If Gillibrand is automatically disqualified because she called on Franken to resign...

[NYC Liberal]

then so are Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren. All of them also demanded Franken resign.

Having a deal breaker for supporting a candidate is fine, but we should be consistent. Gillibrand isn't my first choice, but I think it's absurd to crucify her on this and give everyone else a pass.

And, for the record, here are all the other Democratic Senators who said the same thing as Gillibrand:

Tammy Baldwin
Tammy Duckworth
Mazie Hirono
Chuck Schumer
Claire McCaskill
Maggie Hassan
Patty Murray
Bob Casey
Joe Donnelly
Sherrod Brown
Debbie Stabenow
Heidi Heitkamp
Ed Markey
Michael Bennet
Maria Cantwell
Dick Durbin
Patrick Leahy
Martin Heinrich
Dianne Feinstein
Jeff Merkley
Ron Wyden
Tom Carper
Tom Udall
Sheldon Whitehouse
Gary Peters
Chris Murphy
Jon Tester
Jack Reed
Angus King
Bill Nelson

[cilla4progress]

1. No

Klobuchar

[ProudMNDemocrat]

17. Amy knew Al's integrity....

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2019, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

And gave him the benefit of the doubt. She wanted the process to take place.

[cilla4progress]

24. She's right up there

for me!!

[ananda]

48. Me too!

!!

[Charlotte Little]

178. Just Coming

To post that! Klobuchar has got my support 100% for many reasons. I just now found another.

[randr]

2. Care to guess how many of these people will still be around in, say 12 years?

A new wave of Democrats is rising and the old ones need to get out of the way, and stop blocking the halls.
Times, they are a-changing. Thanks to Bob.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Gillibrand was the first to call for Franken's resignation...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kirsten-gillibrand-calls-on-al-franken-to-resign

[NYC Liberal]

7. Schumer was. He told Franken to resign before anyone else did.

And being the first by a matter of a few hours is irrelevant. Over 30 senators didn’t just up and decide to call on him to resign only because she said it first. They had been discussing it for days/weeks prior.

[Glamrock]

89. And I'm not voting for Schumer in the primary either. N/T

[KPN]

129. Source? It was fairly evident (if not entirely accurate) that Gillibrand was first and led the

charge. My recollection is she took it directly to Schumer, including the (her) demand that Franken resign. So without a legit source, I respectfully but wholeheartedly beg to differ.

[Doremus]

146. Franken was weathering the storm. It had died down even. Then Gillibrand threw him under the bus

And that was it. He was over.

I'll never forgive her lack of character and misplaced ambition.

[Trumpocalypse]

9. By minutes in many cases

most on the same morning. Obviously it was a highly coordinated effort in advance.

[OnDoutside]

55. Coordinated like certain posters on this thread ?

[Trumpocalypse]

68. How so?

[Blue_true]

182. Wow, if she can lead other smart people by the nose, make her President of sixteen years NOW!

Imagine the problems that she can convince people to fix, just by calling them a problem.

[oasis]

4. Which one of senators on that list led the charge to oust Franken?

[NYC Liberal]

8. Schumer did.

What do you mean “lead the charge”? Democratic senators had been discussing this for weeks prior.

[oasis]

12. KG will be remembered as the senator most responsible. That's life.

[whathehell]

31. Misogyny more than "life", perhaps..Easier to blame "the uppity woman"

than Chuck?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

64. No question KG led the charge.

[Trumpocalypse]

10. Schumer

He’s the only one with the power to stage such a highly coordinated effort. Plus Gillibrand doesn’t make a move without his approval.

[oasis]

18. KG gets the lion's share of the blame. Maybe her fault for

being so emphatic in her presentation.

[Trumpocalypse]

19. Why?

Seems like a double standard.

[oasis]

21. She also didn't help herself when she strolled down Memory Lane

to take shot at former President Clinton. Shaky judgement on both issues.

[Trumpocalypse]

23. She was asked a question

about Clinton and answered it. I don’t agree with her but am not going to demonize her for it.

In regard to Franken she was one of over 30 Senators who called for his resignation the same morning. There is only one Democrat in the Senate with the power to coordinate such an effort, Schumer.

