2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis has been an awesome week of Clinton endorsements. I am proud to stand with all of them.
Anthony Foxx-Secretary of Transportation
Gabby Giffords- American hero
Congressional Black Caucus Chair-G.K. Butterfield
Congressperson Frank Pallone
Seafarers International Union
Planned Parenthood
SunSeeker
(51,658 posts)Alfresco
(1,698 posts)MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Imagine he endorse the person who loses the primary.
The media would hound him, and the nominee, 24/7 until the election.
George II
(67,782 posts)Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)It will be asap, no doubt
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I believe most presidents take this road. Makes sense, really.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Check out top 5 contributers . . . Nuff said: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000781
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)to Tigranes?
George II
(67,782 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)It would have been just as bad if the organization had endorsed Bernie or Martin. All the Democrats had stood by Planned Parenthood throughout. Bernie, Martin, Hillary were all there for them. They pissed off supporters of the other two by endorsing Clinton. They bit the hand that feeds them.
George II
(67,782 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)And the almighty vote will have spoken.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Thank you in advance.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)...I can remember. Does it not count or something?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Before Bernie started to get competitive in Iowa, it was presented as a sign that he has no broad appeal because he only did well in NH. Expect the goalposts to keep getting moved.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)I'm just pretty much putting all of them on my ignore list so that coming here can be enjoyable for me.
George II
(67,782 posts)Hekate
(90,773 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)msrizzo
(796 posts)Great endorsements.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Goldman Sachs, Henry Kissinger, Joe Lieberman, the Bush Family, Corrections Corporations etc.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)-Isaac Newton
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)He hosted a fundraiser for her then. Soooo Awesome.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)-Isaac Newton
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 11, 2016, 03:10 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't want their peers in prison or fighting wars for the spoiled .01%. Voting for Hillary is just supporting the Bush Agenda. How on earth could any of us consciously support someone with the rare honorary title of Bush Family member? She didn't even wince when multiple Bushes bestowed that "accolade". She was gracious. You really must look more deeply into her connections and actions. Taking money from private prison corporations? Those people should be in jail themselves at the very least.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If you believe the Bush's and the Clinton's have the same plans for America there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.
I saw Bush Pere and Barbara Bush speak glowingly of President Obama. Do you think he should say he rejects their kind words?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Obama is not considered a family member. Both Clintons are. Yes the Bushes are happy Obama didn't prosecute them just like Bill Clinton didn't. But make no mistake the Clintons membership in that family is rare. How foolish and naive of you to try and tell us it's inconsequential. And Bill was buddying up to Bush Sr in the early 80s at their private retreat in Kennebunkport. It's very out of the way and not just crossing paths at insider cocktail parties. By the way, Clinton's foreign policy is very close to Bush's. And Bill had a higher incarceration rate than Bush. The Clintons war on average Americans i.e. The Drug War is the same as Bush's.
George II
(67,782 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Ok Tony Blair, David Rockefeller, once upon a time Donald Trump etc. You gotta be very regressive and suffering from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome to be enamored with Hillary Clinton. She's going to lose the primary again I bet.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)much as they've long been silent on the negative ramifications of things like welfare and criminal justice reform spearheaded by her husband.
And if Clinton 2.0 conducts itself similarly, you can darn sure betcha the more enamored will be here to defend that too.
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)as well, DSB!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)ma'am. But in the immortal words of Marcy from Peanuts, "sir" will do just fine.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)oasis
(49,400 posts)Winners are admired by all.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)You forgot to have his name next to it like the others. Of course, we DO know who it is, but if he's thrown his hopes behind Hillary, he should then get credit for having done so. Or is it just wishful thinking? I imagine he'll be all long-faced if Bernie should (by some astronomical long shot) emerge the Dem nominee.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)he won't endorse anyone in the primaries.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)find out who is the next family that receives the set of keys to the house.
Cha
(297,516 posts)Photo: US President Obama meets former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and husband Mark Kelly in Oval Office - @petesouza
http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/mark-kelly/
delrem
(9,688 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 11, 2016, 01:02 AM - Edit history (1)
But what does it mean?
Here's what's bothering me. As a young teen I heard MLK's speech, "I had a dream" and in hindsight I can't even say how far I was from actually understanding what he was saying. After all, I was WHITE, and CANADIAN, and ROMAN CATHOLIC, and MOSTLY UNAWARE OF CANADIAN INJUSTICE TOWARD NON-WHITES.
That was the small pond I grew up in and I still cry inside when I remember how the only black kid in the junior high school up there was treated. "Hey bleck man!" It's just horrendous and maybe I didn't say the phrases, but the coolest kids did and I just stood there. Desperately wanting to be "in". That kid got it worse than even the first-nations kids, because he didn't have a larger community at all. I just stood there, without a hope of ever being "in", but I just stood there just the same. I didn't do anything.
That's for some context. But the MLK speech that I heard on the radio (at night - radio signals had better range at night back then) did move me and I wrote a trite little essay that mentioned it in a free-topic essay assignment for English that got an "A". And I knew that I got the "A" for showing that I was at least semi-aware of MLK's speech and his movement. The incentive worked. As I matured I became more socially aware. At a slow pace, to be sure, but no, I don't like Trump. I don't think Bernie is like Trump... I'm at least that aware.
So I'd say that back then and in my small way I "stood with MLK", and as my life progressed I've realized how any such kind of "standing with" is difficult, at best only partially understood, more of a learning experience where my "standing with" is to keep myself open to learning, overcoming my conditioning as best I can. But then, your colleague at DU, who you "stand with", has for several months now run a totally dismissive - disdainful even - sig line (copy/pasted):
"Please Note: I AM NOT SAYING BERNIE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE ... AFTER ALL, HE MARCHED WITH MARTIN!"
So what does "stand with" mean? Really.
Does it mean that my "standing with MLK" in my small and almost observable way is repugnant, wrong, a putting on of false airs by a "white progressive" aka "white supremacist", because I prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton, whereas if I preferred Hillary to Bernie my idea that I "stand with MLK" would be righteous?
What the fuck kind of "standing with" is that?
This really bothers me about this Democratic Party primary.
eta: even abysmally unaware as I was back then, I knew that Barry Goldwater was bad news. I'd say that everyone who had a hope of "standing with" MLK in any kind of rational reading of the phrase could sense that much. Yet Hillary was older than me, back then, and she didn't see it. Why is that?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)All I will say, sir, is that my friend and brother, 1SBM, can speak for himself and his opinion carries water with me, especially on issues of race.
As to my "stand with" posts. They are axiomatic.
Respectfully
DSB
delrem
(9,688 posts)OK, sounds like a big word.