General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you don't like HRC don't vote for her. seriously, nobody is going to beg you
She is still gonna win. The same people hating on Clinton here have done the same to Obama for eight years. And it didn't matter one bit. He won twice - big time.
So vote for whomever you want. Who gives a shit? Meanwhile Democrats will be electing the first woman president. If a bunch of bitter Naderites want to gripe, who could possibly care?
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I expect Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, and I expect her to win in the general election, too. Some people will choose not to vote for her, I'm sure, as a protest of some kind. They should follow their beliefs, but they shouldn't expect that others will follow them down that foolish path. I think that enough voters will choose the Democratic option to offset the Republican vote. I certainly hope so. If not, we're in for some serious problems. That's why I'll be advocating voting for Democrats, just like always. The alternative is unthinkable.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm far from confident these days. I'm watching the candidate most likely to be able to defeat the Republicans in 2016 being torn down daily on the Internet. I've never had a President with whom I've agreed 100% of the time. I've never expected to. Yet, I vote for Democrats, because I support more of those candidates' goals more of the time than any Republican candidate.
I believe it is possible for someone like Hillary Clinton to lose in 2016. Attacking a candidate nonstop for 18 months could easily produce that result. And what a terrible result will be obtained. I'm disheartened, disappointed, and disenchanted with such attacks. They will not lead to a good result. It is a shame.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Look at 2008.
Yeah, 2008 is instructive for a lot of reasons.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I've said that many times. I don't have a candidate for President, and won't until after the convention. If you think someone should run, please encourage that person to run. Right now, HRC will surely win. I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee and campaigning hard.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)i think a lot of people should run. However, "well you dont have any other choice" isnt a very good campaign message. Nor does the lack of an allegedly "viable" alternative mean the supposed inevitable front runner gets a free pass from criticism.
I also think that the announced candidates should run ON more than meaningless pablum like "i want to strengthen families and communities", "my most inspirational bible passage is" and "If the TPP isnt doubleplusgood for american workers, then we should be willing to consider thinking about ways that we could entertain the idea of starting to discuss whether or not we should think about maybe walking away from it"
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I get exactly one vote in the primary election. That's it. When a nominee is selected at the convention, my work starts. Until then, in presidential races, I have zero influence. I will support and campaign for that nominee. Simple.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The primaries are the time when we as a party decide what we stand for.
Maybe i am deeply deluded by i have earned my voice. I intend to use it.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)the candidate is usually already decided.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But that doesnt mean I've written off having any influence, at least in my own small way.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Ain't that the truth?
Wait till the republican ayatollahs have to get on nationwide, live TV and spell out their nightmare vision of "taking back America."
The teabaggers will not allow them to be one iota left of Adolf Hitler. Non insane American voters will come stampeding into Hillary's camp en masse!
I'm hoping for a landslide democratic party victory with long coattails!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)She was also inevitable then.
And I opposed her vigorously then.
I would prefer that we have a primary and that someone more supportive of the working person get the nomination and then move into the whitehouse to work for us.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1204376
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Hillary was my favorite in 2008, but when Obama won the primary, I supported him 100%.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Do you have any links to their (is Some pronounced sum or so-MEH) policy positions?
I really don't see much difference between supporting Republican candidates and attacking Democratic candidates.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)How about THAT?
I'm not attacking any candidates, Hillary has a way of being her own worst enemy and doesn't need my help.
I would, however, like to keep all the doors open for the greatest number of choices possible and to have a genuine primary.
I'm a Democrat, that's how we roll.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,700 posts)Then-Senator Obama announced his candidacy February 10, 2007, at the old state capitol in Springfield, IL.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us/politics/11obama.html?pagewanted=all
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)thanks!
greatauntoftriplets
(175,700 posts)Hard to forget that bitter cold day.
brooklynite
(93,880 posts)and in the year leading up to February, Obama was quietly organizing political and financial support. That has't happened this time either.
You've got O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, MAYBE Sanders, but imagining some other candidate getting in this late is a dream.
