378 posts)who voted for Obama just couldn't possibly be racist.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)
R B Garr
(17,937 posts)As always! 
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)
redgreenandblue
(2,117 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Many, many of us on DU stand proudly with Baines Bane in that "corner".
raccoon
(32,206 posts)http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/21/aftermath-sixteen-writers-on-trumps-america#morrison
The article is "Mourning for Whiteness" and is worth the read.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)It's a great piece.
Guilded Lilly
(5,591 posts)in this past election and now, over and above specific policy differences, which will (and should) always exist. It is the ever present, deeply-seeded misogyny that was brought to very painful light and needs to be recognized, rejected and corrected. It is a national problem, sometimes very subtle and even surprising among otherwise very open minded individuals.
"I'm here to call bullshit. Attacking women for what causes no comment in men is sexist, pure and simple."
Pure and simple, I see and agree with your feelings! Yup, I so very much Agree.
JHan
(10,173 posts)If a Kennedy ran again, or a descendant of FDR, male or female, I wouldn't care for those reasons.
Fussing about dynasties as if that's why people don't look beyond the surface when cult of personality exists regardless of the last name.
And the dynasty label applied to the Clinton is .. just... I don't even want to expend the brain cells thinking about it. Folks will excuse "dynasties" when it comes to politicians they favor.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)janterry
(4,429 posts)but I'm not all that interested in Chelsea Clinton running for office. Nor, by the way, am I interested in any number of other people running for office.
As I've written elsewhere, I'd vote for her if she were the liberal choice. She's liberal. But my preference is that folks work their way through the political system. If I could dream up a candidate, I'd select one who had experience in community organizing (aka Obama) or social service. I'd love to see someone who has real 1:1 experience working with people in our cities or in our rural communities. I want someone with a background in helping people implement change in their life. Other routes to public office might be in public policy implementation.
There are a range of reasons why someone might want a particular person to run for office - or, in this case, not. It's not all about sexism.
Frankly, the reason famous offspring of politicians get tapped for office is that they have political and financial connections. This is NOT the system that I want. Of course, I get why this is - money and influence are important - but you're not going to hear me applaud.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)Firstly, Chelsea isn't running for office. Secondly, my point isn't that anyone has to support her. It's that some contrive excuses to oppose some women that they do not invoke for men. Wealth can be one of them, particularly when it doesn't concern them for male candidates, and this selective use of dynasty is another.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)FDR and the Kennedys don't apply on that point-we're talking about people who might run today, not in 1980, 1968, 1960 or 1932.
I think we should be wary of nominating ANYONE who is personally wealthy...if that person was the most progressive candidate in the race, fine, it that person put the common good ahead of their own class interests, as RFK or either Roosevelt(Franklin OR Eleanor).
Not everything is about gender. Some is, some isn't.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)to see what you have to say about wealth then.
I have had people tell me to my face that Biden's wealth was okay because it came through marriage, and that FDR and JFK's was okay because they were born into it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)As to the Kennedys, the one I admired was Bobby...who was, as it turned out, also born to wealth, but who responded to his brother's murder by massively growing in human empathy and becoming a fighter for justice. As to FDR, yes he was wealthy, but he made it clear in his policies that he didn't give a shit about the Daddy Warbucks-Thurston Howell the Third types he'd have known down at the yacht club-although in 1932, if we hadn't had the Electoral College, I might have voted for Norman Thomas(who could potentially have won that year, had we had direct presidential elections.)
And if you thought I was the sort who wouldn't have backed HRC in the primaries but would have been fine with Biden or another wealthy MAN, that's totally wrong. I call bullshit on that kind of thinking as much as you would. I backed Jesse in 1984 and 1988 against wealthier male opponents, Kucinich in 2004 against John Kerry, and then switched to Obama after Kucinich dropped out in 2008 when Obama was, to my knowledge, the least-wealthy person remaining in the race-and I'd have done the same if that had been an Obama v. Biden contest.
In 2016, I'd have supported Bernie against any MAN running on the same program HRC ran on-and I'd say that that was the case among basically ALL of the Sanders people I knew.
Sexism is something that still has a major effect and that it must be called out, but HRC's political difficulties can't ALL be put down to that. Bernie didn't 43% of the primary vote(and a majority of the women's vote in New Hampshire) entirely or even predominately due to male progressives being unable to tolerate the idea that of nominating a woman for president-and saying that they can actually does a disservice to her if you are among those who want her to run for something else in the future or want to actually ELECT a Democratic woman to the presidency the next time such a candidate runs.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)this thread is not an attempt to explain Clinton's loss or say all her problems were all due to sexism. That is your trip entirely. You're the one who can't manage to think beyond individuals, who insists no one on the left is sexist, despite the fact you must have seen all kinds of foul shit. If fact, people provided evidence. Yet you insist on ignoring it.
