Time To Move On

[angrychair]

Last edited Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Have the Clintons always been treated fair? No. Have the media relished in their reporting of missteps and the misadventures of the Clintons? Yes.

BUT

I am also old enough to remember the sting and embarrassment of defending a person that lied.

We, as Democrats, have collectively, spent decades now defending the Clintons over and over from one thing or another. With some older Democrats it's so ingrained in their psyche that it's as automated as breathing to defend a Clinton against whatever it is they are being accused of doing. A mindset of "its us against them" and a complete lack of objectivity.

Over that time they have become even more politically connected and influential. Many ignore or call it "bi-partisan" when they go to events, parties and socialize with people we otherwise call war criminals or people who are working tirelessly against goals that Democrats have fought for decades to achieve.

They have become millionaires giving speeches and making backroom deals for their foundation but our ideals, the Democratic Party planks, we have fought decades to achieve, have not been supported or not supported in the same way our Party and most in our Party support it.
Welfare "reform", DADT, DOMA, corporate prisons, military industrial complex and campaign finance reform are just some of the items, on a long list of issues, they had direct influence over, that deserved better decisions and we deserved better representation from people that claim to share our vision for America.

I am frustrated that so much effort is being put into a single family. We, as the Democratic Party, need to move forward and spend our limited resources on fostering new ways of thinking and true progressive ideals.
The political landscape has changed forever. Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 were very different then those before it. Clinton failed to learn those critical lessons. She is waging a campaign as campaigns have been done over the last 40+ years: Collecting huge sums of special interest money, back room deals and polling and focus group-researched message discipline. This is the old paradigm. If Clinton, the DNC, the gOP and media and political pundits don't get it, they will by the end of the election. Things. Have. Changed.

What does this all mean? It means I am tired. Tired of the time, money and political capital being wasted to enrich a single family with so much influence and money. Tired of wondering and debating their guilt and innocence every couple of months. At the end of the day, it's not about them. Its about me. Its about us. Its time to move on.

[Dragonfli]

1. Is it time to move on?

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Some say it "is" to move the party to where the money is, where the old Republicans are now, and where the poor need not be mentioned, helped, or even acknowledged, simply used as a discardable labor resource; this being the key to victory.

to them that is what it "is" all about and the true meaning of is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

[rhett o rick]

44. Can we say "The New American Aristocracy"? nm

[Dems to Win]

2. K and R!

I look forward to the time when the Democratic Party has moved on beyond the Clintons.

[Plucketeer]

50. As well as

a list of other Democrat stalwarts that live much more comfy lives than the majority do. I doubt I'll live long enough to revel in the afterglow of such a revolution, but it's nice to dream - an we gotta start somewhere.

[TIME TO PANIC]

3. K & R !

[retrowire]

4. Excellent post. Wow.

We have to stop treating the Clinton's like they're our royal family. They are flesh and bone as are we, and they have lied and shaken hands with the corrupt.

We don't owe them anything. They were elected to serve us.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. we are sick and tired at being talked at

we want people in government who are actually worried about the people. You see what goes on and the games played, the lobbyists. The time has come.

[sarge43]

6. Except for one, good points all.

The exception: DADT. Believe the ole sarge, it was hellva lot better than what went before. Pre-DADT, an accusation alone was enough to ruin a service member. S/he was guilty because under the regs there was no way to prove otherwise. Having lovers of the opposite gender? Just prove you were bi. Further, there was "homosexual tendencies"; those were anything Them What Be In Charge said they were. Had one idiot in charge state that women with short straight hair was "you know".

DADT was the best Clinton could get, given the time and place.

[angrychair]

19. I understand that sarge

I get that DADT was different but not better in my opinion. It forced our service men and women to keep secrets. To be deceptive. First and foremost, those type of secrets, the kind that can end your career, were a huge security risk. The vulnerabilities and danger that created for them by making them easy targets for blackmail and manipulation by hostile foreign agents was wrong.
Almost as important, that deception created distrust that could have impacted unit cohesion.

We were taking people in asking them to adhere to a military code of ethics and to lie to their chain of command at the same time. It was wrong and it didn't have to be that way. I do think it could have been done better.

We were not on the cutting edge of allowing LGBT men and women in the military. Many had done it for years with very positive results. There were many that didn't think people of color in the military would work out well either and they were wrong about that too. It was the compromise answer, not the right answer.

[sarge43]

21. Yes it was a compromise and, as said, a compromise was all that could be accomplished.

Colin Powell Chair JCS publicly defied Clinton. Several Democratic congressmen and senators also did. Clinton spent a lot of political capital facing them down. Powell and the congress critters knew civil society wouldn't accept openly gays/lesbian service personnel. The military can't be a social experiment. It reflects the society that created and maintains it. When civie world changes, so does the service.

You don't think all of us had to keep secrets before DADT? I sweated bullets about gay/lesbians co-workers and friends. The regs said turn them in. If I didn't and I didn't, if called out, I could be thrown in the compactor. This was true for all service members. One way or another we all had to lie pre-DADT. By the way, there is no case on file of a service member being blackmailed for homosexual behavior or orientation. More than one heterosexual was turned because of the wild thang with the wrong thang.

