General Discussion

WomenRising2017

(203 posts)

77. On economic issues, there really wasn't much daylight

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 08:45 PM

Apr 2017

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.

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:

"No more dynasties"--for women, that is [View all] BainsBane Apr 2017 OP

Men are terrified of HRC, she has principals and intelligence far ahead of the lizards. DK504 Apr 2017 #1

She's strong and smart BainsBane Apr 2017 #2

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

Because her treatment is an example of misogyny in action BainsBane Apr 2017 #59

The RIGHT savaged her on gender. NOT the Left. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #63

Bullshit BainsBane Apr 2017 #71

The vast majority of opposition to HRC in the primaries was on the issues and nothing else. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #75

On economic issues, there really wasn't much daylight WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #77

I realize she was challenged. It sounds like a lot of people think Ken Burch Apr 2017 #80

She was challenged by Senator Sanders, WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #81

He campaigned for her all fall. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #82

There was absolutely a valid reason for him to run and campaign WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #85

I'll explain, but I won't debate it if you choose to reject my explanations: Ken Burch Apr 2017 #89

So the "she's the corporate candidate" message ehrnst Apr 2017 #103

Yes, I do. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #190

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

welcome to du. niyad Apr 2017 #141

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #110

Ahh, the good old days mcar Apr 2017 #115

You deserve hazard pay for wading through that BainsBane Apr 2017 #116

History matters loyalsister Apr 2017 #124

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

They responded loyalsister Apr 2017 #165

I don't plan on ever considering sabotage and foreign intervention as miscalculations. fleabiscuit Apr 2017 #168

It wasn't a con to not support HRC in the primaries. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #201

Non sequitur. nt fleabiscuit Apr 2017 #204

LOL NurseJackie Apr 2017 #83

They could have chosen not to echo the right. synergie Apr 2017 #87

"Don't vote with your vagina" kcr Apr 2017 #91

I condemned those who used such words at the time. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #93

You condemned them at the time. But will pretend it never happened now? kcr Apr 2017 #94

What I'm saying is that it didn't DEFINE the Sanders campaign. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #96

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #97

He never decided to run a campaign for white people Ken Burch Apr 2017 #98

Sanders is in front of the cameras and sending out messages daily ehrnst Apr 2017 #107

+1 betsuni Apr 2017 #99

You said misogyny did NOT happen on the left. That's what's being refuted. ehrnst Apr 2017 #104

It happened. It shouldn't have. It didn't DEFINE anti-HRC sentiment on the Left. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #198

So you've changed your mind about it. That's good. ehrnst Apr 2017 #202

I recall that very clearly... (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #101

I remember that last one... Mike Nelson Apr 2017 #125

...and... Mike Nelson Apr 2017 #127

"I won't vote for her just because she's a woman" Baconator Apr 2017 #135

If you need to ask that question most likely you won't accept the answer. George II Apr 2017 #142

Try me... Baconator Apr 2017 #145

Are you serious? NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #147

It just seems odd to vote for someone based on genetics... Baconator Apr 2017 #148

How so? NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #149

Your mileage may vary... Baconator Apr 2017 #150

Your concern is noted. NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #160

Wrong - there is PLENTY of sexism towards her on the left ehrnst Apr 2017 #100

yeah, throw your vote away on the LIAR, stein.. Cha Apr 2017 #162

Those were a handful of people. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #185

Really? Nothing from the left? LisaM Apr 2017 #177

Yes, it would be significant to elect a woman. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #182

Thank you for proving my point. n/t LisaM Apr 2017 #186

I didn't prove your point. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #188

Yes, you did prove my point. LisaM Apr 2017 #192

Nobody had to support HRC in the primaries to prove they weren't sexist. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #195

"Why DID it have to be HRC, btw? What was so special about her compared to any other woman lunamagica Apr 2017 #203

I agree that she had experience. That's not the only thing that matters. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #207

So, what else matters that she didn't have? lunamagica Apr 2017 #211

OK...compared to Elizabeth Warren, for example? Ken Burch Apr 2017 #212

What makes you think Hillary will never run again? lapucelle Apr 2017 #129

Two losses like she has taken... Baconator Apr 2017 #136

Apparently not to everyone, including me. lapucelle Apr 2017 #138

Just difficult to see any real path to victory... Baconator Apr 2017 #139

We see "issues" with male candidates all the time. lapucelle Apr 2017 #161

She won the hearts of the American people by 2.9 million people. pnwmom Apr 2017 #144

I think future candidates will really have to 'win hearts'... Baconator Apr 2017 #146