Of course, now someone will complain that my pointing this out is "discouraging".
JI7
(89,185 posts)already for a long time that he was going to run.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)WOW THAT IS A POWERFUL MESSAGE TO RUN ON, RIGHT THERE
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I'm asking who this Someone Else is.
Apparently, there's a lot of people "ready for" him/her. A completely flaccid, limp message.
I'd like to know more about them, before supporting that particular bandwagon. Done you have any info, at all, on this Someone Else? Have they filed yet? Did they form a PAC? What's the URL to their web site?
I'll support the candidate, who ever it is, without furthering bullshit Right Wing talking points.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Because I've said repeatedly that I haven't decided who I'm supporting in the Primaries (shocking! i know, what with ONLY 568 days until the 2016 election) ... what I'd like to hear from all the ANNOUNCED candidates (and there may be some who still haven't announced, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton has been in the race nearly a whole week... so obviously the field should be finalized by now) is concrete policy proposals and statements on the issues pressing to the electorate.
I trust we will have time for that, and although Hillary has offered some real wonky policy meat already, like "I want to strengthen families and communities"--- who doesn't support THAT, amirite? I'm still keeping my options open.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I'd like to hear from all the candidates, including this Someone Else that people are so excited about. I'd like to see some contrasting and comparing amongst the candidates.
What I'm tired of seeing is Right Wing talking points, with absolutely jack shit in terms of positive content for any Democratic candidate.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)you know exactly what you're doing, which is -like I said- perpetuating this "you don't have any other choice" meme.
Which is a crappy argument that someone deserves my vote.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)why are you so passionate about defending them? Why do you apparently believe that mindlessly repeating Right Wing attacks without a shred of an idea about anything positive is a good thing?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)for one.
If someone is going "Hillary! Benghaziiiii!!!", yes, that's a mindless repetition of a right wing attack.
If someone criticizes her vote for the IWR, or a lack of substance from her campaign, or her perceived pro-corporate triangulation on stuff like the TPP, etc.... not so much.
In the context of this subthread, it appears the only "mindless repetition of a right wing attack" that you could possibly be talking about, is upthread where someone pointed out that she was supposed to be "inevitable" in the 2008 primaries, too.
How, precisely, do you come to the conclusion that that is a "right wing attack"?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Since you admit that you have no clue as to what I'm talking about, why don't you just leave it at that?
If you had actually read anything I posted, rather that been just trying to pick a fight, you would have seen that I would like to see the other candidates and have people support them. What I'm tired of is the right wing tactics of opposition, without absolutely no constructive content. If you don't like a candidate, fine. Offer up an alternative, sing their praises, tell us how they are better than the other candidates.
On the other hand, if all one has is negativity towards a Democratic candidate, with nothing else, no candidate to support, no idea towards policies, one is not materially different from a Republican troll.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)SINCE you can't answer my question and you obviously dont have any coherent way to rationalize your calling nyc skp's bringing up of "inevitability- the 2008 edition" a "right wing attack", you're going to try to bluster me into leaving the thread.... instead of actually addressing anything i've said.
However, you must not know me very well, if you think that is going to work.
Beyond that, let me summarize what you ARE saying here- it is okay (sort of) not to like a particular candidate, but NO ONE MUST EVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT THEM, lest they be a right wing troll, because right wing trolls say bad things about our candidates TOO!
Uh, that's not really how primaries work. Is this your first time through a presidential election cycle, perchance?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)what I have already made clear to anyone who has basic reading comprehension. It's also insulting to suggest that I do not know how primaries work or have not experienced a presidential election.
Bluster all you want about, but if all one had is negative Right Wing attack points (notice how I have not claimed that any one in this OP, including yourself, has made such attacks) then one is not materially different than a Right Wing Troll.
Why are you so defensive of these people? Since you have gone rude, exactly what bug is up your ass? Are you upset that there are no viable candidates at this point? I suggest that you apply your angst to finding some.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Quick, send me to the Principal's office.