One important thing DADT stopped was the witch hunts. Pre-DADT whole units were put under investigation. I was in one which is one of the reason I say DADT was an improvement.

By the way, I know exactly what it's like not to be accepted in the service. I'm a woman who enlisted in the AF '62. We weren't accepted, at best tolerated. Things do improved. The Vice CNO is an African American woman. In '62 - unimaginable.

All I'm saying DADT was a first step.

[angrychair]

24. I agree Sarge

I'll admit it was a step forward. My only counter would be that the military can be a force for social change. Racial integration of the services is often cited as a major factor in moving racial issues forward. DADT was a first step I just think we could have taken that next step sooner than we did.

By the way, thank you so much for the discussion. It is truly the best aspect of a website like this and you gave me a new insight to some of the DADT history through your personal experience. I really appreciate your sharing your experiences.

[sarge43]

25. Thank you too for this discussion. The Net is an amazing communication/information source.

Yes, officially the services were integrated long before civilian society. However, there was still a lot of de facto segregation. I was in Personnel management, so I knew what was really going on. We were coded in system by race and it wasn't the individual's choice. "Well, he looks colored." Honest. PoC got the slow track jobs which slowed promotion and meant crappy assignments. Officers promotion records included a portrait photo. What moved the service to full integration was the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War. Funny how competent and able we minorities and women become when there's a war on.

"Sergeant, you're cynical."

"Sir, I prefer to think I'm realistic in a cynical situation."

I have a fine first edition collection of ass slings.

[closeupready]

7. This is a good summation of how I feel. Nobody owes them anything,

and Hillary has not earned my support; Bernie has. K&R

[JDPriestly]

8. K&R.

[Romulox]

9. They are our royalty. An attitude of servitude just comes natural to some. nt

[reformist2]

37. Exactly. Many still instinctively rush to their defense, never asking whether it's worth it.

As the OP said perfectly in closing, this isn't about the Clintons, it's about us. The goal is not to win some idiotic grudge match with Repugs, shoving the royal Clintons in their faces. The goal is to get someone elected who will advance our causes. And as time has gone by, the Clintons aren't even good on that score anymore.

[Paper Roses]

10. I could not have said it better. Thanks.

We need to divest ourselves of all the old ways of doing things. We need new ideas, no approaches, new faces.

I am voting for Bernie Sanders because I have seen too many years of the same old platitudes, promises, failures. It is time to take a different tack,. Will it work? Who knows. Anything will be better that more of the same political personalities we have had these past many years.
I am tired of hearing the same old empty promises, election to election.
Move forward, move fast and move in a new direction.

[Cassiopeia]

40. The worst part is that the only promise she's making

Is to take a hard line with Iran. Everything else she just implies she won't rock the boat too hard on, meaning she'll let corporate interests dicatate policy.

We need another Clinton just as much as we need another Bush.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, angrychair.

[ErisDiscordia]

12. A marvelous summary of the current state of things

and a good pointer on where to go and what to do next.

Yes, we as a people have moved on. (Move On, get it?)

No more dynasties, no more silence, since that makes us complicit.

No more cronyism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. All you have to do to vote for Clinton is turn on the Forget Machine.

Forget the wars. Forget the deaths. Forget the torture. Forget the collaboration with the Republicans. Forget the collaboration with the corporations. Forget the pursuit of whistle blowers. Forget the poor. Forget the persecuted. Forget the police state.

Again, we are told to be patient. That the other side is worse.

Again, we are told to shut up and vote for the candidate who can win and ignore their record.

And, again, we are told that "this time it will be different."

[pscot]

14. Amen!

The Clintons are more trouble than they're worth.

[FlatBaroque]

15. Very good post. It has been long past time to move on

and away from the Clinton's.

[MissDeeds]

16. Wow angrychair

One of the best posts I have ever seen on DU. You nailed it. Thank you.



K&R

[libdem4life]

17. Good analysis and conclusion...time to move on.

[Jackilope]

18. Kick and Rec

[99Forever]

20. I couldn't agree more.

I've used up all of Defend the Clinton I have. I just want them to go away and let us try to get back to fixing the mess they left behind.

[beltanefauve]

22. Great post

And so true! K&R

[blackspade]

23. I'm definitely suffering from Clinton fatigue.

But that's politics. I have to endure that Paul and McConnell 'represent' my state......

[Metric System]

26. You're going to have to do a lot of defending of Sanders. So get some sleep.

[Fumesucker]

35. He must be quite the randy old stud if he's going to do what Bill did with that cigar

I'm not going to worry too much about having to defend Bernie Sanders from allegations that the got a blow job in the Oval Office from an intern young enough to be his daughter.

[Metric System]

36. You're showing your true colors.

[Fumesucker]

38. I have granddaughters not far off Lewinski's age at the time

And I defended Bill Clinton at the time, I really didn't think he would be that stupid did that ever bite me in the ass, I was a complete idiot and paid the price by being mocked by my friends for years.

Never again.

