Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "No more dynasties"--for women, that is [View all]JCanete
(5,272 posts)64. Sexism exists, yes. People should look long and hard at why they hold the opinions on people they do
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...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
217 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Men are terrified of HRC, she has principals and intelligence far ahead of the lizards.
DK504
Apr 2017
#1
It's not as though she'd ever run again...so why talk abour her candidacy in the present tense?
Ken Burch
Apr 2017
#55
The vast majority of opposition to HRC in the primaries was on the issues and nothing else.
Ken Burch
Apr 2017
#75
And quoted the number of delegates he got in the primary as many times as he could
ehrnst
Apr 2017
#102
The defining spirit of the Sanders campaign was a belief in the need for transformational change-
Ken Burch
Apr 2017
#191
Thank you for that post. You've offered the best analysis so far in this thread.
Ken Burch
Apr 2017
#157
Let me shorten that; A lot of people fell for the con. And they don't want to admit it. nt
fleabiscuit
Apr 2017
#164
I don't plan on ever considering sabotage and foreign intervention as miscalculations.
fleabiscuit
Apr 2017
#168
It happened. It shouldn't have. It didn't DEFINE anti-HRC sentiment on the Left.
Ken Burch
Apr 2017
#198
"Why DID it have to be HRC, btw? What was so special about her compared to any other woman
lunamagica
Apr 2017
#203
The way it turned out has nothing to do with the fact that he won after losing once
lunamagica
Apr 2017
#214
Especially men who voted for Hillary, donated, phone banked, knocked on doors, etc.
IronLionZion
Apr 2017
#152
I criticized the whole Dynasty thing when people here were flouting Joe Kennedy III a few weeks ago.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2017
#7
The thing is, the two times we've won the WH in the past 36 years, we've run relative unknowns.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2017
#153
she attracts minority voters and single women who tend to have it toughest economically
JI7
Apr 2017
#166
No one is saying that Chelsea Clinton is unfit to serve because she was
PoindexterOglethorpe
Apr 2017
#30
People these days are awfully quck to start using the word Dynasty.
PoindexterOglethorpe
Apr 2017
#37
"I can't be sexist. I support Liz Warren and Tulsi Gabbard." - And they talk about those two...
George II
Apr 2017
#32
So it's sexist to question the idea of nominating ANY members of the Clinton family?
Ken Burch
Apr 2017
#43
I think this started because somebody in the press started floating the Chelsea idea this week.
Ken Burch
Apr 2017
#95
Sexism exists, yes. People should look long and hard at why they hold the opinions on people they do
JCanete
Apr 2017
#64
on what did carter represent a rightward turn? I may be mistaken there, and I don't mean to say that
JCanete
Apr 2017
#70
THANK YOU!! "respecting one woman or person of color doesn't mean one is immune to racism or sexism"
uponit7771
Apr 2017
#68
Well first of all, let's start with the basic fact that I couldn't care less what you believe.
Kentonio
Apr 2017
#183
You don't have to have been born into a political family to be part of a dynasty.
Kentonio
Apr 2017
#189