And this OP isn't about you or why you voted as you did. It's an analysis of a political trope.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And we need to address sexism.
I actually made those remarks out of RESPECT to our last nominee.
TXCritter
(344 posts)I started saying no more dynasties when W ran. For me, it's exclusive to the presidency. It's not about the person running, it's about the mental weakness of the electorate. The electorate should reject qualification by proximity.
Imagine this
HW Bush
Bill Clinton
W Bush
B Obama
H Clinton
Jeb Bush
M Obama
Neil Bush?
C Clinton
I don't see that as OK. I see it as a feature of the GOP because the current GOP favors a strong Executive. Their attacks on the Judicial Branch are clear indicators that they want Marbury vs Madison overturned and establish a strong executive with no checks and balances. So, for Republicans, the monarchy worship goes hand in hand with their patriarchal, theocratic goals.
But Democrats? I would hope we are above celebrity worship. For the next candidate I don't want to see any Roosevelts, Trumans, Kennedys, Johnsons, Carters, Clintons or Obamas who are close relations to the original sitting president. How close is close? Admittedly, I'm not sure.
For the record, I don't want to see Sanders run again either. He's become too divisive to the party. Also, Gore & Biden are out. We need some newer blood. Sen. Warren would be my first choice.
niyad
(129,515 posts)Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)Rilgin
(795 posts)Your post is very distressing because it makes up facts and history to attack policy concerns that exist within the Democratic Party.
The American Revolution followed the French Revolution in trying to fashion a system not based on aristocracy. Note that in aristocratic countries marriage as well as blood brings a person a royal status and leads to power.
Dynastic political families and Nepotism in appointments directly conflicts and causes uneasiness in this desire to eliminate aristocracy as a fundamental driving force in the development of the American System. This is not the only factor and sometimes nepotism and meritocracy conflict. You could make that claim about Hillary but should not claim that people troubled by a Clinton dynasty are just making it up for one gender is ignoring all of American History.
The history of nepotism in America and attacks on it has been exclusively male for much of our history because Women had little to no power other than as spouses and were not appointed in business or politics. In recent years this has changed as women have started to gain some power in society and the private sector.
Note I am only addressing the one claim that nepotism and dynastic issues are only addressed at women which was the claim of your OP. This is blatantly false because of both near and far history. Ignoring historical problems with nepotism within the male power structure, we only have to look at the 2016 election where both parties put up dynastic politicians and tried (with only success on the democratic party side) to establish these candidates as the inevitable most electable choice. The Republicans put up Jeb Bush who establishment politicians said would be the most electable because of his name recognition and connections in the establishment. Before he ran, even his mother, expressed concern over a Bush v Clinton race. He was soundly rejected by the Republican Voters and not because he didn't have the establishment support, a big bankroll, press favorability and other advantages that one would think would carry the day. The most important factor was he was another Bush part of the establishment and part of a dynasty and as far as I know MALE.
This is what is distressing about places like DU a place I have felt at home with for almost 20 years. We can not unify if parts of the democratic party make up facts and history to support a claim that another part of the democratic party is racist or sexist because they have a concern about policy or system Dynastic concerns amongst liberals and progressives is not a gender issue, it is a concern about whether America will be a meritocracy or aristocracy and this applies to all dynastic candidates. One could suppose a candidate chosen by God (make it the God of your choosing) who certifies that a candidate is the most capable, bright, intelligent and far-seeing candidate amongst a bunch of candidates. But this candidate is a dynastic candidate. The concern will still be there and it will be up to the voters to decide if the concern over dynasty overcomes the merit of the candidate or the merit overcomes the dynasty concerns but please do not pretend this will only occur if the candidate is a women.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)it is about a clear double standard in how people discuss politics.
The very idea that you and others use the trope of dynasty to attack not a third generation like the Kennedy's but the first woman major candidate because of her husband is itself odd. She was not born into political power. She was the partner of a former president during a time when women were excluded from political power (and still are at the highest levels). Policy concerns don't require holding a woman's marriage again her, or pretending she is an extension of her husband. Charges of dynasty weren't levied against Gore, despite the fact he was born into a prominent political family.