[Metric System]

39. Hillary is not her husband. He isn't running.

[liberalnarb]

46. He's still her biggest policy adviser, as most candidates' spouses are.

He campaigns and gives speeches for her, its not like hes out of the spotlight. I think Bill is relevant, considering Hillary supporters think Janes history at her college in Vermont is relevant.

[treestar]

55. No it is Republicans who would find that relevant

were Bernie ever the nominee. And they would go after that with ten times the intensity of any Hillary supporters. We are not trying to damage our other potential candidate. That would be Bernie supporters, who are burning bridges they should not be.

[treestar]

54. Republicans do no limit themselves like that

They will take Bernie's specific life and find things to go after. They don't care how desperate it is, look at birtherism.

They are not above using personal life factors. We all know this.

Picking our candidates based on Republican actions is caving to them.

The reason they have picked clean any bones they can find about either Clinton is because Bill got elected POTUS. And they were not above going after a first Lady (who they hated for being the first career woman who was a First Lady, and this is where you are getting secondhand and adopting their original characterization of her as ambitious and scheming - it was the sexist right wing that started that).

[liberalnarb]

47. What makes you say that?

[treestar]

53. Yes, exactly! The Republicans do what they do!

They will find things on Bernie. There is no doubt of that.

Right now they want Bernie for their opponent, as they know it's their only way of winning in November. LOL, how naive do people have to be to see that? They would make mincemeat out of him and look for everything they can. They tried so hard with President Obama, but could not find much and could only imply things and come up with outlandish theories. But with Bernie they will surely find something to chew on.

[truebluegreen]

56. So Republicans think Bernie is the weaker candidate

and you think they are smart enough and tuned in enough that we should bow to their judgment? um, OK.

[treestar]

57. WTF?

No, I think Bernie would be attacked by Republicans in the general the same way any Democrat would. Bernie is way behind in the polls and unlikely to end up there, but that's how it would be. The ones who want to cave to Republicans are the ones saying we should not nominate our choice because Republicans have been going after her for 20+ years.

[tularetom]

27. Goddamn right on

While we were all knocking ourselves out defending Bill Clinton from the consequences of his stupid risky intern games (as well as lying about it) he was giving the country away to the .01%. And it isn't hard to imagine them sitting there with Daddy Bush and crew chortling about how they got away with it.

They have enriched themselves at our expense for the past 25 years and its way past time to put a stop to it. No more white trash Clinton drama for me.

Thanks for a great post.

[SoapBox]

28. You have said EXACTLY what I've been thinking and feeling.

I am over them.

[CharlotteVale]

29. I couldn't agree more. I'm so sick of them and the damage they've caused.

[Nyan]

30. Yes.

It's called the Democratic Party. Not Clinton Party.
K & R

[jillan]

31. Agreed! Not to mention a movie called Hillary is the reason we have Citizens United.....

They are out for her blood, and it's only going to get worse.

And people think Bernie is going to be attacked when he is our nominee?

Puleeze!

[Paka]

32. K&R

[Akamai]

33. Have Hillary and Bill apologized for NAFTA? Not hardly. Or three

strikes and the continuing the War on Drugs and filling prisons with nonviolent drug offenders? Or ending Glass-Steagall and also bringing about the Commodities and Modernization Act?

Not hardly. I sure would like to hear serious remorse about these issues.

Go Bernie! On these and so many other issues, Bernie has always been on the correct side.

[DhhD]

41. Private Prison Groups are some of Hillary's biggest campaign donors; still going on today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1076547

https://theintercept.com/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-raising-cash-hillary-clinton/

[Enthusiast]

34. Kicked and recommended!

[m-lekktor]

42. you took the words right out of my mouth! excellent post!

It is sad the DEM party has to expend it's resources for and to see all the establishment DEM politicians line up and support this family of political grifters.

[GoneOffShore]

43. Absolutely... Time for them to pack up the snake oil wagon and head back to Arkansas.

DOMA, NAFTA, Third Way, DADT, Welfare reform -

And many Dems swallowed that snake oil because of the "charm" of Bill.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

45. Just excellent post!

My biggest disappointment with Obama was his inclusion into his cabinet of people who were detrimental in acting on true Democratic values. Too many DLCers. The top of the list would be Hillary as Secretary of State.

K&R

[uponit7771]

48. I don't want to move on to Pixy Dust Politics Pushed by a Petulant Politician either...

... seeing I have a choice I choose O Malley, his SP plan is workable Sanders depends on doctors and hospitals being nice

[Iggy Knorr]

49. Kick

for democracy

[bkkyosemite]

51. A lot of young people do not realize the Bush

Clinton cabal. The families are good friends and they keep getting elected to the White House. This has to stop.

[treestar]

52. Oh so let's cave to the Republicans

We have to defend whoever is successful as a Democrat, because Republicans will always be underhanded.

Are you tired of defending President Obama too?

There is NO ONE who is a Democrat who will escape the Republican attack machine.

You think the Republicans would not go after Bernie? And would not find something? WRONG.

Bernie will not win so you will never know what they would find. But they have no shame, and there are several things wrong regarding his wife. And you know they'd find all kinds of things. That essay he wrote - they would make big hay of that. And find several things we have not heard of.

[NurseJackie]

58. No it's not.