HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » LWolf » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »

LWolf

Profile Information

Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 46,177

Journal Archives

Let me explain

the roots of the anger and the hostility.

For many of us, we've watched the neo-liberal takeover of the party for decades now. Watched as the priniciples that brought us to the party have been eroded, dismantled, and, finally, destroyed. When we've spoken up, election after election after election, we've been treated disdainfully, disrespectfully, and have been taken for granted. When we wanted to nominate and elect Democrats who were not neo-liberals, who would actually represent us, we've been bludgeoned with the "unelectable," the "unicorn/pony," the "spoiled child who takes their ball and goes home because they didn't get their way," the "what you want isn't possible so shut up, get in line, and vote the way those of us who are smarter/more pragmatic tell you to."

Finally we've got a candidate who can transcend that; who has had a chance to defeat the corporate/established/neo-liberal crowned choice, and we've watched people who have claimed for years to be one one side of issues turn on those issues to defend that corporate/established/neo-liberal crowned choice; watched and listened as they determinedly set things in motion to make sure we'll be stuck, yet again, with that corporate/established/neo-liberal crowned choice.

Angry? Hostile? Those are mild words to describe what some are thinking and feeling. And your invoking the usual attack on those who don't support the corporate/established/neo-liberal crowned choice does more to inflame the situation than not. "Voting is not just about you and remaining pure on your ideological high horse."

Frankly, I, and there may be others, disagree with your opinion about HRC. She is not a good candidate, and she is not "1000x times better than any republican currently running." Let me explain:

First of all, this primary fight is not only about November. It's also about the future of the Democratic Party. The revolution, as such, is about the direction of the nation, and about whether or not the Democratic Party is going to be an ally in that revolution. The nomination of a neo-liberal makes the party irrelevant, and ensures ineffectiveness in the years ahead.

Secondly, understand this: while I have never voted for nor supported a Republican, and don't see that ever happening in my lifetime, the real enemy comes from within; from those within the Democratic Party who betray us in the reach for political power. The betrayers are the neo-liberals. If we cannot defeat the enemy within, we aren't going to prevail against the Republican enemy. Electing another neo-liberal is a huge win for Republicans. They can achieve a whole bunch of their agenda while trumpeting propaganda about how terrible the neo-liberal POTUS is, moving the conversation in whatever direction they like, while the Democrats in Congress stay quiet and allow it as a show of support for that neo-liberal. At least, with a bat-shit crazy R in the WH, there would BE an opposition party.

Finally: If Clinton supporters really cared about winning in November, they would have backed Sanders, who has consistently been more electable against Republicans than Clinton. Clinton, who currently has the primary advantage for the nomination, is going to lose in November. And her apologists will have no one but themselves to blame. Not that we can't see the blame game coming. It's right there, embedded in your post. You know; the disdainful "you're acting like a spoiled child who takes their ball and goes home because they didn't get their way." In other words, if Clinton supporters don't want to listen, or to acknowledge that they are setting us up for a loss in November, it's not because they were wrong, or because they backed the wrong candidate, it's because of "spoiled children" who don't march in the line their betters told them to. If that doesn't feed anger and hostility, I don't know what does.

You want people to vote for the Democrat in November? I've got two suggestions:

1. Nominate someone who brings people together to do just that.

2. Earn the votes, rather than taking them for granted and marginalizing voters.

Take off your own fucking "ideological blinders." All you've done here, with your faux "concern" about anger and hostility, is expose your own and inflame the rest.

If only

it continued to the end, where Bugs tricks the clueless Daffy into switching sides. Repeatedly.

On a lighter note: Bernie Sandwiches.

