Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

zazen

(2,978 posts)
Fri May 27, 2016, 08:27 AM May 2016

Pick ANY neoliberal male or female Dem candidate & exclude Bernie--just NOT one under investigation

I've been a consistent Sanders supporter and critic of Hillary, and as a radical feminist I'm particularly disgusted at the hijacking of the feminist movement by careerist feminists and neoliberal members of the .01% who trivialize the major harms done against women every day in a system of male dominance. And by the way, I've gotten crap from a few Sanders supporters here on DU when I've called out sexist jibes at Hillary.

But this e-mail server business and FBI investigation is another matter. Even if Hillary were to win in November, we'll be saddled by ongoing investigations for four years. Not only do we have continued disastrous neoliberal policies, we have it with ongoing Republican obstructionism of appointments and the basic machinery of governance.

If she hands her delegates over to Biden, fine. If she hands them over to the most conservative Dem she can find, fine.

But this blindness to this disastrous choice of a Democratic nominee is going to hurt us as much as continued neoliberal policies and may even deliver the White House to a full-blown sociopath in November.

I'm a "Dworkinite" (who remembers how much Andrea Dworkin loathed and wrote about Bill Clinton, back in the 90s when I didn't get it), and I don't dislike Hillary Clinton's candidacy because she's a woman. In fact, I DETEST THE FACT THAT OUR FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT WILL BE AWASH IN SCANDAL. Do we want this? I wanted Warren. Dream on.

WAKE UP DNC! Pick Jim Webb. Pick Joe Biden. Shaheen. Napalatano. Stabenow. Harry Reid. McCaskill. Ignore Sanders' delegates. Our movement will continue regardless. Hand pick anyone who's not under investigation. BUT THE CLINTONS NEED TO GO!

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

zazen

(2,978 posts)
2. Yeah, I excluded DWS and Rahm from my worst possible "alternatives" because of investigations
Fri May 27, 2016, 08:44 AM
May 2016

They're not monsters (I've met them both)--they just belong in the executive offices of a major business or non-profit or something and not our government. As do the Clintons. Just not elected offices--plenty else to do.

I wish HRC could just let.it.go. but she's constitutionally incapable of it. Very sad. It's partly a traumatic reaction I think and I'm sorry for the trauma she's experienced, but having to cope C-PTSD is not a qualification for the presidency.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
3. I don't quite see how she can simply give her
Fri May 27, 2016, 08:47 AM
May 2016

pledged delegates to Biden or anyone else, and the SD's then push that candidate across the finish line. Seems like a corrupt action IMO. If Hillary is unable to run then Bernie should get the nod by default as the only remaining viable candidate.

zazen

(2,978 posts)
4. the neolibs would rather lose with HRC than win with Bernie, & Trump is a full-blown sociopath
Fri May 27, 2016, 08:55 AM
May 2016

We're in really, really dangerous territory here and things are brokered behind the scenes.

I'm a major Sanders supporter and I think I reflect the thinking of a lot of people who would settle for another DLC-ish type and keep up our good fight but we don't want to risk what might happen in November. Democratic socialism is a movement that's here to stay whether Sanders is elected or not. We can keep working on multiple levels to get people elected.

It's so funny--for months Clinton supporters have been arguing that Sanders' candidacy might give the White House to Trump, but she's the one who might. That's an unacceptable risk.

Like the real mother in the story of Solomon, I'd rather keep the baby (our country) intact to live another day than cut it in two out of spite, but the Clintons and their cronies seem hell bent on getting "theirs" while risking the entire country (and world) to a rapist sociopathic lunatic who'll have access to historically unprecedented power.

They. need. to. go.

 

John Poet

(2,510 posts)
5. She can't 'hand over' her pledged delegates to anyone,
Fri May 27, 2016, 08:55 AM
May 2016

they are free agents. All she could do is endorse someone and ask them to support her pick.

It would be a problematic exercise, with the number of pledged delegates Bernie will have going into the convention.

That said, I could live with almost any likely outcome other than Hillary as the nominee.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
6. So, on that basis then
Fri May 27, 2016, 09:04 AM
May 2016

her pledged delegates could choose to align with Sanders even if she "picks" someone else and directs them to support that candidate?

I think that bringing in someone else and anointing them after the primary process has been completed, and given the substantial number of delegates Bernie has acquired as you mentioned, there would be pandemonium at the convention.

 

John Poet

(2,510 posts)
10. Yes, if the delegates are 'released'
Fri May 27, 2016, 09:22 AM
May 2016

by a candidate's withdrawl, they become unpledged and can vote for anyone they want.

I would guess that Sanders would pick up enough of these delegates to win the nomination, with the large block of delegates he would already have won in the primaries.

The former Clinton delegates along with the super-delegates, would have to be extraordinarily united on a third choice in order to prevent that from happening.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
11. Thanks...
Fri May 27, 2016, 09:24 AM
May 2016

I thought something wasn't quite right because many of the posts on DU talked of Biden getting the nod as if the delegate exchange from Hillary to Biden was simply automatic.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
7. Dworkin: " I think that Hillary should shoot Bill and then President Gore should pardon her."
Fri May 27, 2016, 09:05 AM
May 2016

That was from an op-ed she wrote for The Guardian in 1998.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
8. As disastrous as I believe a Hillary or Trump presidency would be and
Fri May 27, 2016, 09:10 AM
May 2016

despite the fact that I believe Hillary is stealing the election and the DNC is helping her steal it I don't believe the party should just be able to hand pick a candidate that didn't run in the primary. Parties should not pick our candidates. We the people should pick our candidates.

Perogie

(687 posts)
9. You are so right
Fri May 27, 2016, 09:20 AM
May 2016

Because she violated the 2009 rules the State Department implemented the Republicans will have a field day doing hearing after hearing. It will be Bill Clinton all over again.

What the Hilliary supporters don't understand is it's not about taking her down it's about the constant beating of the drum that the Dems are bad and that's how they win seats. The will use Hilliary as the poster child of what's wrong with the Dems.

She violates rules, thinks she is above the law. She can't be trusted. Her unfavorables are in the 50's,then there's the 57% that don't think she can be trusted. They won't have to work that hard to discourage voters at the mid-terms.



BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
14. No, letting a lying crook decide who should be the nominee in her stead isn't acceptable
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:09 AM
May 2016

What kind of deal do you think Hillary would cut for that? She demanded the Secretary of State position and having her campaign debt paid off to support Obama in 2008. The price of handing over the Democratic nomination for President to somebody else would start at a full pardon and move on to hands off the Clinton Foundation.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Pick ANY neoliberal male ...