Your entire act in this thread has been to counter people- in this thread- who put forth arguments like "she was supposed to be inevitable in 2008, too" with a neverending fusiallde of "who else ya got? hah? No one, that's who".
And yes, you are conflating ALL 'attacks' -and apparently pointing out the history of "inevitability" is a negative attack- with "right wing attacks", and by extension, you ARE doing it to the people in this thread, like nyc skp, who you initially responded to.
You can pretend all you want that isn't what you're doing, but basically your two main bullet points in this subthread have been
1) there is no one else you for you to support
and
2) all criticism and negative attacks are right wing attacks because criticism and negative attacks are what right wingers do.
Why am I defensive of "these people"? Which people? People who blather on about Benghazi or Alex Jones shit? I'm NOT defensive of those people.
People like Skip, upthread, who has been on DU for a long time and happens to not support Hillary? He and I disagree about a bunch of stuff, but I'll defend his right to point out that "inevitability" didn't get her the nomination last time around.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I'm not sure why you want to defend Right Wing Trolls. Yes, "these people" that you can't seem to figure out who they are. I'm speaking about people who have jack shit to contribute other than to repost talking points attacking Democratic candidates. If you had been paying any attention whatsoever, instead of trying to pick a fight based on your revisionist claims of what I have said, you would note that I have NOT mentioned any candidates names.
"you're going to try to bluster me into leaving the thread" Take a good long look in a mirror, that's ALL you have brought to the table.
"your calling nyc skp's bringing up of "inevitability- the 2008 edition" See, there's a big part of your problem. You assume that I was making a statement about inevitability.
Please ask questions if you can't figure out what I said, rather than trying to use your ideas for what I said. If you can't understand the nuance between (your words) "there is no one else you for you to support" and the fact that "Someone Else" is not eligible to run for president, then there isn't much hope that you will be able to ever understand what I said.
We agree more than you think, but you have some sort of bug up your ass that I am somehow attacking you. You have been attacking me for several exchanges here while I have explained what apparently is beyond your ability to comprehend. I welcome any constructive discussion of candidates and criticism of a candidate that supports another candidate (a real candidate). Sorry if you don't like my opinion, but tough shit if you don't. Since you don't appear to listen to anything I'm typing, have a nice day, and feel free to make another inane, incorrect stab at inserting your flawed comprehension into my words.
At the end of the day, "Someone Else" can never run for president and supporting him/her is a waste of time.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yeah, we're talking past each other.
criticism of a candidate that supports another candidate (a real candidate): Okay, O'Malley - who may be running, it's certainly within the realm of possibility - recently criticized Hillary Clinton both on her vote for the IWR and the fact that she only relatively recently "evolved" on marriage equality.
So now that I have put it in the context of an approved alternative (unless he's not) NOW can I criticize Hillary for voting for war in Iraq? Or changing her tune on LGBT marriage?
Just curious.
If you're calling the person you responded to originally a RW troll, you're not only out of line, you're breaking the rules. If you're NOT doing that, then your arguments in this thread -- which all followed his post-- don't make any coherent sense.
As for the rest of it, sure. You feel the way you do, and I do the same. That tough shit logic works both ways.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its very simple...
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)WE Democrats? Not all democrats are going to vote for her, and you are not speaking for the majority. It still remains to he seen if she will win the primaries. I personally don't think she will.
brooklynite
(93,880 posts)Every poll consistently shows broad popularity for Hillary Clinton, from both liberals and centrists; black, white and hispanic; rich and poor; young and old. I think your problem is relating "WE DUers" with "WE Democrats".
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And polls are irrelevant so early in the race. We don't even know who else will be running yet!
This thread has been a hoot. Thanks OP!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are you denying that?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)are YOU denying THAT?
Autumn
(44,765 posts)numbers will go down. Right now she is sucking up all the oxygen.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)she has had that level of support now for a very long time...
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Impressive.
brooklynite
(93,880 posts)...if you want to believe that nobody's picking them because "they haven't announced", knock yourselves out.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)I know there are people floating whispers and beginning "exploratory" campaigns. . . .