So, my mom, a former decades-long Clinton supporter, now a 77 yo Bernie Sanders enthusiast, sent this to me today. I was sure it would have made it to the DU, and sure enough, found it in the Sanders group; thanks to In_The_Wind:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280115666

Here it is, for your viewing pleasure:

My detailed take on WHY Bernie Sanders:

1. HE'S NOT A NEO-LIBERAL. This one reason trumps everything, but I promised detail, so I'll go on.

2. He's practical, as evidenced by the way he has worked with others to get things done in congress. He's got a great record working to get things done.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

What his colleagues have to say about his work ethics:

3)
Senator Richard Burr — Republican, North Carolina

one who’s willing to sit down and compromise and negotiate to get to a final product.”
* *

4)
Senator Roger Wicker — Republican, Mississippi

“I learned early on not to be automatically dismissive of a Bernie Sanders initiative or amendment… He’s tenacious and dogged and he has determination, and he’s not to be underestimated.”
* *

5)
Senator Sherrod Brown — Democrat, Ohio

“ would call them ‘tripartite amendments’ because we’d have him and he’d get a Republican, he’d get a Democrat and he’d pass things.

He’s good at building coalitions.
* *

6)
Senator John Mccain — Republican, Arizona

“, I found him to be honorable and good as his word.”
* *

7)
Senator Chuck Schumer — Democrat, New York

He knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, I think, maximized what we could get for veterans.”
* *

8)
Senator Jack Reed — Democratic, Rhode Island (again)

“Frankly, without him, I don’t think we would have gotten done…

It was a great testament to his skill as a legislator.”

* *
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/10/1482833/-8-Quotes-From-Congress-About-Bernie-Sanders

3. He's the epitome of democratic. He's all about us, about we, and not about himself...unlike his opponent. He listens. He builds coalitions. He wants to correct the disastrous course we've been stumbling down by getting rid of the oligarchy and returning the nation to the 99%. That's as democratic as it gets.

4. And that leads to a revolution. We've had several; we're over-due for another. I, frankly, wasn't happy with the Reagan Revolution. Nor was I okay with the "bloodless coup" within the Democratic Party enacted by Al From and the Clintons, among others. We need fundamental change. And those changes will be democratic, and will build upon democratic successes of the past.

5. Sanders' agenda is both broad and deep. He addresses economic and social justice as well as environmental issues. He's not all that radical; I am more radical than he, but he's focused on moving in my direction.

6. His life, in and out of politics, his character, and his record generate my respect and support. He stands his ground, he does so with dignity, and he sticks to the issues. This is what I've wanted from politicians for all of my adult life. I'm 55.

That's my take, and he's got my full support all the way to the WH.

FEELING THE YERN: WHY ONE MILLENNIAL WOMAN WOULD RATHER GO TO HELL THAN VOTE FOR HILLARY

There seems to be no shortage of bizarrely sexist assumptions as to why I, a Millennial feminist, am not voting for Hillary Clinton. But speaking as a Millennial feminist, let me assure you: None of them is accurate. Granted, the span of my political biography is only as long as it took Howard Dean to go from human rights crusader to insurance lobbyist. But the reason for my political disaffection is plain: I've spent my entire Millennial life watching the Democratic Party claw its way up the ass of corporate America. There's no persuading me that the Democratic establishment — from where it sits now — has the capacity to represent me, or my values.


If Millennials are coming out in droves to support Bernie Sanders, it's not because we are tripping balls on Geritol. No, Sanders's clever strategy of shouting the exact same thing for 40 years simply strikes a chord among the growing number of us who now agree: Washington is bought. And every time Goldman Sachs buys another million-dollar slice of the next American presidency, we can't help but drop the needle onto Bernie's broken record:

The economy is rigged.

Democracy is corrupted.

The billionaires are on the warpath.


Capitalism, as Vonnegut explained, is "what the people with all our money, drunk or sober, sane or insane, decided to do today." We've just spent a lifetime watching capitalism buy itself a government. And I'll be frank: It's not working well for most of us. Drones make orphans in our name. Our friends will die indebted. We are poisoning our own well.

