OK, I get it. Some folks on DU don't care for Hillary. That is fine, but how about this, instead

[still_one]

of bashing her every chance you get, how about doing something more positive, like say push a particular candidate who you like, and why you like that candidate.

I really fail to see the purpose of the constant Hilary bashing posts, unless it is some kind of cathartic experience

If you don't like Hillary, then push a candidate you do like

[NYC_SKP]

1. OK. Warren = Passionate with resonant message that appeals to all Americans (except the one percent)

Genuine, doesn't require special teams and focus groups, everything that comes out of her mouth is a gem, hits home.

She appeals to people of all political persuasions, and she speaks to economic inequity and justice.

She's a woman and she's tough and smart and she has gifts that cannot be learned.

Even with a smallish campaign war chest, I think she can win a primary and the general.

Warren. Woot!

[calimary]

2. And she's WUNNNNNNderful! But she keeps saying she isn't running.

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

So I'm squarely in the Hillary camp.

I'm voting for Supreme Court picker.

BTW - (edited here the next morning) - I am VERY pleased to see the man-on-the-street interviews from Iowa among progressive Dems there. They're favorably predisposed toward her but they still want her to outline her stands on progressive values. THAT kind of thing could help pull her to the left. Which is where her base is.

[still_one]

8. That is true, but some believe she can be convinced. Also there are other potential candidates

that have expressed interest:

O'Malley, Webb, Sanders, or maybe Biden

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. Biden would give America high speed rail.

[still_one]

20. Isn't that continuing what Obama has been pushing? As far as I am concerned, that is good

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. The VP traditionally gets the nod to carry popular policies forward.

[still_one]

27. true

[calimary]

67. Understood. But we're running out of time here.

I don't have the time or patience to see what else MIGHT develop. We MIGHT see rain today in SoCal, because it's uncharacteristically cloudy all of a sudden. But all the "mights" in the world don't make a definite.

I'm going to dance with what's here. Now. Rather than wait for another 100 years for Nature to evolve the kind of candidate I have in mind.

Btw - that's from the 1980 film "The Competition," that I've written about before, here. It had Amy Irving and Richard Dreyfuss as then-young piano virtuosi in an international competition. He came close last year and is hoping to clinch it this time; she's a new arrival with big hopes and explosive talent. Naturally, they fall in love - and all that. SPOILER ALERT - she wins, he comes in second again. Big party for the winner and there she is, off away in a side room, alone, moping. She's more worried about what this is gonna do to her relationship. Her wise and elegant piano teacher/mentor, played by Lee Remick, pulls her aside and attempts to straighten her out: "It's going to take another 100 years for Nature to evolve the kind of man you have in mind. Until then, GET OUT THERE AND DANCE WITH WHAT THERE IS!!!"

Hillary is what there IS. Not what we'd like or prefer or hope we can talk or beg or cajole or coax into running. Reminds me of the Ross Perot days. When that little putz went around saying - "well, I'll throw my hat in the race if enough people ask me to do it." And I say - WTFF (What the Fucking FUCK) is with THAT????? NO, Mr. Perot. YOU ask US. It's NOT the other way around. YOU need to be asking US to vote FOR you. Not standing there and saying - "well, if enough people beg and plead and make me feel like I'm special..." NO. You get in there and roll up your sleeves and your pants legs and and wade into the cold water and YOU WORK FOR IT.

Hillary, to her credit, never seems averse to working for it. I like that. From her campaign design so far, it seems she understands this. Otherwise, she'd appear at some big-ass multiple-tens-of-thousands-capacity arena with trumpets and loud music blasting and confetti and balloons, like the Anointed One. She's not doing that, which I'm very glad to see. That's encouraging. I think she recognizes this is an important point to make.

Oh, and btw - for that whole "Candidate from the Past" thing? Yeah. The Past. The 90s. Well, okay then. Let's just look at that for a moment. When that era ended, the prevailing one-liner was:

"Our long national nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is over."

Oh yeah. Hey, that's right - I forgot. We did have it pretty good in the 90s, didn't we!

DON'T BE AFRAID TO SMACK THAT TALKING POINT BACK IN ALL THE NAY-SAYERS' FACES!!!! Oh, the Past. The Past. The Past. Yeah, okay then. Let's just look at that "Past" for a moment, shall we? When we had... Oh, let's see now...
Booming employment;
An economy that was strong;
When it was over, we were left with a balanced budget and money in the bank as a nation;
All the red ink in the budget wiped out;
Women's rights and voting rights were still on fairly solid ground and NOT being ripped to shreds;
Science and intellect and the whole idea about being smart - were things to appreciate and admire, not denounce;
And there were no major issues overseas where our sons and daughters were being sent to get their legs blown off for Big Capitalism and no real reason that made any sense and turned out to be a complete and absolute LIE.
That Past?