[oasis]

26. KG has many good qualities but she seems to lack the

ability to tread lightly when it comes to criticizing the mistakes of her friends.

[lark]

102. She was in the forefront and also attacked Bill.

Now she's going to Wall St. asking for money before she starts her campaign so she cn act all pure and refuse to take Wall St. $$ once she's officially begun. She has no integrity and I will never support her in the primary and pray she's not the general candidate. I think every one of those Dems made a huge mistake and it has made me more firm in supporting Biden and Klobuchar, who didn't follow the crowd.

[Trumpocalypse]

108. At least you are consistent

and not giving a pass to the other 30.

As far as 2020, Biden may be too old but I like the sound of Klobuchar/O'Rourke!

[lark]

110. I don't think he's too old.

He's in great shape mentally and physically, nothing like the weak fat jerk who stole the office. He's experienced and he cares. I'd support Biden/Klobuchar enthusiastically.

[Trumpocalypse]

112. I would too

I didn't mean his age would disqualify him for me but it may with others.

[Blue_true]

185. You think? nt

[JNelson6563]

82. Last night on Rachel

Gillibrand was on. Rachel gave her a long, detailed and very friendly intro (did they collaborate? Seriously.) and iirc one of the glowing items of credit following her metamorphosis from conservative to liberal was "lead the effort" or some such in regard to Franken.

I am neutral on that issue.

I was not terribly impressed by this interview. I'm still leaning Harris.

Not an impassioned primary warrior so however things turn out I vote for the Dem in the GE.

[oasis]

101. IMO, Rachel's interview was a big plus for KG.

She handled herself quite well. As the months go by, I can see Gillibrand's campaign picking up steam.

Then comes the primary debates.

[Trumpocalypse]

126. She is reminding me of John Glen in 84

He just had no spark to his campaign and neither does she. Very blah.

[JNelson6563]

165. That's how she's always struck me.

[Blue_true]

184. Oh, my gawd, she is convincing. We can't have a President like that.

[oasis]

188. Don't worry.

[LakeSuperiorView]

120. Well, that's certainly an argument in her favor...

"Plus Gillibrand doesn’t make a move without his approval."

Gillibrand 2020
She's helpless without Schumer's say so.

Paid for by Gillibrand for higher office, don't get in her way.

[Trumpocalypse]

159. Never said that it was. nt

[LakeSuperiorView]

162. Yeah, right...

[Trumpocalypse]

166. I didn't

Nor is it an argument in favor or the 30 other Senators who are apparently blind followers.

[Lotusflower70]

5. She lead the charge

She would be a last resort candidate to me. I am all about Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.

[Trumpocalypse]

14. Yet Harris called for Franken to resign

minutes after Gillibrand and was the first to go on TV to denounce him
https://m.

[emulatorloo]

6. Maybe people are uncomfortable about her former hawkish position on immigration or her former

Pro-gun positions

[More_Cowbell]

11. Or her promise to serve her full term as a senator

Luckily, we're all free to support whichever Democrat we want. If she ends up being the candidate in the election, she'll get my vote. Until then, and financially, I'll support candidates who in my opinion are more worthy.

[emulatorloo]

16. We've got many great candidates to choose from

And of course we’ll vote to the Democratic nominee in the general

[NYC Liberal]

22. That's not what they're saying. They're saying it is her statement on Franken

that disqualifies her.

[customerserviceguy]

15. If

Caroline Kennedy had bothered to vote, we would have never heard of KG. She would be back in her little NY district getting a 100% rating from the NRA.

[Cetacea]

20. If they were that politically naive then it's doubtful any of them would beat Trump

The info was out there from Day One that Roger Stone was possibly involved.

[EffieBlack]

25. She's not "automatically disqualified" by any means

She is free to run and no one is stopping. And voters are free to vote for or against her based on any criteria they choose to use. She's not a victim here.

[DFW]

75. Perfectly put.

If her lame posturing on Colbert's show doesn't bother her supporters enough to look elsewhere, then probably nor does anything else.