The spectacle of our government's being bought is so obvious, even the youngest among us can see it. "With Hillary," eighteen-year-old Olivia Sauder told Times reporters at the Iowa Caucus, "sometimes you get this feeling that all of her sentences are owned by someone."

Ding, ding, ding.


http://www.villagevoice.com/news/feeling-the-yern-why-one-millennial-woman-would-rather-go-to-hell-than-vote-for-hillary-8253224

Bullshit.

Neo-liberals have virtually destroyed the party. Sanders and his supporters will either succeed in rebuilding the party for the people, or the party will become irrelevant.

I strenuously object to all politically twisting of language. I don't give a fucking shit whether it's liberal, progressive, moderate, centrist, or anything else.

Neo-liberals are economic liberals. And economically liberal policies harm the 99%. While neo-liberals can appear to be socially liberal as well, supporting social justice if not economic justice, the truth is that neo-liberalism is bad for those seeking social justice as well as economic justice. That's why it's a bad idea to separate the two.

Progressivism, in the Progressive Era, was a response to the economic and social ills brought about by liberal economic policies. Neo-liberals have worked to erode the progress made since that time.

And THAT damages the Democratic Party.

An interesting post in light

of the other I just read on the front page of GDP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251947576

Too kind...more kindness...DU at least, if not the party nor the nation, seems all over the map when it comes to kindness.

Frankly, from my perspective, there's no such thing as too much kindness. Not when it is authentic, anyway.

Being kind or respectful to others is not the same thing as laying down and baring our throats and bellies, and that's what seems to confuse way too many. Too many who can't see kindness going hand in hand with standing firm.

Perhaps those people should pay more attention to Sanders. He does a damned fine job of treating opposition with respect without backing down. Of course, respect is not quite the same as kindness, although they could be considered to be related. It's hard to be kind without respect.

Republicans? They engage in name-calling and put-downs? No kidding. So the solution to that is that Democrats ought to join them in the name-calling and put-downs? Here's a clue: Democrats already do so. You can't be unaware of all the names that Democrats call Republicans and call each other.

Neither side is clean when it comes to name-calling. It's just that the MSM latches on to name-calling as legitimate and repeats those names often enough to put them in the expected cultural lexicon, with negative connotations attached. That's not because Democrats are too kind. It's because too many Democrats are too cowed to stand their ground, too convinced that standing their ground means "losing."

Kindness...the Democratic Party, DU, the nation, and the world could use a whole hell of a lot more kindness, imo.

Let me explain.

Many of us take our responsibilities as voting citizens seriously, and don't actually just follow along like sheep behind leaders telling us how to think and vote. That includes obediently "following" an endorsement.

So I get it.

Be clear: I have not, and will not, state my General Election intentions one way or another here at DU. First of all, it's nobody's business unless I choose to share, and I'm simply not going to do that during the primaries. Secondly, we haven't even held a single primary; that's what I'm focused on. Finally, I have plenty of time to consider the GE. I'll do that after the convention, when there is a nominee to consider. The only real thoughts I have about the general election at this point are these:

1. All of ours are better than theirs.

2. I think Sanders is not only the best candidate on issues and record, but the best candidate to win the GE. Those are some of the reasons I think we ought to be nominating him.

I get it. I'm a political lone wolf, so I really get the anger and frustration engendered by people trying to bully voters into line, and trying to marginalize dissent. Those are really counter-productive strategies for people like me. For some of us, our first impulse is to hit back, and votes can be a tool. When the corrupt neo-liberal status quo seems unbeatable, some will look for a better place to spend their political capital. I think it would be more honest to simply acknowledge that the neo-liberal power structure of the party is happy to see the door hit whatever portion of the left walks away on the ass on their way out. Sure, some will cast lesser evil votes, at least for a few cycles. Those voters will be tolerated, and will continue to be marginalized within the party. It's no big deal, since the party power structure can count on recruiting the so-called "moderate" republicans who are horrified by the FUBAR taking down their own party. Those "new" Democrats are more likely to support the neo-liberal agenda. They'll be welcomed.