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)When the debates haven't even started!
Taylorz
(53 posts)I do not support Hillary at all. I've seen her. Hell, I had family working for the White House during the Clinton years. Worked closely for Gore. I know the stories.
I supported Clinton with my first vote in '96, and have supported Gore, Kerry, Obama through their races. I was a Dean supporter, and Obama supporter.
I knew what I was getting, and Clinton offers nothing substantial of value for me or the 99%'ers. So, I am opposing her in principle because she is too far to the right so much that even mainstream right-wingers are supporting Clinton.
We need a Democratic Party flagbearer that stays true to the party, and Clinton isn't it. She's already triangulating. Bernie stands an excellent chance of getting that nomination, despite the "fringe left" that makes up a large portion of the Democratic Party. Lunatic fringe left was what, 1980s? In today's society, he is the Democratic Party. Hillary would be labelled "Republican". Hillary is only interested in recruiting the 1%'ers and giving lip service to everyone else.
Remember, the Republican platform today is identical to the Koch/Libertarian platform in 1980. That's how extreme right they are.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Obama is a self-described moderate Republican. Hillary is close to him in most things. I don't want another Republican president.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)A bit of history.
At this point in 1971, Ed Muskie was "walking away with it".
At this point in 1979, Ted Kennedy was "walking away with it".
At this point in 1987, Mario Cuomo was "walking away with it".
And at this point in 2007, HRC was "walking away with it".
Things change.
And no candidate benefits from combative smugness on her supporters' part.
Logical
(22,457 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)still_one
(91,968 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)I assume that's why is there post after post calling people who don't support her names like "haters" and "Naderites." No one cares. Least of all you.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I should have included the Republicans who fund the Naderites. My bad.
G_j
(40,366 posts)and keeps digging!!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's not like HRC has anything to offer as a candidate that the others don't.
How does McCarthyite flamebait like this HELP your candidate?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That simply isn't fair, or true.
And HRC has no special entitlement. She's just another candidate and nobody's voted yet. Polls are meaningless at this stage.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Because had ALL the votes in Floriduh been counted, we wouldn't have had Dubya.
It had nothing to do with Nader. Nader finished third with 97,000 votes.
What about Buchanan with 17,000 votes, Brown with 16,000 votes, Hagelin with 2,200 votes, Morehead, with 1800 votes, or Phillips, with 1300 votes? If any of these candidates were not on the ballot, and even half of the people who voted for any of them voted for Gore, Gore would have won.
I am sick of people blaming Nader for Gore's loss, when it was the RepubliCONs in Floriduh, and the Supremes Court who stopped the counting of all the votes in Floriduh. That, along with the fact, that there was a considerable number of minor party candidates, several of whom could have been put there as spoilers, were more than a factor than Nader was.
G_j
(40,366 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)????
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/rahm-emanuel-republicans_n_6904566.html
reddread
(6,896 posts)the third way is the only way.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?
Joker: Our side, sir!
Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Joker: Yes, sir!
Colonel: Then how 'bout getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Joker: Yes, sir!
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Guess we're going back
to the Rahm Emanuel
school of "Loseing Friends
and Making Enemies"
Rahm Emanuel apologises for 'retards' comment
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, has apologised for calling Left-wingers Democrats '----ing retards'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7158169/Rahm-Emanuel-apologises-for-retards-comment.html
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)There are plenty of regular posters here who have never openly supported a democrat on this board, but claim to be democrats who just don't think HRC is a good enough Democrat.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)board"??
You peaked my curiosity!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)You can post links, but, of course you have none since you just made that shit up,
so I expect another BS, Cop Out, whiny Excuse.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I don't know if that applies to you or not.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Keep it up! You're doing a fantastic job so far!
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Well you've come to
the right place to espouse
that nugget of insightful
political strategy
Clearly some folks are confused.
