Yes the grapes are sour. But we don't need the whine.

[Tom Rinaldo]

Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2017, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Trump is F'ing President. I've been depressed for over 11 months, and keep fighting to not let it paralyze me. It's legitimately horrifying from nearly infinite perspectives. And I want people to blame. I want people I can make grovel in their guilt. Failing that, I want people I can kick down every time they try to walk like normal human beings. Because they voted for Trump. Or didn't vote for Hillary. Or tried to somehow equate the two as dangers to the Republic. And then there are the full blown villains. Like Putin and his army of trolls. And Comey who was so wrapped up in preserving his reputation before Congress that he refused to honor established Justice Department procedures, designed to prevent what ultimately happened from ultimately happening - the FBI deciding an election. And then there's virtually the entire national Republican Party, which closed ranks around someone they knew was totally unfit to be President - as a vehicle to gain political power. And cable news which saw fit to broadcast in full almost every single Trump campaign rally.

I realize some of the people I am tempted to lash out at are not the same people that some others here want to lash out at. I know some want to lash out at folks like me, for example, who wasn't/isn't bothered in the least that Bernie Sanders is an Independent. And sure, I admit that sometimes I want to be pissed at some folks who thought Hillary's FBI probe and abysmal public unfavorability numbers weren't red lights flashing before she got the nomination. We can easily blame our lack of unity on each other's perceived failings and/or unforgivable decisions, there is plenty of ammunition lying around for an extended civil war. But we can't negate the damage being caused all of us by continuing disunity, no matter how confident any of us may feel we are in the

So that's number one; sour grapes make bitter wine/whine. And if we drink it we just get drunk and incapacitated. And we can't afford that now, we have to be on top of our game. Number two is we need allies, almost any and all allies, to hurl their bodies at Trump's crypto fascist machine. Even Republican bodies. And yeah, even some bodies harboring prejudices (but Hell No to full blown racists - they can beat the rush and go to Hell right now). So if some Trump voter realizes he got duped AFTER the chickens come home to roost inside of his own bedroom - yeah well (bite tongue) better late than never. Because it IS better late than never.

What will save the Republic, and many of our own lives, is for the left of center to close ranks against our common dire threat There shouldn't be any hatchets visible now, anywhere above ground. And then we must be joined by as many of our prior outright adversaries as we can help them to finally muster. Trump's base does not have to fully dissolve, but it has to further erode. That is what it will take for a small, but extremely important, handful of Congressional Republicans to sever their loyalty to Trump. And that is what it will take to ultimately neutralize his threat. January of 2019, after Congress reconvenes after the mid-term elections, is too long to wait. Corker is breaking ranks, but we need more Republicans to follow.

Anything we can do to help Trump lose another tenth of his current base will be critically important. But there's no more low hanging fruit, so it definitely won't be pretty. There's no acceptable excuse for why any of them has hung with Trump this long. Still we need a few more of then to break with Trump right now. And I sure as hell won't be blasting them while they do, mush as I am tempted to. It's a luxury we can't afford right now.

[samnsara]

1. HRCs public approval rating was in the high 60s before the campaign

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Yes, she was genuinely popular when she left the Department of State

Books can and have been written about why that failed to hold. Clearly the Republicans and the Right did as much as humanly possible on their end to, yet again, tarnish her. Her approval ratings began falling well before the Democratic primaries.

[emulatorloo]

4. Because the Republicans targeted her prior to the primaries because her favorability was so high

They assumed she would run. Rove 101: attack your opponent's strengths. It is not rocket science

[emulatorloo]

3. Still sad the indictment fairy didn't appear?

Tom I have no idea where you were on this, but you seem to have erased your memory banks if you think people here who pushed back on lies about Democrats deserve your anger.

No matter how good your intentions are with this tread, I do not care for revisionist history.

I remember lots of folks posting unmitigated bullshit peddled by that FUCKING LIFETIME GOP HACK "Fox News legal expert" Joe DiGenova as if his lying ass was a paragon of Truth and Justice. Those same shit smears of HRC got recc'd to the max. DU'ers who pointed out DiGenova and Toensings long history of lying about Democrats were belittled and harassed.

So I really don't want to see crocodile tears on DU from any who participated in DiGenova's smears by promoting them, recommending them or not pushing back on them.

As to HRC's "abysmal unfavorablity", she was at 66% favorability when she left State. That's when Republicans decided to drive those numbers down with fake scandals. Short sighted DU'ers chose to participate in that as well, by posting right-wing editorial cartoons, rightwing memes, rightwing sources. Anything that smeared HRC.

I was a strong Sanders supporter in the primary, but that doesn't mean I put blinders on to people who lie about Democrats just because they might score a couple of political points.

I really wish you would edit that part out, your anger at people who pushed back on rightwing smears against Democrats. I have a huge amount of respect for you and love your posts.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Only Have One Concern With All You Wrote

And it's small because i agree 99% or so.