Really, a better strategy might be to trust fellow Democrats to vote their conscience, and lay off poking the angry donkeys. They, we, have teeth and hooves, too. It's a matter of respect. Respect for democracy with a small d, the right for every voter to vote their conscience whether or not you agree with them. It's also a matter of intelligence. It's some months between the convention and the GE; why anger and further disenfranchise those whose votes you don't want to lose? Why not back off and give them some time to regroup? That's a smarter strategy.

And there is really no reason to panic before the first primaries and caucuses are held. If it worries you, work to nominate a candidate that earns those votes. If you aren't willing to do so, let them go in peace.

My thoughts on the debate:

I didn't participate, and haven't read, any DU debate threads that discussed during the debate; my 'puter and tv are at opposite ends of the house. So my take is just my take, without any influence one way or another from others.

To begin with, I think they all did well.

More specifically,

1. Clinton: I think this was her best performance so far. Her two strongest moments, for me, is when she returned, with grace, Sanders' support from the last debate about the "damned emails" with the question about campaign datagate; and then, when she repeatedly pointed out the connection between anti-muslim rhetoric and actions by Trump AND in general to ISIS recruiting efforts. Her weakest? Also a strength for her: I hear her smoothly adopting, and claiming as her own, and even using words and phrases, from the campaign of her biggest rival. A couple of times I almost thought she was going to come out and embrace socialism. It's a weakness because, in spite of her clear and strong delivery, her triangulating strategies leave her less than believable on some of those issues.

2. O'Malley: I felt for him, struggling to get some talk time, even if his determination to over-ride the moderators was irritating. His best moment, for me, was when he responded to questions about encryption with a strong support of our rights to privacy. I really appreciated that. I don't really have a "weakest" moment for him, although I have a couple of mild negatives. First of all, somewhere in the beginning, he tried to separate himself from his rivals by accusing them of "bickering" on stage, referring to them interrupting each other. I didn't really hear "bickering" there, though; I heard general agreement in what they were saying despite the jockeying for speaking time, so that comment wasn't really effective. It's connected to my other negative: several attempts to portray himself as somehow taking a higher road than the other two; I don't think that's correct.

3. Sanders: He did fine. I loved his response to the opening campaign data questions. For the rest, I've heard it all before. I noted that he managed to get a great deal of his campaign stump speeches in there, laying out his agenda for those in the national audience who haven't been following him. I appreciate his ability to address the U.S. role on the international stage in a coherent, logical fashion.

All in all, to be honest, though, my interest was waning at about the half-way mark. I found myself listening to certain words and phrases, and noting certain strategies and techniques, that are not necessarily authentic, but simply designed to push listeners' buttons: to make candidates seem more likable, more trustworthy, more anything to get support. I'm not criticizing any of them for that. I'm just saying that, for me, it doesn't work. It feels to me like planned, practiced, and polished propaganda, and that alliterative combination makes it less authentic for me.

Finally, there was nothing said on that stage that increases my support for HRC or MM, or decreases my support for Sanders, or my determination to see him become the next POTUS. I hope it was helpful for undecided voters.

Now I'm off to read what the rest of DU has to say about it.

I agree that:

In the US women and African Americans are still held to a higher standard than white men. Acknowledging this isn’t playing the gender card or the race card.

That's true. I freely acknowledge it.

Gender may be a factor for some in this race. To be honest, I was...horrified, appalled, REPULSED by the primaries in '08, when I saw DU and Democrats across the nation fracture along race and gender lines, using both, and trying to rank one above the other as a priority, to determine the nominee.

Because gender issues and race issues are equally important; at least, they are to me.

If I am choosing my vote based on race and gender issues, it's not the race nor the gender of the candidate, but the candidates' records and positions on those issues that are going to determine my vote. I want more than a symbol.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »