General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis is a forum for Democrats, but what kind of Democrats?
There are those adhering to FDR and LBJ (except for Vietnam) Democrats as well as the "New Democrats", progressives and liberals, etc.
What is there that seems to divide us greatly? It seems to me the 2016 presidential elections. That is understandable. What is very difficult for me to swallow is the rejection of a primary with many possible candidates. That should be a democratic value.
For those among us, who can see HRC as the only candidate, I ask you why you cannot approve of others to join her as possible candidates. Are you afraid that more candidates may cause trouble for her? If you are so sure of her invincibility any debate should serve her well.
Arguments that anyone else does not have the required experience are somewhat strange. How much experience did Carter, Clinton, or Obama have?
Arguments that others are not democratic enough, lead me to ask what are your values for the party? Money? Well, let us see first a spirited debate during the primaries. The money will follow the winner; it always has.
So why can we not all agree to welcome more candidates for a great primary and welcome any and every one to join in without immediate disparagement? I would really enjoy that, and I don't think I would be the only one to do so.
JI7
(89,247 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)She is more than welcome to join in. I just want to see others accepted and respected as well.
840high
(17,196 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)and heat will continue her way. I was thinking about making a thread about her IWR vote, but I didn't want to dog pile by making another HRC=bad thread. I'll probably wait for the primaries begin.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I left the party within minutes of that vote after being a D all my life - it was a deal-breaker with me
merrily
(45,251 posts)That has been evident to me for almost exactly two years now.
Before Obama was even re-elected, every Dem pundit, strategist, politician, host on MSNBC, etc. suddenly started saying , if Hillary runs in 2016, no Democrat will even bother to oppose her. She'll clear the field." All using the same words or very similar.
It was another way of saying "Hillary is the inevitable nominee, as in 2008, only worse: At least in 2008, we had a field of about six to start with and a hot contest between the two frontrunners. And Dems then said how much it had helped the Party. So, this time, no primary is supposed to help the Party?
It was as though we were supposed to get brainwashed, along with any rogue Dem who was not prepared to follow the script. Never in my life has anything remotely this happened--saying four years out from a primary that it was a done deal? Everyone? On every talking head show? Before the incumbent even got re-elected? I find it very suspect and, in any event, and totally unacceptable.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)is like herding cats. Even Mythbusters failed on that account. Cats are just too damned independent and so are Democratic voters who make up their own minds based on the information they have at hand rather than on the orders of party bosses or other authorities.
While it seems to be a tactical disadvantage when we're faced with an authoritarian setup like the modern GOP, it can also be one of our strengths. Remember, the GOP authorities can never admit they were wrong about anything, it would confuse their various voting blocs severely, so they are locked into doing things that have never worked.
We're at one of those points, now. Most of their policies have been tried for years and the country is a mess because of them. That is why the political pendulum is just barely starting to shift leftward after 40 years of being pinned to the right.
However, don't expect us to agree on much of anything except the general principles that women deserve reproductive health care and equal pay, that all citizens should have equal standing before the law, and that wealth needs to shift back downward to the people who produce it through their labor.
ETA: If her partisans are saying Hillary should not be opposed, they're in for a very ugly surprise (or a whole bunch of them) over the next two years. Brace yourselves.
How we get to all those places will be produced by contentious arguments producing working models of possible solutions. That's how Democrats are.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Will Rogers says it for me. There are all kinds of Democrats that what makes us great-unlike the other party which only has asshats.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)who says her city is a single blueberry among the rest of tomatoes. Even in my state it is not so bad. The best for Wendy!!!!
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)but most cities are bluish but the suburbs and rural tends to be RRRREEEEDDDD. All the counties surrounding Austin are RED.
But your friend's analogy is a bit weak if she is using store bought tomatoes which are pink at best. Maybe she grows her own or gets them from a farmer's market.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Her husband was the president and she was first lady, so there it is.
She gracefully lost to Obama in the primaries. Well, sorta.
And she's establishment so she will get all the establishment backing. Bernie is more underground and the rest are all in between, so if you want establishment to stay established and continue establishing what heretofore establishment has established, then we have no choice but to vote for the person who best represents the establishment.
I hope that we have established that and there is no more concern?
Hilliary E. Clinton-Sachs for the best government money can buy!!
Dirty Socialist
(3,252 posts)My views are close to hers. However, Obama ran a better campaign, so I voted for Obama. I am still up in the air now.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)babylonsister
(171,056 posts)to support us. It's a big tent for a reason, and I think different POVs only make all of us think. It's a good thing!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I think at times some DUers see themselves as being more influential than they really are. We are not the Democratic machine. Between Hillary and others we have NFL wife beatings and angry White guy privilege and feminist history to contend with.
Johnyawl
(3,205 posts)...I remember the primaries in 1968.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)But I have no problem with her having competition in the primaries.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Unless we vote in 2014 then 2016 won't mean a thing if we win the Presidency.
GOTV 2014!
mimi85
(1,805 posts)We should have a thread in the lounge or somewhere about what our "handles" mean. Some are super obvious, but many more aren't.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)After that we damn well better get together, no matter who the nominee is.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The debates will be more interesting, for one thing. And choice is always good IMO. And anyone who claims that Hillary is inevitable is a fool. A week is a long time in politics; 2 years is an eternity.
tritsofme
(17,376 posts)There is literally no one who opposes a primary process with multiple candidates.
Why in the world shouldn't Clinton supporters advocate against potential opponents in that primary process? Pretty ridiculous.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)and you and I should be open and listen to the relevant arguments before deciding on one candidate, unless you want to exclude any reasonable kind of discussion of the very important issues regarding all of the country.
You may favor her, okay; still we ought to listen as well as look at previous records to allow for respect for other candidates and not use immediately a "diss" sign. These signs have been on this forum for a long, long time.
Why do you want to exclude other candidates??
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Where have you seen it?
donco
(1,548 posts)I would prefer someone like Senator Warren or an independent Senator by the name of Sanders.