That's true. I freely acknowledge it.
Gender may be a factor for some in this race. To be honest, I was...horrified, appalled, REPULSED by the primaries in '08, when I saw DU and Democrats across the nation fracture along race and gender lines, using both, and trying to rank one above the other as a priority, to determine the nominee.
Because gender issues and race issues are equally important; at least, they are to me.
If I am choosing my vote based on race and gender issues, it's not the race nor the gender of the candidate, but the candidates' records and positions on those issues that are going to determine my vote. I want more than a symbol.
That appearance means more to way too many people in our society than the content of anyone's character.
It's a sickness, the need to judge people so.
It's also something to fall back on if your chosen candidate can't win on issues. They can fail the issues, but be a figurehead, substituting "looking" for "being."
And that's a damned shame.
is meaningless if it doesn't stand for something; and it has to stand for something I can support. I'm a Democrat.
I want the label to represent people, not corporations, and positive change, not the status quo.
That's why I think Bernie is a better democrat than the current dlc/centrist/"new dem"/3rd way/neo-liberal "leadership" in our party, and why I support him over that leadership's preferred candidate.
that somebody, somewhere along the line, suggested that they wouldn't vote for HRC in the general. That's a pretty standard primary thing.
So is the line of people scolding, cajoling, demanding, reminding, threatening, etc., etc., that people need to get in line after the convention. That's also a pretty standard thing.
To be honest, I find it all tiresome, and a great distraction from the actual issues that should be under discussion.
That's how I choose candidates in the primary and in the general. On issues.
The status-quo camp, a bit stung by the popularity of the populist, is bringing everything they've got, including the monolithic party structure, to bear to make sure that the other side knows they can't win.
The grass-roots for change camp isn't giving ground, although they know what they are up against.
I generally see the tiresome distraction of "support for the nominee" to be just another version of bullying. From one camp it's an effort to bully people into shutting the fuck up and getting in line.
From the other it's using what they've got; a threat to the status quo.
I'm a Democrat. That doesn't mean that I toe ANYONE'S line. I think the party is better, and stronger, when dissent isn't silenced or crushed by the status-quo. And my vote is earned, not owed. AND I don't give a flying fuck who is offended by that. It's my right as a citizen to hold my government and my party accountable for their positions and record on issues, and to vote my conscience. I WILL go toe-to-toe with anyone who wants to erode that right.
I also know that both sides, if you remove the bombast, the hyperbole, and the efforts to intimidate, have a point. I'll acknowledge both points, if this stupid distraction can just be retired so we can focus on actual issues.
Profile InformationMember since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 46,179
- 2017 (3)
- 2016 (33)
- 2015 (34)
- 2014 (7)
- 2013 (36)