One loss for the GE. And Nixon became president after losing the GE once. lunamagica Apr 2017 #205

How'd that one turn out...? Baconator Apr 2017 #213

The way it turned out has nothing to do with the fact that he won after losing once lunamagica Apr 2017 #214

I'm not saying it's impossible... Baconator Apr 2017 #215

I don't know, it's to early to tell. and I never said that lunamagica Apr 2017 #216

We can make an educated estimate... Baconator Apr 2017 #217

I don't think any of THEM will run again. Or should. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #155

NO BUSH NO CLINTON snooper2 Apr 2017 #117

Thousands of times we were told no more Clinton's no more Bush's Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #176

...the lizards? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #27

cool... haven't heard them for ages Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #38

Not men on the left. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #57

So please explain these comments by men on the left ehrnst Apr 2017 #105

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #86

Especially men who voted for Hillary, donated, phone banked, knocked on doors, etc. IronLionZion Apr 2017 #152

What I find amusing... tammywammy Apr 2017 #3

No doubt BainsBane Apr 2017 #6

And looking ahead to George Prescott Bush, son of jeb! calimary Apr 2017 #34

... AngryAmish Apr 2017 #4

Care to express your point in words? BainsBane Apr 2017 #8

I know he's not Trump, but a trigger warning please next time? ;) moriah Apr 2017 #114

Before or after the sun goes Nova? AngryAmish Apr 2017 #118

K&R betsuni Apr 2017 #5

I criticized the whole Dynasty thing when people here were flouting Joe Kennedy III a few weeks ago. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #7

Nope, I know for a fact you're wrong BainsBane Apr 2017 #9

Here's the Joe Kennedy thread Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #10

The no more Clinton dynasty people aren't even in that thread BainsBane Apr 2017 #14

I dunno, I'm not part of any contingency. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #15

Did I put your name in the OP? BainsBane Apr 2017 #18

i made that same point in the thread. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #21

Fair points BainsBane Apr 2017 #23

Al Gore is another BainsBane Apr 2017 #24

You are absolutely right about Gore, and Trudeau. But also Dubya. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #26

It may not be at all BainsBane Apr 2017 #31

Kudos to you both for the respectful exchange. YoungDemCA Apr 2017 #39

Ah, Bain and I go way back, lol. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #45

yep. (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #106

It is name ID crazycatlady Apr 2017 #111

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

The Clintons are hardly a dynasty anyway. LisaM Apr 2017 #51

Check out this thread BainsBane Apr 2017 #52

Oh brother! LisaM Apr 2017 #58

I know I made a beeline... Orsino Apr 2017 #119

I worry about that because of Trump BainsBane Apr 2017 #120

It doesn't matter that the Clintons are two (or three) different people. Orsino Apr 2017 #122

The demographics they attract BainsBane Apr 2017 #143

Clintons evolve. Orsino Apr 2017 #167

You're a walking poster for my OP BainsBane Apr 2017 #169

she attracts minority voters and single women who tend to have it toughest economically JI7 Apr 2017 #166

Also realize this BainsBane Apr 2017 #121

Yes. The woman card thing is a powerful innoculation... Orsino Apr 2017 #123

it's not a card BainsBane Apr 2017 #170

I say it's a card, and I'm for playing it. Orsino Apr 2017 #171

You're playing a card alright BainsBane Apr 2017 #172

Exactly. Gore1FL Apr 2017 #73

Excellent job! caroldansen Apr 2017 #11

Thanks! BainsBane Apr 2017 #22

Thanks very much for posting this. NurseJackie Apr 2017 #12

K&R brer cat Apr 2017 #13

K&R! nt JTFrog Apr 2017 #16

Some here highly praised mcar Apr 2017 #17

Add the Trudeau 'dynasty' deurbano Apr 2017 #19

Good point BainsBane Apr 2017 #20

Indeed. Who DOESN'T gush over Justin Trudeau? SunSeeker Apr 2017 #133

They are only human. BainsBane Apr 2017 #137

In fairness genxlib Apr 2017 #25

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. nt BainsBane Apr 2017 #28

+Infinity NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #29

No one is saying that Chelsea Clinton is unfit to serve because she was PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 2017 #30

Actually they did BainsBane Apr 2017 #33

Alas, a hidden post means that if you weren't PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 2017 #35