That kind of "Past" I have no problem with. (And it sure as hell isn't the kind of defense jeb bush can make for himself - and he'll have that same "The Past" issue to deal with, too! Heck, I'll put the Clintons' past up against the bush past ANY day. EITHER bush past, for that matter.) And NOBODY here should be afraid to do that, either.

[still_one]

69. Sure, but I think there is still plenty of time if one is interested

[still_one]

5. That is fine, but as of now I don't think she wants to run. People can try to persuade her.

Maher offerred her a million dollars to run. You can write or call her office asking her to run.

You might consider other candidates such as O'Malley, Webb, Sanders, or maybe Biden. They have all expressed interest.

My point being, except for a cathartic experience, I doubt Hillary criticism is going to accomplish very much on DU. However, pushing for a candidate that one believes is better, you have a better chance to convince someone than just bashing another Democratic candidate.

What I am saying does not mean that we shouldn't compare the different candidates on their positions and issues, but just bashing away accomplishes what?

[merrily]

38. And, posts like that get you criticism here, too.

"SHE'S NOT RUNNING! What is the point of this?"

Reality is, you are not supposed to criticize Hillary OR support anyone with even a semi-realistic chance of beating Hillary in the primary.

That is not, and never has been, the plan for 2016.

[marym625]

3. I have no problem with that

But I don't think bringing certain things to light and/or asking why certain things don't matter is bashing. If I could get answers that weren't then about me and others that don't support Hillary, maybe there would be less of what you are calling bashing.

Certain facts are not bashing.

Ok?

Btw, I am not saying there are not bashing comments going on.

[still_one]

6. I agree., but most of the posts I see are not contrasting a candidate of their choice with

Hillary, they are just criticizing Hillary. My position is push the merits of your candidate verses Hillary. Isn't that what the primaries are all about?

[marym625]

11. As soon as we have some

Until today, we didn't even have Hillary. But that didn't stop her supporters from talking about her for months and months. And sorry, but isn't the entire reason for having a discussion board to discuss? It's not supposed to be a monologue.

Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to be doing much more than support a great Democrat. I don't go to the Hillary group and I don't look at most posts in gd about Hillary. But when I do see something that I find to be wrong, misleading or I question, I am not going to shy away.

[merrily]

39. Barring a violation of the TOS, the only posts you get to control are your own.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

4. As of yet there isn't another candidate

and that's the fact of the matter or at least for the time being . The truth simply is what it is.
What tomorrow will bring on isn't here today .

[still_one]

7. Lincoln Chaffee is one, plus O'Malley, Webb, and Sanders have expressed definite interest, and

perhaps Biden.

or bring up a candidate you think would be better

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

9. What tomorrow brings is whatever it brings.

As for now we have a candidate.
In my view there is nothing wrong with healthy competition just so long as it's healthy.

[still_one]

10. I agree, competition is good. For one thing it helps the candidates prepare the fight against the

republicans

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

12. And the other thing is no candidate should fall to the belief that

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 02:29 AM - Edit history (2)

it is a given ,nor should a candidate come to believe it is his or her turn to assume the position or power.
I do think Hillery does know it is no given as in shoe in.

I think Hillery took a lesson from the Murkowski campaign where as it so happened senator Murkowski R.lost it to one insane man Joe Miller of Alaska's tea party.

That will have put another lunatic in the United States Senate.

Murkowski did a come back win somewhat similar to the way Lieberman did in Conn.
Murkowski however actually did get out there and listen to what people had to say anywhere they would have her seated.
As I recall from news reviews ,there was this pub in a republican leaning district where Murkowski thought they wouldn't have her.
According to what it said in the news report, she went in there and they,the people there were eager to talk politics with her and
the needs of the people.

Ok so, she won her seat back. You might say why the hell should we give a damn about some republican senator.
Well seven senators like joe Miller could very well sink the whole ship.

OK so the point being, Murkowski found out there is no such thing as it being given and a PR campaign just isn't good enough.And wheeling & dealing behind closed doors isn't enough either.

And I am sure Hillary Clinton learned a valuable lesson from the Murkowski come back win.