Her opportunism in the Franken affair disqualifies her to me as far as supporting her in the primary, and the same goes, for the record, for every one else on that list, although continuing to include people who are no longer in the Senate at this point is just padding the rolls. It should also be noted that far from everyone on the list has declared an interest in running for President (I'm still waiting on Bob Rumson). However, I will not support anyone on that list in the primaries. I WILL support our nominee, but if that nominee is a Senator from "the" list, they will manage to claim that nomination without my grain of sand.

[LakeArenal]

27. Thanks for reminding. Don't forget Kamala Harris or Warren Or my biggest disappointmet Booker.

Helps narrow the field to some great possibilities;

Biden, O'Rourke, Klobuchar, Castro, Schiff or others my fine DUers can add.


Let's not forget Franken himself...

[dweller]

28. and who will be the first to say "I was wrong" and ask him to run again ?

crickets ...



✌🏼️

[NanceGreggs]

29. Gillibrand led the charge ...

… because she thought it was a political winner. She thought there would be widespread support for her position, and having her name on it would serve her political future well.

She miscalculated. The backlash was immediate, and not what she was counting on.

She gambled – she lost. It happens. Whether you think she’s being treated unfairly or not, the fact is that her name is forever associated with our having lost one of the most effective and committed senators our party had – and at a juncture where true warriors like Franken are sorely needed to stand up to Trump and the GOP.

Had her position on Franken been overwhelmingly well-received, she would have basked in the glory. Unfortunately, she now has to own the failure – and there are many, many Democrats (as you can see from the posts here on DU) who are happy to remind her of that failure.

As I said, whether her being tarred-and-feathered over this is fair or not, it is what it is. And no minds are going to be changed by saying, “whatabout these other guys”.

[OnDoutside]

33. This. X 1000.

[whathehell]

34. Try not to confuse "opinion" with fact...You don't know what her

motive or motives were.

[NanceGreggs]

38. Sometimes ...

... political motives are obvious. This is one of those times.

[whathehell]

41. Sometimes...

What's "obvious" is simply bias.

[NanceGreggs]

44. Whatever.

Why people continue to support Gillibrand or not is about perception. And the widely-held perception is that she was on the wrong side of this issue.

Attributing that to "bias" is as irrelevant as attributing it to prejudice against blond women from NY.

She is forever associated with the loss of Senator Franken. Unfair or not, it is what it is.

[whathehell]

53. So

'Attributing it to bias is as ''irrelevantt' as attributing it to blond women from New York"?

You might want to rethink that one...


.

[NanceGreggs]

56. If you're going to quote me ..

... at least do it accurately.

What I said was: "Attributing that to "bias" is as irrelevant as attributing it to prejudice against blond women from NY."

[whathehell]

58. Lol..Is that because of the substantive difference?

Next you'll be looking for typos.

[NanceGreggs]

59. Yes, it was a substantive difference.

The fact that you don't understand that speaks for itself.

[whathehell]

62. It's called an "oversight"..

and the fact that you have nothing BUT that to criticize "speaks for itself" even more.

[NanceGreggs]

63. Yeah, an oversight.

[whathehell]

66. Yeah, imagine that.

[brush]

111. You might wanna re-read that because you missed the point.

[whathehell]

196. Lol..No, I'd suggest you re-read it

because I missed a word -- not the "point". See post # 62 for further explanation.

[Trumpocalypse]

50. How are they obvious ?

Please present some facts that prove your accusation and remember to include links to credible sources.

[NanceGreggs]

54. If you choose to believe ...

… that Gillibrand had no political motive, that’s your choice.

Apparently, many Democrats believe she did.

As I said, it’s all about perception.

[Trumpocalypse]

65. It is not a matter of belief

It is a matter of fact. Present facts that prove your accusation.

[ProfessorGAC]

79. Learn A New Song

[Trumpocalypse]

81. Any suggestions?

[ProfessorGAC]

85. Oh, Just Anything

The tune you've been singing is stale.

[Trumpocalypse]

93. Stale to some

Refreshing to others

[ProfessorGAC]

163. Refreshing to None

But you keep telling yourself that.
Sad!