If two isn't a dynasty BainsBane Apr 2017 #36

People these days are awfully quck to start using the word Dynasty. PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 2017 #37

seems fair BainsBane Apr 2017 #54

George Prescott Bush (son of Jeb) is in politics right now. Demit Apr 2017 #62

Actually, FDR Jr. was a Congressman from New York thucythucy Apr 2017 #134

Glad you are one of those who understand that about Chelsea. moriah Apr 2017 #113

"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

Actually, it kind of is. kcr Apr 2017 #92

I think this started because somebody in the press started floating the Chelsea idea this week. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #95

The savaging of Warren from the left once she endorsed HRC ehrnst Apr 2017 #108

Pay no attention to the brazen nepotism in the Trump family. YoungDemCA Apr 2017 #40

We've all denounced that. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #42

No. For anyone. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #41

Oh, yes. That's exactly what I'm arguing BainsBane Apr 2017 #44

FDR was a class traitor...standing with the poor against the 1%. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #47

You are working really hard to avoid the point BainsBane Apr 2017 #49

I've never said that nobody's opposition to HRC was based in sexism. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #53

I give up BainsBane Apr 2017 #60

IT's the Right who hates the idea of a woman being president...not the Left. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #61

Might need a thinner paintbrush. PdxSean Apr 2017 #46

If you look closely at my post BainsBane Apr 2017 #48

KnR to you, BB Hekate Apr 2017 #50

Great Post BB Gothmog Apr 2017 #56

Thanks, Gothmog! BainsBane Apr 2017 #65

Sexism exists, yes. People should look long and hard at why they hold the opinions on people they do JCanete Apr 2017 #64

Interesting, because Carter represented a rightward turn for the party BainsBane Apr 2017 #67

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

Here BainsBane Apr 2017 #74

thanks for that! nt JCanete Apr 2017 #76

Dynasties are quintessentially American. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #66

There are prominent families around the world BainsBane Apr 2017 #69

THANK YOU!! "respecting one woman or person of color doesn't mean one is immune to racism or sexism" uponit7771 Apr 2017 #68

The excuse for the Trump voters BainsBane Apr 2017 #78

... AngryAmish Apr 2017 #72

Great points. R B Garr Apr 2017 #79

Thanks! BainsBane Apr 2017 #84

Must be lonely in that ideological corner of yours. nt redgreenandblue Apr 2017 #88

Oh, please. Her OP has over 80 likes (so far) do you call that lonely? lunamagica Apr 2017 #208

"The whitelash that Toni Morrison wrote about"--here's the link: raccoon Apr 2017 #90

Thanks. BainsBane Apr 2017 #112

We live it daily, hourly, every second and it was rampant Guilded Lilly Apr 2017 #109

I don't even get it .. JHan Apr 2017 #126

Precisely. BainsBane Apr 2017 #131

I'm a feminist janterry Apr 2017 #128

Not the point BainsBane Apr 2017 #130

For myself, wealth concerns me with ANYONE we might nominate. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #156

I'll be checking back with you around June BainsBane Apr 2017 #174

Go ahead. I don't hold either of those views. Never have. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #175

I don't know how many times I have to say BainsBane Apr 2017 #180

I'm as anti-sexist as you are. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #184

No more dynasties. Period. TXCritter Apr 2017 #132

k and r + several gazillion for truth!! niyad Apr 2017 #140

+1000 Blue_Tires Apr 2017 #151

Very Distressing Post Rilgin Apr 2017 #154

It isn't about policy or why people voted as they did. BainsBane Apr 2017 #158

no Rilgin Apr 2017 #159

Rilgin is right and your history is simply wrong. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #163

The point is people here BainsBane Apr 2017 #173

About FDR and JFK Jim Lane Apr 2017 #206

So your point is to attack democrats. Rilgin Apr 2017 #209

Excellent post. Kentonio Apr 2017 #181

So sick of this bullshit. Kentonio Apr 2017 #178

Nothing makes her someone you need to be talking about BainsBane Apr 2017 #179

Well first of all, let's start with the basic fact that I couldn't care less what you believe. Kentonio Apr 2017 #183

If the argument would have been about qualifications BainsBane Apr 2017 #187

You don't have to have been born into a political family to be part of a dynasty. Kentonio Apr 2017 #189

"but I think you've misunderstood slightly" melman Apr 2017 #210

This message was self-deleted by its author ymetca Apr 2017 #193

All true. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #196

"Showed up just in time"? BainsBane Apr 2017 #197

This message was self-deleted by its author ymetca Apr 2017 #199

Great post BB. Spot on, as usual lunamagica Apr 2017 #194

Thanks, lunamagica! BainsBane Apr 2017 #200