But, the favorability rating of someone who was doing an appointed government role vs someone actually running for high office seems likely to be apples and oranges.

The very act of running for the nomination put her in a different light to many folks, because it's one thing to "ok" when moving back into public life after years of public service. For many, i believe, it's a different issue when that same person, HRC or anybody else, now decides to run for president. I think that creates a whole different mindset amongst the public because now it "matters".

You said the RW smear machine focused on driving those numbers down, and i couldn't agree more. But, i am not sure that the 66% meant anything as soon as people realized she was serious about the POTUS thing.

[emulatorloo]

8. Fair enough

Thanks for the thoughtful reply

[Tatiana]

10. I agree with your comments here.

That favorability rating in the context of a national election is artificially high. The truth is that Hillary's ceiling was likely around 50%.

However, against someone like Trump, it should have been enough. There was such a convergence of circumstances that the Clinton campaign was simply overwhelmed.

Competence-wise, we nominated the strongest candidate, but politically Clinton was very flawed due to decades of Republican attacks.

We also have to realize that gender played a significant role in this election. This nation is very sexist.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. No. The tone of your post is fair. Your subject line is not

I assume you are referring to this line that I wrote:

"And sure, I admit that sometimes I want to be pissed at some folks who thought Hillary's FBI probe and abysmal public unfavorability numbers weren't red lights flashing before she got the nomination."

I was posting in real time during all of that, both during the primaries and after here, which you know. I never "hoped for an indictment fairy". Red lights flashing stands for "warning", not for "lock her up". And "Warning" doesn't mean "give up", it means there is danger present that must be dealt with in some way to counter it.

I personally didn't write negatively about Hillary's emails or the FBI probe with the possible exception of, at some point, admitting that barring something unexpected, like an indictment, that Hillary would win the nomination. I was anticipating her as our nominee at that point, and preparing for the point when my support would shift to her. Then it was obvious that nothing short of an indictment would stop Hillary from winning - which was absolutely true. I was not wishing that on her and I even said so. I can probably go back through my journal and find a quote if it is important enough to you

I'll return to that in a second but first I want to comment on why I put that line in my OP. Many posters on DU still feel justified in thinking that either of our leading candidates during the primary let the Democrats down. The prohibition here against refighting the primaries (which I support) does a lot to force those feelings below surface where they leak and fester and bubble up in veiled attacks using plausible deniability. So I chose in this OP to acknowledge the elephant in the room for a change. Many of us assign blame freely onto others for why Trump in now in office. Some onto Bernie, some onto Hillary, for one reason or another. I spoke broadly of that in my OP. Because it is true and we have to move on from there.

My concern during the primaries was that some were overstating Bernie's potential vulnerability of being called a "socialist" as a presidential candidate, but understating how having been subject of an FBI probe could negatively effect Hillary. Note; that's repercussions from an FBI investigation, not a Republican Congressional Inquest, even if the former grew out of the latter. I backed Hillary on Benghazi like everyone else did. And I didn't want negative repercussions against Hillary from an FBI investigation, i just didn't hide my head in the sand that there might be some. Maybe I can still feel annoyed sometimes at some who at the time (I know many of them personally) preferred Bernie as a candidate except that they thought Hillary was more "electable" Maybe I can feel annoyed at times at Hillary's campaign team for not finding more effective ways to counter how her popularity had fallen. I wasn't one of those trashing Hillary then, and I haven't been since. Meanwhile it is pretty damn evident that many are still "pissed at times" over things that Bernie did or didn't do, that his campaign did or didn't do, or that some of his his supporters did or didn't do. I do not advocate holding a temptation to blame, starting with myself

The point of my OP is that many of us harbor disappointments that can flare up into anger, even against people who are in almost all ways on the same side. I think the OP is more honest for including myself in that category. We all have to get past that - pretending that there is nothing to get past doesn't help in that regard.

[emulatorloo]

7. "Tom I have no idea where you were on this" is the first line of my post

I admit my title was inflammatory but not necessarily directed at you. (Thanks for clarification btw)

I read posts everyday right now by DU'ers (even some people I admire) who recc'd the hell out FUCKING JOE DIGENOVA's garbage and to this day apparently feel zero remorse about carrying water for Republicans and Fox News.

Not a single mea culpa, "oh I made a mistake," "what was I thinking?" "what a tool of GOP propaganda I was" "I knew DiGenova was a liar but I didn't care because he was lying about HRC."

You write: "And I didn't want negative repercussions against Hillary from an FBI investigation, I just didn't hide my head in the sand that there might be some"

I do not believe a single DU'er had their head in the sand about possible negative repercussions. Some chose to stick with facts, others chose to be conduits of bullshit speculation and lies from egregious right-wing sources.

Those who refused to smear Democrats w RW garbage and pushed back against it are on the right side of history.

[Motownman78]

9. No, just most of us realized Sanders

was our side's version of Trump. A populist who received wide support by those who have no idea how weak and powerless the President truly is. Just like Trump now, Sander's agenda would be going nowhere.