Marianne Williamson: "A New Beginning for the United States" (email)

[brooklynite]

Dear Friend,

I’m writing with some big news: on Saturday, March 4, I will formally announce my candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president.

We are not living in easy times, but the times will change when we are willing to change them. I feel my forty years being up close and personal with the trauma of so many thousands of individuals gives me a unique perspective on what is needed to help repair America.

We need a politics that treats not just symptoms, but cause. That does not base itself on the crass imperatives of endless corporate profit, but on the eternal imperatives of our principles and values. Einstein said we wouldn’t solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them. It's time for a new beginning, and this will only happen if we’re willing to look at the world in a different way.

If we neglect a child today, we should expect to see more prisons later. If we don’t provide for people’s needs today, we should expect a mental health crisis later. If we don’t preserve the blessings of democracy today, we should expect the threat of authoritarianism later.

What is now considered “politically qualified” for the presidency is simply the ability to do what the system does – in essence, to perpetuate itself. My qualification is not that I’m experienced at running that system, but that I’m best qualified to help transform it. Washington is filled with good political car mechanics, but the problem is that we are on the wrong road. As someone who has worked with thousands of individuals and groups – helping them not only to endure chaos but to transform it – I’ve had exactly the kinds of experiences one needs to have had in order to make sense of these times.

Some have already said of course, Well obviously she can’t win. Or Well that’s good; she’ll add to the conversation. But since the election of 2016 it’s odd for anyone to think they can know who can win the presidency. And I’m not putting myself through this again just to add to the conversation. I’m running for president to help bring an aberrational chapter of our history to a close, and to help bring forth a new beginning.

[hlthe2b]

1. The only valid response to Ms. Williamson follows:

[Walleye]

2. Definitely politically unqualified, never been elected to anything

[Walleye]

15. Well why doesn't she run for senate or something, oh no start at the top

Getting elected is a special skill. A lot of people can’t do it. We have disparaged “politicians”so much that we don’t appreciate their abilities. How on earth would you make somebody president when you have no idea where their loyalty is.

[delisen]

16. What millions said when Trump ran in 2016.

The casual willingness of millions to place the fate of our planet and our children and ourselves on a gamble instead of at least an educated guess is perplexing.

[Ocelot II]

3. Well, that was a whole lot of gas.

It will soon dissipate into the ambient atmosphere.

[MurrayDelph]

12. I'd say it

wasn't worth the cost of the postage.

[Atticus]

4. Who? nt

[vlyons]

5. Is she running as an independent, for the Dem nomination?

She should prove herself by running against a Rep somewhere and win the seat. Otherwise, she's just running to get headlines, 2 min on a talking heads show, and paid speaking engagements.

I'll be voting for Biden. Best POTUS I've seen in a long time.

[leftstreet]

6. The MSNBC candidate

most likely

[brooklynite]

7. Context?

[leftstreet]

8. She's just a click-bait candidate

She might mean well, but she's unqualified and not a serious contender and should go back to burning sage and writing books

The media will promote her if it makes money though

[brooklynite]

9. Can you point to any "promotion" of her when she ran in 2020?

[leftstreet]

10. Why?

2020 was a different political playing field

It wasn't hard for anyone to run against Trump. But now she'll essentially have to run against Biden. The media will eat that up, she'll be the scapegoat for all things anti-Biden within the party, and ultimately end up destroying her brand.

How can you not see this?

[brooklynite]

11. "The media will eat that up"

She was an inconsequential candidate in 2020 and she'll be inconsequential in 2024. The media, if anything, will focus on Trump fighting with the other Republicans.

[leftstreet]

22. She'll be fodder for the base

and yes the "liberal" or "left" media will help with that

[brooklynite]

23. Point it out to me when it happens...

I don't buy in to "we know they will" assertions.

[question everything]

28. Consequential enough to take precious time in several debates while governors,

the traditional pool of presidents, barely made a dent.

She even had enough support here to have her own group

[brooklynite]

29. "The traditional pool of Presidents"

Biden
Obama
Johnson
Kennedy
Truman

Williamson was on stage in exactly two debates; her presence didn't impact the ability (or lack) of Hickenlooper and Bullock to resonate with the Primary voters.

[Hortensis]

20. The MSM covered her as one of the minor candidates, and/or

light entertainment, as they should since her appearing as an official Democratic candidate was (embarrassingly) newsworthy. And of course they had a duty to cover this offering for president.