I've heard talk that if
we don't vote for Hillary...
then REPUBLICANS!!!!1!11!!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Will you start telling people to "pound sand and peddle it walking", too?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)The constant drumbeat of derision in some quarters here for Ms. Clinton triggers the reptilian brain and leads us to want to lash out. That's exactly what our opponents want. We must try to rise above it.
As hard as it is I am going to try to create a virtuous cycle as opposed to a vicious one. I might not succeed because it is contrary to my nature but I will try.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)The Anterior cingulate cortex
has a LIBERAL bias
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Maybe we can gofundme for an electric billboard with that insight.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Is that a new contraction?
It is important to proofread your posts when correcting the grammar of others.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Things should get better after cataract surgery. That will probably next year.
Anyways, thanks for the tip.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)I see plenty of posts with typos. Pretty rare to call another out on it.
Civility would be more appropriate.
Pointing it out, as in this instance is petty.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)JanMichael
(24,847 posts)TV ads, Web banner ads, flers, buttons, tattoos, ring tones on other phones, etfreakincetera.
There will be billions of dollars worth of "begging" me for a year or more.
Oh and I forgot something. I will be asked for or begged for money. Sadly I am a socialist with good income and they will magically know that.
Stupid op. It doesn't even make sense.
And I voted for Gore in Florida in 2000 and will vote for whatever capitalist lap dog runs as a Democrat in 2016. I should also add the I am not a Warrennutter or Bernie lover at this time.
Phhhft.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)But you voted for one and plan on voting for the other? Why? A cynical person might think you are just saying that to stay on the right side of the rules here.
JanMichael
(24,847 posts)You also didn't acknowledge my point about begging. That is exactly what will happen.
Your op still sucks.
I still voted for the god awful lesser of evils starting in 1992.
In 1988 I stupidly voted Bush 1. Then again at that time I wasn't far Left either.
Response to arely staircase (Original post)
LiberalElite This message was self-deleted by its author.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)HRC will not get my vote.
FU for calling us Naderites.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)What a nasty gesture.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)So you would be okay with me telling you FU? Not that I would of course....
(Note to juror: Legitimate question since poster claims it's just as nasty as the OP using "Naderite"
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You're hilarious!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Don't you have some posts to go delete?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Thanks for the laughs!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)97. IBTD. n/t
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)FU ?
Wow, considering what loathsome name calling goes on here from those who oppose Clinton, well this should not bother you.
Like being called a Republican for supporting Clinton.
Same thing, different day. How it goes on & on around here.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Can't wait for the big going away party DU will hold when Hillary wins the nomination.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)If hrc does happen to get the nomination, I will just have to trashcan by keyword and not join into any hrc threads until after the election.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Via my silence. Been here longer than you. I know how to navigate du pretty well.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Enjoy your silence.
I'm sure someone will.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Well, I guess that Debbie Wassermann Schultz or her supporters should get banned:
The fact that she wasn't raises alot of nasty questions about the Party Leadership.
In 2008 Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to endorse these 3 Democrats
who had won their Primaries and had a chance to win Republican seats:
Miami-Dade Democratic Party Chair Joe Garcia
Former Hialeah Democratic Mayor Raul Martinez
Democratic businesswoman Annette Taddeo
All three had won their local Democratic Primaries, and were challenging Hard Core Republican incumbents with whom Wasserman-Schultz had become cozy.
Not only did the head of the DCCC Red to Blue Program REFUSE to endorse these Democratic challengers,
but she appeared in person at at least one (possibly more) Campaign/Fundraiser for their Republican opponents.
FL-18, FL-21, FL-25: Wasserman Schultz Wants Dem Challengers to Lose
by: James L.
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 7:15 PM EDT
<snip>
Sensing a shift in the political climate of the traditionally solid-GOP turf of the Miami area, Democrats have lined up three strong challengers -- Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, and businesswoman Annette Taddeo to take on Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, respectively.
While there is an enormous sense of excitement and optimism surrounding these candidacies, some Democratic lawmakers, including Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek, are all too eager to kneecap these Democratic challengers right out of the starting gate in the spirit of "comity" and "bipartisan cooperation" with their Republican colleagues:
But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.