The impetus for my OP was a thread dealing with a news article saying that Chelsea Clinton was not going to seek office anytime soon. Dozens went over to express heir contempt for the very idea she might run--even though the point of the article was to say she wasn't. What policy dispute could that possibly be about? With no campaign, there is no articulation of policy. They shouted dynasty. These are the very people who call for Democrats to return to an era of an earlier dynasty, the Roosevelt's.
That some find it distressing is not surprising. People are often uncomfortable examining their own double standards.
The construction of the contemporary notion of progressive and its use by which they proclaim their separateness and superiority to the rest of Democrats is in part about gender, but it is more about race. It is overwhelmingly invoked by the white, more often than not male, bourgeoisie. It seeks to move away from "identity politics" to establish solidarity with white men on the right. It proclaims middle-class and upper-middle class economic concerns (conspicuously, not poverty) the only true cause, while insisting those who prioritize racism and women's reproductive are somehow centrist. When Sanders talks about how he knows Trump voters aren't racist, his progressive crowds break out in cheers. That reaction cannot be all about sympathy for Trump voters. It taps into something within self-proclaimed progressives themselves.
Your claim was only women get questioned on dynasty issues and mor particularly only one woman.
In fact dynasty and nepotism is not a gender issue. The bushes kennedys are both subject to it when they run. In our earliest case the issue was raiaed by foes of quicy adams.
Currentlt and appropriately trump is being criticiEd for nepotistic male and female appointments.
Notwithstanding the fact that it is a liberal issue attached yo male and female alike over our history but mostly against males because of the male dominance.
In this poat you want to pretend that it only has been applied yo Hillary and you use this claim to attack democrats who are concerned with nepotiam and aristocracy in any one who runs for an office identified with a close relative. and you will not admit to that even when faced with historic and recent claims of dynasty against male politicians. An attack that had real teeth in the case of jeb bush.
Sorry for errors posting from phone
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Charges of "dynasty" have been made against (male) candidates from the Kennedy and Bush families.
You now add Al Gore to your allegations. I ran a duckduckgo search for the terms "Al Gore" and "dynasty" and the very first hit was an article in the Los Angeles Times titled "Al Gore's Family Tree". It began: "The Gore dynasty includes several politicians and lawyers."
Have there been double standards? Of course. I'll hazard a guess that many Democrats who praised the Kennedy and Clinton families screamed "No dynasty!" at the poor hapless Jeb, while Republicans saw things exactly the other way around. In other words, there are double standards occasioned by partisanship. Under those circumstances, it's hard to isolate the misogyny factor, and to say whether and to what extent Hillary Clinton has been treated differently from others similarly situated.
Of course, the universe of "others similarly situated" isn't clearly defined. No other Presidential spouse has had her prominence. In the only example I can think of that's at all comparable, you can read about "Michelle Obama for president 2020?" and, if you're persuaded, you can buy the t-shirt.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)not that someone somewhere in time did it. And you can't claim they aren't all the time clamoring to take the party back to the days other dynasties, FDR and JFK.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Nobody here is praising FDR because he was the fifth cousin of a previous President. That hardly makes a dynasty. Nor are people here enthused that he campaigned (in 1932) on a promise of a balanced budget. People here are clamoring for the Democratic Party to return to the spirit in which he actually governed -- taking bold action to help the people, even if it means infuriating the moneyed class.
I can't picture Hillary Clinton (or, for that matter, Barack Obama) saying anything like what Roosevelt did in a 1936 speech looking back on his first term:
There are two different substantive approaches here. Do you believe in seeking progress through triangulation and finding a nice warm purple space, or through fighting against the oligarchs and welcoming their hatred. DUers who have preferred FDR over Clinton have done so because they favor the latter approach.
If FDR got some advantage from being a fifth cousin of a former President, JFK got none, not being related to any former President (although of course his family was rich, as is true of many politicians of both parties and both sexes). Neither FDR nor JFK was in a class with Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. For both of the latter, we may safely conclude that their being in the immediate family of a President was a critical factor in their rising to national prominence.
Among current leaders, the same DUers who consider Hillary Clinton to be too conservative tend to have the same opinion of Andrew Cuomo. He's like Hillary and Jeb in terms of the importance of the family (or, if you will, dynastic) relationship to his career, but many of us think that he is far inferior to his father.
The bottom line is that I don't see a double standard being applied by progressives. We have reasons for finding flaws in Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and Andrew Cuomo, reasons unrelated to gender.