[still_one]

22. Complacency will get you everytime. Perfect example was Coakley against Scott Brown. We should

have never lost that. It did work out because we eventually go Warren though

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

25. I had to take a call in the middle of posting

finished it now though !

[still_one]

28. got it, thanks

[merrily]

40. Complacency was far from the only thing that did Coakley's in when she ran against dumbass Brown.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. "If you don't like Hillary, then push a candidate you do like"

The canned response will then be to declare they are "unelectable".

[99Forever]

51. Precisely.

As such, I will keep my personal choice to myself. I refuse to be coerced into voting for or supporting someone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with, and is willing to fight hard for, a real populist agenda. Lip-service during the campaign doesn't count, the candidate's history does. War-mongering, consorting with banksters and accepting large amounts of money from them, are a couple of things I find immoral and unethical.

I will always vote my conscience.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. This quote fits...

"As they say around the Texas Legislature, if you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office."

-- Molly Ivins

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Wall Street has chosen its Democratic candidate

no others need apply.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Assuming one is applying for money.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Well, the Koch brothers plan to spend nearly a billion dollars in 2016

So even if HRC transforms into the second coming of FDR, we will not win back the congress, so 8 more years of stalemate while the SCOTUS sells us out.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. The media tells everyone that money buys elections....

But then, the media are the ones selling the ads.

We have several examples of votes beating cash.

Jerry Brown didn't even campaign. Then there's Romney.

What I picture is this election turning into a media circus where they want to recreate the Bobby Riggs vs Billie Jean King type "Battle of the Sexes". Who CARES if it tears the country apart? Hell, if it does they'll cover that too.

[Kelvin Mace]

52. Well, Romney lost

but the rest of the GOP won in 2012 and 2014. They won at the national and state level. In my state, the election was bought by Art Pope and progressive accomplishments dating to the civil rights era are being rolled back. The education system is being destroyed at all levels, the city councils and county commissioner systems are being gutted so as to favor the conservatives.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. They "won" due to gerrymandering. Dems got more votes.

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

[merrily]

42. Not only Wall Street.

[SidDithers]

16. Not gonna happen...

It's a noble goal, but too many of the fine "Democrats" at DU are only interested in criticizing and tearing down.

They gotta pout, 'cause the Oligarch Rulers haven't delivered their perfect candidate to them.

Sid

[Fearless]

31. No one's going to beat some in a pea eating contest that much is clear.

[Rex]

18. It's about a pony or some silly crap like that.

Purity police, purge lists. I dunno I think some people like her and some don't. People are going to pick their favorite and have at it. Some will wait and see.

She has the GOPukers scared so that is always a bonus.

[nxylas]

29. She doesn't have them scared

They have been campaigning against her since her husband was president. They could recite their narrative against her in their sleep.

[merrily]

43. Republicans campaigning against the Democratic anointee is not a sign of fear.

[Bonobo]

24. I don't get what you don't get.

If someone is against someone or something -wants to stop that someone or something - then bashing, criticizing, knocking down is at least as useful for achieving that purpose as suggesting something else.

Logically speaking, that is.

[still_one]

34. ok. However, wouldn't it be more productive to suggest an alternative instead of just criticism of

a particular candidate

[Bonobo]

36. Yes, I can't disagree. nt

[merrily]

44. First, plenty of people have supported others. The left here gets flack for that, too.

It's excuse du jour.

Supporters, even defenders of Bernie get--A Socialist who can't win anything but the State of Vermont, if that.

Supporters of Warren get--SHE'S NOT RUNNING. And more recently, "Wall Street bad" is the only thing she knows how to say.

I could go on, candidate by candidate, but why bother. The only one I have not yet seen DU's right attack very much is O'Malley--and frankly that makes me suspicious.

Truth is, the only thing I've really seen Hillary supporters here approve of--or let go---is (1) support of Hillary; (2) silence; or (3) the McCarthy-like loyalty oath in every post that even mildly demurs from support of Hillary.

Second, pPeople who want an authentic, healthy primary should post whatever the hell they want, just as Hillary supporters do. The board and the Party is weighted against the left of the Party, anyway. The fix is in for Hillary and has been for a long time now. Anyone who denies that is not being honest and/or has not been terribly observant or astute. And DU posts don't do much to swing the electoral vote, so talking about one kind of DU post being "more productive" than another is fiction.

Maybe youre tired of seeing posts that are critical of Hillary. Boo hoo. I'm tired of seeing ridiculous posts that don't address her record, but criticize DU's left. I don't start OPs tell your side how t o post, though. At the very least, let's not pretend telling Hillary's critics what they should not post is about being productive.