"At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant," Wasserman Schultz said.
Now, you'd expect this kind of bullshit from a backbencher like Alcee Hastings, but you wouldn't expect this kind of behavior from the co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, which is the position that Wasserman Schultz currently holds. Apparently, Debbie did not get Rahm's memo about doing whatever it takes to win:
The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1537
The bloggers also are furious with Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), who similarly refuses to endorse the Democratic challengers to the three Cuban American Republicans.
They are calling for Wasserman Schultz to step down from her leadership role at the DCCC. And they're not letting up, even after one Florida liberal blogger reported that the congresswoman seemed "frustrated" by the blogs and had asked to "please help get them off my back."
This prompted even harsher reaction from perhaps the most influential of the progressive political bloggers, Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. Kos, founder of Daily Kos, who wrote on his blog Wednesday: "On so many fronts, the Republicans are standing in the way of progress, on Iraq, SCHIP, health care, fiscal responsibility, corruption, civil liberties, and so on. Those three south Florida Republicans are part of that problem. And she's (Wasserman-Schultz) going to be 'frustrated' that people demand she do her job?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903410_3.html
Here are Kos comments on the Wasserman-Schultz betrayal of the Democratic Party:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/480511/-DCCC-Says-Uproar-Over-DWS-Recusal-Much-Ado-About-Nothing
A lot of time has passed since 2008, but I don't take these kinds of betrayals lightly.
bvar22
Cursed with a memory
With "partners" like this, we don't need Republicans!
Autumn
(44,765 posts)I find it interesting that at that time so many Hillary supporters were driven off from this site or hounded until they were banned by some of the very same people who are such staunch supporters of Hillary this time around. Yeah the purges are eagerly anticipated aren't they?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)No. I think it's sad that some folks are so far gone as to already declare they won't vote for the Democratic nominee. I do, however, think their constant negativity is a blight on this website during election season.
Response to JTFrog (Reply #103)
Autumn This message was self-deleted by its author.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)Skinner will decide when the crackdown on election season begins.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Same lines, same posters different day.
Maybe you enjoy this.
My motto, don't engage.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)tritsofme
(17,325 posts)A vote for anyone but Hillary in the general is a vote to empower Republicans and give them the White House, and the ability to choose Supreme Court justices.
Not sure why you are sensitive about being called out for this, actions do have consequences.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)And the Democratic party continually putting up Republican-lite as the best option available has run it's course. I, and many others, are tired of it.
I will be for Sanders (furthest thing from Republican) as long as possible.
Third way and DLC are the Republicans in this thread, not I.
tritsofme
(17,325 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)You're assuming Hillary is the primary candidate.
tritsofme
(17,325 posts)the one we held in 2012.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)That makes it inherently different. In 2008, a candidate who had not yet announced won the primaries.
So, as I said, you're putting the cart before the horse.
tritsofme
(17,325 posts)This is very different than 2008 when there were multiple serious contenders.
Hillary's primary opposition is shaping up to be far weaker than even Al Gore faced as an incumbent vice president in 2000.
Hillary truly does enter the nominating process in a stronger position than any candidate other than an incumbent president in the modern process, her position as essentially the presumptive nominee this far out is unprecedented.
My point is that she face a somewhat more difficult task than Obama in 2012, but likely an easier glide than Gore in 2000, bookmark it.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)And, as I recall, many many people believed her to be the presumptive nominee in 2008, and it didn't turn out to be the case. She is neither a sitting president, or vice president.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Let the primary play out before you start lobbing names at people who don't support her.
tritsofme
(17,325 posts)They had been seriously mulling campaigns for months or years before.
With Warren repeatedly insisting she is out, there are no serious contenders on the horizon in this contest.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)10 months before the Iowa caucus. Plenty of time for others to enter the field.
tritsofme
(17,325 posts)You can't build a national campaign on the back of a napkin.
Feel free to cling to the illusion that someone meaningful could actually challenge Hillary, let alone beat her, but the reality is that this race was over before it ever started.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)She's inevitable. Everyone else should just roll over and play dead.