Rilgin
(795 posts)Your point was that generation issues have never been applied to a male and only was brought up historically against Hillary. You seem now to have backed off this claim and dismiss this as you don't care about history (still ignoring the attacks on Jeb for dynasty in the same election as Hillary).
However the distressing point is you are attacking people "here" meaning democrats and because they are here democrats who would like a progressive world. You make up facts and history and ignore all contrary facts and history so you can focus on your one issue as a means to attack democrats to claim that race or gender issues are behind every single policy concern and you do that by attacking democrats. And to be fair, I am sure you could probably find in the thousands of posts and thousands of writers people who use any issue including the issue of this thread to cloak their real issues and just were against Clinton. However that is not very interesting. You are asserting more than that in this thread, you are asserting that all the 40+% of democrats who voted for other candidates than Hillary in the Primary and voted for Hillary despite their concerns and have concerns about nepotism are hypocrites only.
Just how does that unify our party against a world that contains lots of issues and which is run by Republicans at the moment unless democrats and progressives unify.
And on the single issue of this thread, nepotism and generational power, how does attacking democrats unify democrats against Trump who truly is appointing his unqualified male and female family members to important positions in government.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)So because some of us actually believe the same few families shouldn't keep getting put forward for election to leadership of the nation, we must be fucking sexists. In that Chelsea thread I kept asking the same people what exactly makes this lady someone who we should be talking about as a potential president over the hundreds of millions of other American citizens, and not one single solitary person could come up with an answer. It was just the same tired, ridiculous accusations that just by asking the question we must be 'trashing' Chelsea and her mother, or being sexist, or hating on the party.
Let me put this simply, if you think America should be led by the same family generation after generation, then we have nothing in common. This obsession with celebrity and names is an insult to the very meaning of the word democracy.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)and certainly not for president. She isn't FUCKING running, but that doesn't stop people from flipping out at the mere mention of the name. So tell me why you felt compelled to scream about dynasties for a story that said she would not be running for office?
There was a rumor that she bought the house in NY to seek that congressional seat, but she made clear she is not running. That some dopey journalist asked her about the presidency doesn't mean any sane person should take it seriously. She has no qualifications for the job, and she knows that. Again, the headline and point of the article was that she is NOT running for ANYTHING.
I'll believe people give a shit about dynasties when they stop talking about recapturing the FDR- JFK party. Until then, I call bullshit.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Now with that out of the way, to answer your question, what made me personally jump into the Chelsea thread was because despite her not being a politician or having expressed any interest in running there were still many people tripping over each other to talk about what a great candidate she'd be. That pisses me off.
Although I'm sure she's a lovely person, she is nothing more or less than a citizen. There is not a single reason why she would be automatically any more suited to running for office than about a hundred million other Americans, yet because she has a familiar name the celebrity star dust kicks in, and people start waxing lyrical about her as a potential leader. Based on exactly nothing but her family name.
And then of course there are people like you, who jump in with your facile accusations of sexism because some of us don't think the Presidency should be an extended edition of the Kardashians.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)rather than dynasty, you would have gotten no argument from me. The dynasty argument is used very selectively (and was never legitimate against Hillary Clinton since she wasn't born into a political family), while actual political dynasties are excused. The fact is that sexism is endemic in our political culture, as is racism.
I didn't ask for your opinion. You came in here to tell me I was full of shit. You decided to insert yourself in the discussion.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Bill was president, Hillary ran for president, to now have a 3rd Clinton being talked about as a potential president is clearly dynastic thinking.
As for the argument against dynasty being used selectively, you may have a point with some people supporting a Kennedy run (I'm not one of those people, to be clear), but I think you've misunderstodd slightly when you talked elsewhere about people wanting to go back to the FDR or Kennedy style of party. People wanting an ideology change does not mean they approve of every aspect of how those times came about.
melman
(7,681 posts)This interpretation is too generous. The OP is just making up any old bullshit to support (a very weak) argument. As usual.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
ymetca This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
BainsBane
(57,378 posts)I noticed that a lot of accounts of people who left after the primary show their last post as during the hack. Did you see them here that day? Or perhaps that's a result of how the software was reconfigured following the hack?
I think the impact of the Russian trolls was less in terms of actual screen names posting here (which they were likely some given the huge Kremlin operation) but in the influence their propaganda had on Democrats and progressives.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #197)
ymetca This message was self-deleted by its author.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts) BainsBane
(57,378 posts)