[RufusTFirefly]

26. Wait!! I thought Hillary was inevitable. Was I misinformed? n/t

[Fearless]

30. I can do both actually. And will.

[still_one]

32. Of course. I am just expressing my view

[Fearless]

33. Which is equally fine.

[merrily]

45. No, you're trying to tell others on this board not to express theirs.

That's not expressing a poliltical view or a view of a politician. It's attempting to be authoritarian for the purpose of message control on this board.

[DesertDiamond]

35. Thank you for belittling those of us with a viewpoint different from yours. Instead of "bashing"

why don't you say, "express your concerns." Then your post would more honestly read as "instead of expressing your concerns about her (which I really don't want to hear)."

If she does end up being the candidate, I will vote for her in the hopes that she's even a hair better than the other side's candidate. But if if there is someone running that is even two hairs better than the other side's candidate, I will support that person in the primaries and hope like hell that they end up being our candidate.

[Octafish]

55. +1

That's the Democratic way.

[merrily]

37. OPs telling DU's left what to post not = disruptive meta worthy of a lock.

OPs asking DU's right not to show anger DU's left for simply opposing Hillary = disruptive meta worthy of a lock.

No double standard there. No subjectivity, either.

[captainarizona]

41. warren is not running the others well?

Warren is not running. The mayor of new york said it best we are waiting to see if hillary can come up with the "vision thing." I hope she can. Their are a lot of people depending on a democrat in the white house to protect them as best as the president can. The black community knows the cost of a republican in the white house not caring if unarmed black men and children are shot down by the police. The hispanic community knows what self deportation means. The poor know what welfare reform and cutting food stamps mean. Women know what it means for choice if another conservative is put on the supreme court. I hope hillary can convince us.

[merrily]

46. Who got welfare "reform" passed and how many cuts to SNAP have occurred in the last six years?

But thanks for reminding me about food stamps. I forgot to include them in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6485355

I'll fix it next time.

If you want to say Hillary will be somewhat better than a Republican on some social issues, especially reproductive choice, fine. I'm the last one to say social issues are not important and I can agree to that.

But, this is not your Daddy's (or my Daddy's) Democratic Party anymore, nor does it want to be. They tried to make that very clear by calling themselves New Democrat (sic, as in "New Democrat Caucus&quot The stirring speeches, though, were a lot more true for Old Democrats, except as to "pragmatic" stands on cultural issues and the way, in verbiage, some issues are framed.

Oh, yes, and in the myth that Democrats are just too kind to Republicans to get their (the Democrats') way. That's just a pitiful joke. The ones not getting their way are the 99%.

[JustAnotherGen]

47. I agree - focus on pushing the candidate you DO want

The thing is - a lot of us are waiting on formal declarations.

And I feel bad for the people who wanted Warren to run since the day she won her Senate seat. I'm hoping Malloy will move forward soon - so those of us in his camp can start having some open discussions with the Warren supporters.

[get the red out]

48. Good point

We should leave the "eating their own" to republicans.

[cali]

49. screw that condescending shit. I'll criticize her if I wish.

[Jim Lane]

50. The factor you're ignoring is Hillary's unusual poll standing.

For a nonincumbent, this far in advance of the election, her lead in polls of members of her party is unusual in either major party. The current Republican situation, with no one breaking out of the low 20's, is much more typical.

Add to the polls the support of much of the Democratic Party establishment and the contributions from the big-money donors.

A Republican who wants to push a particular candidate is best advised, right now, to do as you suggest. Being positive about your own candidate is much better than being negative about another, because whichever other you pick to attack, there are several more who might defeat your choice.

On the Democratic side, however, anyone who isn't Hillary has to look at the race and see Hillary as far and away the biggest obstacle. Therefore, both before and after other candidates declare, criticism of Hillary will have far more vitality than criticism of Jeb or Cruz or anyone else.

The front-runner always comes in for more fire. From that front-runner's point of view, it's a nice problem to have. Do you think Hillary would like to be in Jim Webb's situation, thus getting much less criticism?

[LWolf]

53. Let me explain.

Some Democrats, who've been disappointed, to say the least, and thrown under the bus, to say it more bluntly, every primary season when the party nominates neo-liberal corporate ****** see it coming again. This is the ONLY time we can freely express staunch opposition, at least here at DU, so we're not going to shut up. Be sure, that if we can find anyone to run against the Clinton juggernaut, we will be doing plenty of talking about that candidate.