As I started this conversation, you're putting the cart before the horse.
reddread
(6,896 posts)accountability is so 20th c.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I don't plan on voting for her
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...going to vote for. I have no axe to grind regarding Hillary whatsoever. To me, it's like buying a new car. True, it's much more important but at the same time I want to study the "Purchase" before laying down the Vote/Money. I might have the Purchase driving me around for 8 years.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Thank you.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)yourout
(7,521 posts)I would not be able to sleep at night if Walker, Bush, Cruz got elected and I did not at least vote against them.
Would love to have someone to vote FOR but that is not likely to happen.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And I would hope no one would beg me to vote for her.
What you seem to really be instructing us non-Hillary-supporters to do is to sit down and shut up.
I skip the Yay! Hillary threads. I you skip the threads that express displeasure with Hillary's policies, then it would be equally easy to skip them, I would think. Or stay in the HRC group, or something like that.
But you don't really get to tell people who do not agree with you what to do.
The Naderite thing is pretty funny, gotta give you that.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)"But, you said you'd even vote for a yellow dog."
"Not in the primary."
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)fake argument over and over again on DU? People can vote however they want,that's not exactly a new revelation.
G_j
(40,366 posts)a whole bunch of people, a popular sport these days.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)Iggo
(47,489 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Autumn
(44,765 posts)^O^K^A^Y^ ^I^ ^W^O^N^T^
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)but even if they did it seems stupid not care since according to Nader haters they caused Gore to lose. I guess you don't care whether you lose. Oh I forget, your psychic feelers tell you, Hillary will win. No need for election anymore than there is any need for a primary.
The first women President isn't exactly a compelling perk for most people who expect the President to do things rather than be a particular identity.
I don't really have any respect for symbolism voters. I am guessing they are mostly frivolous rich women that get misty eyed over stories about European Queens, and Maggie Thatcher, reactionaries who mostly oppressed the average women.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)If you volunteer to "help" Hillary,
stay away from phone banking or canvassing because you do more harm than good.
Stick to Stuffing Letters.
You will do less damage to Hillary.....and the Democratic Party.
No charge.
I've already soured on Hillary and it took even less than a day.... already looking forward to a Bernie Sanders switch/announcement to challenge for the Democratic nomination, and based on his records, I think we've found the right candidate to directly challenge Clinton from the left and understand how massive of a support Bernie has on the liberal side vs the Third Way Democrats.
Iggo
(47,489 posts)And since you don't give a shit whether I vote for her or not, does this mean this is the last I'll hear from you about it?
MiniMe
(21,677 posts)But I will vote for whoever the dem candidate is in the general election!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)And no, I won't be voting for her, but then, I didn't need your permission to abstain.
William769
(55,124 posts)So I will just tell them all to have a nice day.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Lord Jesus seeing you trashtalkers lose your Astroturf wages is the best reason I can think of to vote for O'Malley, Sanders or even James Webb.
You are the stupidest campaigners I have ever seen. You actually want to incite supporters of other candidates to hate you and your own candidate. Why has noone observed you are possibly a closet repuke is something I'll never understand. Why does Hillary want to pay you good wallstreet money to sink her career?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Response to SidDithers (Reply #99)
Post removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Ridiculous alert, nothing in your post is hideable.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)It's decided on policies, issues, history, and principles.
It's also not decided on polls, party loyalty, or "not as bad".
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)to say if Clinton will win the nomination or the presidency, but I share your sentiment about the professional gripers. Who cares is right. Nobody but themselves. While they piss me off sometimes, their influence is minimal.
ileus
(15,396 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)I'm not sure which, but this can't possibly be the post of a serious adult who cares about our country.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Next will be a post saying nah-nah-nah-nah-nah
If this is how someone responds to actual issues, rather than justifying actions or policy, then I hope for HC's sake, that everyone that is using it are not on her campaign. Convincing anyone to vote for her, that may be leaning left or right, with this argument will turn anyone off.