But social media is where spiritualists and general woo-woo purveyors influence their many millions, and DU's a social media site. She had some admirers here who thought she had a morality and wisdom far beyond the reach of any of our governors or senators (excepting Sanders maybe for some? ).

We took 3 newspapers, though, and by far most discussion I ran into of her was right here. Including her period of spreading generally anti-Democratic narrative in support of other lower-tier Democratic candidates of...on-and-off alignment with our ideals and values. Andrew Yang at one point, as I recall. Wouldn't it be "fun" if she ran promoting his hopeful "alt-progressive" party on our slate? Or he does?

[Hortensis]

14. What I WANT is to for our primary debate stages not be used for self aggrandizement,

belittling of the importance of choosing our next president with frivolous, opportunistic or just very sincere but politically unserious "candidacies."

In 2020 the our Democratic Party paths to qualifying were EITHER: "breaking 1 percent in three polls from pollsters approved by the Democratic National Committee, OR tallying 65,000 unique campaign donors, with at least 200 donors in 20 different states." The list of those who qualified was very long, and the party set a limit of 20.

Sounds reasonable, appropriately democratic for us, sure. But Bill Maher would have no difficulty qualifying if he decided he wanted to do a series of his Club Random podcasts from our debate stages. Or Donald tRump. Beyonce. Many fine people have messages people want to hear, but that belong in other discussions, not this one.

The normalization of using debates to sell books and otherwise polish unpopular brands, feed hungry egos, advance woo-woo and even extremist beliefs, or just boost incomes needs to be un-normalized. I want us to raise our standards and leave this degradation of our democratic process to the Republicans who started this version.

How? As a reminder, the often controversial and third-party suppressing rulings of the bipartisan-supported Commission on Presidential Debates apply to general elections. Our primary debates are what we decide they should be.

[brooklynite]

18. I'm willing to bet there won't be any Primary debates.

FWIW - there are DOZENS of Democratic Presidential candidates. Williamson is simply the only one you've heard of before...

Larry Azevedo (California)
David Barnard (Florida)
Shabad Bharara (Connecticut)
Ron Bull (Pennsylvania)
Charles Camilleri (Michigan)
Christopher Campbell (Pennsylvania)
Jerome Doctor (New York)
Kristopher Davis (Indiana)
Tristan Eggenberger (New Mexico)
William Gailey (Oregon)
Ishah Laurah Guillen (District of Columbia)
Kevin Harding (District of Columbia)
Alan Huddleston (Michigan)
Theodore Hudson (New York)
David Jefferson (Illinois)
Lindsey Kelch (Indiana)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (California)
Michael Landingham (Ohio)
Mikey Lane (Pennsylvania)
Frankie Lozada (New York)
Jennifer McMurray (New York)
Lee Mercer (Texas)
Robert Moldafsky (Missouri)
Heather Munoz (California)
Antonio Marco Pantalo (Pennsylvania)
Wayne Pope (California)
Dorsey Porter Jr. (California)
Christin Powers (Florida)
Mattie Preston (Louisiana)
Isaiah Otis Reid (Florida)
Lee Rhodes (New York)
Jerome Segal (Maryland)
Jodie Smithson (Virginia)
Michael Soetaert (Kansas)
Michael Swing (Florida)
Gregory Thomas (Texas)
Alix Christopher Toulme (Florida)
Jonathan Tuan Tran (California)
Trenita Walker (Missouri)
Dantwan Watkins (Georgia)
Randall Wick (Washington)
Marianne Williamson (California)
Thomas Winterbottom (Pennsylvania)

https://www.politics1.com/p2024.htm

[Hortensis]

19. :) I looked for a list that'd give an indication of the numbers SO FAR,

but not long, so thanks. Williamson will be on this list before long, along with others who achieved political name recognition by making the debates in the past.

But why do you think our primary nominating process won't include presenting a slate of candidates to the electorate via debates? Objecting to the casual term "primary debate" or to characterizing what will be used as opportunity for free exposure as "debate"?

[ZonkerHarris]

17. unsubscribe

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. Williamson did not make the top 25 of potential primary challengers to President Biden

It is unlikely that President Biden will face a serious primary challenge. The Washington Post did a list of 25 potential primary challengers for President Biden and Williamson is not on this list

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/19/top-democrats-2024-ranked/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=twitter

President Biden has signaled he intends to run and that a presidential announcement could be imminent. His State of the Union speech earlier this month appeared to set the stage, and news of an apparently clean bill of health on his physical exam last week would seem to clear the way for the 80-year-old to take the plunge.

