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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Al Gore could unite business & progressive Democrats in 2020. [View all]delisen
(7,294 posts)49. I think Churchill was the right person for Britain after War was declared.
At the time he had been considered a failure--but he knew the nature of the enemy in the 1930s when others did not and got fooled. He would have been the right person to be Prime Minister in the 1930s-he had the correct world view-others didn't understand that they were already at war.
Churchill got turned out after victory and that was also the right decision-he was of the British Empire, iit was unraveling, and he was the wrong person for a war-changed England.
There are so-called progressive in the Democratic Party-both young and old-who have been very slow to recognize the changing world; slow to recognize how foreign policy and economics intersect.
While they think of themselves as "progressive" I see them as having an old world view and as being regressive in analysis and response.
Any Democrat with a view of women as an interest group whose interest are something that can be described as "women's issues" is out of touch. Any who do not see the primacy of human rights are out of touch. Any who were unprepared for the automated near-future are out-of-touch. Big Money in politics? The focus was entirely on American billionaires-like looking in the wrong end of a telescope.
I don't care if a candidate is 35 years old or 85, good looking or ugly, charismatic or unelectrifying-looking at those characteristics as priority, pivotal, or prerequisites reminds me of Bush fixing the facts around the objective to achieve an act of vengeance and revenge in which the rest of us were to pay for his ignorance, inexperience, and personal vendetta.
Our world has changed over the last decade and many progressives, who think they are cutting edge, did not know it was happening, and then have been slow to acknowledge it.
They did not learn of it in progressive journals nor on msnbc, or in university classes-because those sources are also out of touch.
We have been full of -isms, and blinded to what has been in plain sight.
The one certainty I see is that our world is going to change enormously-it will become much better or much, much worse. We will have human rights or we won't.
I see the focus on a presidential phenotype" for a 2020 victory, without building a coherent vision, a strange endeavor.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
130 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I keep discounting the septuagenarians but yes, there are exceptions to that 'rule'.
randome
Apr 2017
#17
I would be very happy to see Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard get the nomination
yurbud
Apr 2017
#12
she has pissed off establishment by calling bullshit on regime change--that will be a positive with
yurbud
Apr 2017
#61
Our government doesn't go to war over human rights, dictatorship, or even terrorism
yurbud
Apr 2017
#68
do you stop human rights abuses using depleted uranium, backing Islamic terrorists, and leaving
yurbud
Apr 2017
#111
Naomi Klein is a Clinton hater and pretty much hates the Democratic Party too.
Demsrule86
Apr 2017
#116
she ascribes economic motives which historically turn out to be true. It goes without saying...
yurbud
Apr 2017
#118
that's good to know if true. I'm mainly impressed by her relatively anti-war stance and
yurbud
Apr 2017
#95
I looked up that "hooker" scandal. It was a masseuse who claimed he assaulted her
yurbud
Apr 2017
#35
so we can only have one even possible nominee ever? I could see that with FDR. Otherwise...
yurbud
Apr 2017
#87
it's implied when even entertaining the idea of another possible candidate is "bashing"
yurbud
Apr 2017
#94
THAT is actually a fresh approach to bashing her. Pretending her fans are blind sycophants not...
yurbud
Apr 2017
#88
Experience as retreads. We don't need no stinking experience. Celebrity is what we need.
delisen
Apr 2017
#37
The Republican noise machine would make mince meat out of him with his own words.
Binkie The Clown
Apr 2017
#32
In 2000 Republicans bankrolled Nader's run against Gore. Are they smarter than we are?
delisen
Apr 2017
#42
An excellent public servant, but a poor candidate, so Not a good idea nt
IphengeniaBlumgarten
Apr 2017
#36
O'Malley will try again. There's Warren, Franken and hopefully some young bloods will emerge
brush
Apr 2017
#47
Unless Presidential campaigns are dramatically shortened and issues-focused, forget it.
Buckeye_Democrat
Apr 2017
#66