Of course, every time someone talks about the candidate most likely to beat Clinton in a primary, her supporters attempt to shut conversation down with "SHE'S NOT RUNNING!!!!" Which, unfortunately, is true.

At this point, I'd be happy to push ANY non-neo-liberal candidate. Since the only candidate I can find who fits that description AND has expressed an interest in running is Sanders, I'll be supporting him, should he announce. Whether he wins or not, at least I can cast an honest vote.

What are HRC supporters going to be doing, outside of the old, time-worn, ineffective partisan bullying and scare tactics, to prevent the left, Democrats and other, from abandoning her in droves in the GE? Can you get her to forcefully abandon neo-liberalism?

[davidpdx]

56. +1,000,000

You fuckin' nailed it

[merrily]

57. Great comment.

Don't assume they want her to abandon neo-liberalism, though.

As far as Sanders, he has stated more than once that he will run if he sees he has support. So, if you want him to run, waiting until he makes a more definite announcement than that before you jump in may be self defeating.

Meanwhile, the Stop Hillary demonstration at her campaign headquarters last night proves yet another DU meme wrong. We're not the only ones who are not overjoyed with Hillary--or with this anemic primary season.

[LWolf]

70. I've communicated with Sanders,

and I think, if nobody else steps in to fill the void, he'll be there.

Anemic is an understatement at this point. It's good to know that there are others out there.

[merrily]

71. Thanks. Good to know. Some voice other than Third Way needs to be heard.

[winter is coming]

74. +1. Hillary's reintroducing herself by claiming she wants to fight for us.

If she's been fighting for us all along, why does she need to reintroduce herself? And if she hasn't been fighting for us all along, why should we believe her now?

[B Calm]

54. That is what I been saying for weeks.

[workinclasszero]

58. Because they have no candidate

Just an unrelenting hate for Hillary, who is going to be the democrat that whips the ass of whatever teahaddist kocksucker the rethugs put up.

I'm convinced some of these people would prefer that the republicans win for some insane delusional reason.

[jeff47]

59. How about Clinton's fans actually address some of the questions/criticisms instead?

If your goal is to attract people to Clinton's candidacy, how 'bout addressing the questions and concerns of people who don't like her?

For example, can you point to a specific bill she proposed in the Senate, or specific action she took as SoS to expand abortion access? How 'bout specific acts she took to reign in Wall Street and its allies? What has she done to help people hurt by previous free trade agreements, and how does she reconcile her support for the TPP with this harm? And so on.

And make your argument without invoking the Republicans - you need to be talking about what she did, not what Republicans may/will do.

Instead of complaining that people are not flocking to your chosen candidate, give them reasons to flock.

[CrispyQ]

60. We need someone with name recognition & I propose Sheldon Whitehouse.

Sure, no one knows who he is, but the slogan Whitehouse in the Whitehouse will be memorable enough for folks to remember his name & evidently that's what people need these days. He's also a great liberal. Unfortunately, he hasn't expressed any interest in running.

I don't think HRC is the sure fire winner that dem leadership thinks she is. Sure, she'll bring in lots of bucks, but I think there is a huge contingent of people, & many in the dem party, too, who think it's time to give the power back to a white man.

My biggest issue is how long the campaign is - well over a year! That is total bullshit & no wonder so many people are disengaged in the process. As soon as one election is over, the next one is started. I'll be so sick of HRC & all the other candidates by November '16 & so will most of America.

[Logical]

61. Can we point out where hillary is wrong? Let me know your honor! nt

[snooper2]

62. NO BUSH NO CLINTON!

Donate to Martin Here!


http://martinomalley.com/

[One of the 99]

63. How about this

Instead of only focusing on the Presidency as if that is the only thing that matters, work to elect more progressives to congress and in local elections.

Even someone like Warren would be limited on what she could do as President if she has a GOP controlled congress.

[TBF]

66. Or positions -

I prefer to talk about class and hope it will rub off a bit. If we all talk about economic equality maybe Hillary will feel more comfortable pushing it as well.

[Orsino]

68. How about this instead:

Criticize her constructively every chance you get, in accordance with site rules, to engage as many DUers as possible in lobbying her to become a better candidate.

[Joe the Revelator]

72. I am highly upset that Mark Warner didn't make any noise at all

He'd have a tough time in the primary, but he would trounce all comers in the General. Best Governor in my lifetime in Virginia.

[sabrina 1]

73. Already done:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026498755

And criticizing a politician on their positions on issues is not bashing them.