At this point, it seems safe to assume he’ll get in. The questions at that point become: Will anybody else? And will Biden lock it down over the next year?

Biden’s candidacy presents some different dynamics from the GOP primary. Fewer Democrats want him to be their 2024 nominee than Republicans who say the same of Donald Trump. But Biden is also the incumbent, making it a more fraught exercise to jump into the campaign against him. Democrats are also simply better at being team players in the Trump era.

For now, basically everyone of substance is saying they wouldn’t do it. But that’s also the smart answer right now. What happens when 2024 approaches, nobody else gets in, and you’re still staring at a primary in which only 37 percent want Biden to run at all? Politics abhors a vacuum. And it’s easy to see Democrats fretting — they are good at that — about whether they’re putting forward their strongest candidate against not just Trump, but say, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

No one considers Williamson a serious candidate.

[WarGamer]

24. I like her.

I wish she had a prime time TV show like Ellen or Oprah...

But in politics... she's not helpful.

[msongs]

25. she's got the cliches and bad grammar down pat nt

[Autumn]

26. I like her and look forward to her running. Of course Biden will win but she adds to the

conversation.

[Happy Hoosier]

31. What exactly do you think she adds?

I'm serious. All I see from her is woo-woo platitudes. I mean, she is free to enter the fray, but I think it's a waste of time and money for everyone involved.

What does she actually offer, in your opinion.

[Autumn]

33. I've never seen her post woo woo.Want to give me an example? She is a spiritual person, not a crazy

religious nut case like all the elected christian politicians who ignore their Christ's teaching . She talks about love and caring for each other, lifting each other up and knowing ourselves. For myself as a person who despises Christianity she is the only person who talks about God and religion that doesn't make me want to throw up.

She's a Democrat and is entitled to run. If you think only certain people should run for president, change the constitution.

[Happy Hoosier]

34. Well, she once said that "Clinical Depression" is a scam....

... and although later said she regretted using that term, did not repudiate the fundamental claims she made.

As someone who knows people whose lives may well have been saved by a combination of Pharmacological intervention and therapy, I find her position despicable.

And what exactly does "spiritual" mean? As best I can tell, people use that term when they want t believe in deities or a magical "spirit" but not tie themselves to any specific dogma.

I never suggested she doesn't have the right to run. She does. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. And IMHO, it is not. She is not, in my estimation, a serious candidate.

[Autumn]

36. Got a link to it to that, context matters.? She's a Christian. Not all Christian are spiritual,

most are just hypocrites. I can assure you there will be dozens of people running for president. She will be better than most of them IMO, Your differs.

Never mind, I found it and she did apologize for saying that on a pod cast.

[Happy Hoosier]

38. She apologized for the term, not the content

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/08/239560/marianne-williamson-depression-antidepressants

It's up to you if that matters, but to me it's a "nonpology."

[Autumn]

40. I read another article where she apologized. Like all apologies people can accept it or not. nt

[Happy Hoosier]

42. Have a link?

Everything I‘ve read from her was an “I’m sorry, but…” equivocation. If she went further than that, I’m glad, but I can’t see that she has anything to offer.

[question everything]

27. DNC: Please keep her off debates, if there are any. Just taking precious time

[Happy Hoosier]

30. She was nuttier than squirrel poop the last time she ran.

She is, of course, entirely unsuitable for the job, but whatevs.

[betsuni]

32. So: Government should be about therapy, not like, you know, running things.

Last edited Mon Feb 27, 2023, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe she noticed how many people whined about not being "inspired" enough to vote 2016 and thought: Hey, I'm an inspirational speaker, I can totally inspire the hell out of everybody, and that's why she ran for president in 2020. This is the sequel, "Marianne for President: A New Beginning."

[jcgoldie]

35. 6 paragraphs to say "I'm not qualified."

[msfiddlestix]

37. She's really Trippin'. I want some of what she's smoking Maybe it's shrooms? I dunno.

But wowzee. Just another cra cra narcissists. Just a kinder, gentler sort.

.

[IcyPeas]

39. LISTEN to this 17 min. interview she did with Trevor Noah from 2019. WHAT'S not to like about her?

She seems to say a lot of the things that we champion here at DU. And Trevor's last words were that she sounds a lot more sane when she's given more than a minute to speak (as is the case on the debate stage).

[LiberalFighter]

41. Is she exempt from the bashing Democrat list? I don't consider her a Democrat.

[Tarc]

43. Dear christ, not this hippy moonbeam wannabe again

She's not an actual Democrat, just a gadfly who "runs" for office to promote her brand.