I do hope that all those using it are out in the primaries though, working for HC.
reddread
(6,896 posts)smells so familiar...
is that cologne the same one Karl uses?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Maybe just a tad less musky, but the same distinct stench
Logical
(22,457 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Such a fascinating pattern:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6508212
From the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign of the midterms, to the relentless stream of deliberately baiting, blaming messaging like this, I don't think we have *ever* seen such a transparent and relentless campaign by corporate politicians and their mouthpieces to depress Democratic enthusiasm for the party and suppress Democratic turnout.
Corporate politicians want a Republican in next time. It is becoming increasingly clear that the plan of corporatists in both parties is for Hillary to lose. This is why:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6229978
...
Corporatists on both sides are working hard to set the stage to elect a Republican next time, because eight years of corporate Democratic rule have opened too many eyes to the fact that the predatory corporate agenda continues no matter which party is elected. That awareness is dangerous for the PTB.
They NEED to alienate the base and get a Republican in office for awhile so that corporate Democrats can pretend to be against corporate/warmongering/police state policies again. They hope that the country will forget all this silly talk about oligarchy and go back to believing that the only thing wrong in Washington is that a Republican is in office and we need to rally to get the Third Way Democrats back in again.
They are TRYING to demoralize and alienate the base. We saw it in the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign. We see it in the gratuitous attacks on traditional Democrats every single day by supposed Hillary supporters. Corporatists in both parties are doing everything possible to enable a Republican win....The truth is that we live in a post-partisan, united oligarchy now, not a democracy...
[font color=red]***************************************************************************************[/font color]
[font size=3]We misunderstand our corporate politicians in 2015 when we assume that their goal is always to win. That was the old system, democracy. In the new system, oligarchy, the goal is to use the two parties you own in whatever way will best protect and advance the corporate agenda. [/font size]
[font color=red]***************************************************************************************[/font color]
Red vs. Blue = Oligarchy Theater for the masses.
Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.
Selling off swaths of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling? Both parties support it.
Drilling along the Atlantic Coast? Both parties support it.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Yeesh...
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)many insults are thrown my way.
JI7
(89,185 posts)the same shit happens every election year , especially during presidential elections. i realized this when i told a few them to not vote for the candidate if they don't like them . and they got even more angry and full of rage at how i dare to dismiss them and went into the whole victim crap.
neverforget
(9,434 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Spare the sanctimony. Of course she'll win. Some of us think Americans deserve better.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And as much as it may drive some people here into fits of apoplexy, THE PRIMARIES ARENT OVER YET.
Once she's the nominee, expect and demand universal support on DU all you want. Or at least no open opposition. That is the rules.
Until then, though, it's out of line.
But If she's as inevitable as you say, you have nothing to worry about, right???
so what 's the rush?
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)if electing the first woman president is such a priority for you does that mean you would vote for Sarah Palin for president if she were a candidate running against a male DEM?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)WTF does that even mean?
yup. Wow lol!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)or the mistaken belief that people who don't want Hillary must be bitter Naderites.
As to "Who gives a shit?" You do, clearly, or you wouldn't waste your time dissing people who don't support your candidate.
Multiway fail! Most entertaining!!
marmar
(76,991 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)since people keep asking me for an example of someone telling me (and others who feel as I do) that our votes are not needed, so our concerns can safely be ignored.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)Have to agree with your post, though I'm keeping an open mind as to whom I'm voting for.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)I think people do irrationally hate her for being female. However, I am not one of them. However, she still voted for the Iraq War, was against gay marriage until it was convenient, doesn't support true single payer healthcare, supports the drug war and prison state, and does little to speak out against massive wealthgap. Maybe she is the best we can do. I personally wish we could do better though. I wish people would stick more to criticizing her on the issues like I did here, than attacking her personally. To be fair, most mainstream politicians are nearly identical on the issues I just mentioned, but don't get the hate Hillary gets.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Not to mention, she bagged that all-important Magic Johnson endorsement.