[Trumpocalypse]

167. No refreshing to those

who like truth and fairness.

[dalton99a]

35. +1. She also made a big mistake:

[DFW]

49. The "whataboutism" will indeed change no one's mind.

Though for the record, I will not support ANY of them in the primary who will not issue Al Franken a public apology. I fault no one for taking a different stance, but that is mine.

[NYC Liberal]

61. It isn't whataboutism; it's pointing out inconsistency.

There are folks here and elsewhere who have stated that they will not support Gillibrand specifically because she called on Franken to resign. And yet there is nowhere near the same level of outrage towards any of the other likely candidates like Sanders, Harris, Booker, or Warren.

I have no problem with anyone drawing a line, but they ought to be consistent.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

69. There are many "whataboutismists" who would disagree... just read any Bernie thread.

[DFW]

70. Though I consider Gillibrand to be a weak and uninspiring candidate in her own right

I do apply the same standard to the others who urged Al to resign. Barring a public apology, none of them will have my support in the primary any more than she does. Not Sanders, not Warren, not Booker, not Harris, not Brown, not a one of them. If they can't own up to having been scammed and having unjustifiably (and probably irreparably) harmed a valued colleague, I'm not interested.

[NYC Liberal]

71. Totally ok with that. Gillibrand isn't my first choice either.

I just think the criticizing of Gillibrand over this is disproportionate to the criticism the other candidates get even though they said the same things.

[DFW]

74. Some appear to see her enthusiasm in going after Al as a little too opportunistic

I'm not sure they're wrong, either, but my position on the subject of Al Franken applies to all of them: if they can't make a public apology to Al, then as far as I'm concerned, their view (i.e. the one invented by Republican pranksters) hasn't changed, and I therefore have no interest in seeing any of them in the White House.

[brush]

116. Not quite. Gillibrand's bad judgment in not recognizing the repug hit job led by Stone...

Hannity and Tweeden in her ambition to get her name out there on what was her signature issue, caused the Franken-under-the-bus calamity to stick to her like super glue and it is baggage she now has to carry.

That's reality no matter how much her supporters want to deny it.

The others jumped on the blaring bandwagon Gillibrand created so as not to be seen as missing the boat on supporting women's issues. It was hasty judgment on their part too but the whataboutism directed towards them doesn't stain as much as the Franken-under-the-bus calamity does to Gillibrand.

It's here baggage to carry and it will come up again and again during the campaign.

[NanceGreggs]

72. She chose to tout herself as the lead singer ...

... on what she thought would be a hit single.

Trying to cast her now as merely a back-up singer doesn't wash.

Whether there is the "same level of outrage" towards anyone else is irrelevant - simply because the perception IS that Gillibrand owns the loss of Franken from the senate.

And whinging about how unfair that perception may be won't change anyone's mind.

[NYC Liberal]

67. Sorry, but she did not "lead the charge." The response by the Democratic Senators

was coordinated and their statements calling for him to resign were released very close to one another.

Women senators coordinated calls for Al Franken to resign - CNNPolitics

Women Democratic senators had been talking behind the scenes for at least the past week about how to deal with Franken, multiple aides told CNN. But those talks reached a tipping point Wednesday morning, they said, when Politico published a report at 9 a.m. ET of another woman alleging that Franken touched her inappropriately in 2006, before he was elected to office.

The story prompted a flurry of calls and texts between Senate offices within minutes, and it was decided sometime between then and about 10:30 a.m. ET that the women senators would go public in a show of unity with their desire for Franken to step aside.
"Their patience had worn incredibly thin," said an aide to one of the women senators.

Soon after that, Franken was given a heads up about what was coming, according to an aide to one of the women senators.

So it is untrue that she was some sort of ringleader. In fact, it was Schumer who led the effort and he was the first one to directly call on Franken to resign, which happened in a meeting he called.

And even if she had "led the charge" — then what does that say about those who followed? Sanders, Harris, Warren, Booker ... no one put a gun to their heads. Nor did they to the over 30 other Democratic Senators who called for the same thing.

[NanceGreggs]

73. She is perceived as "the ringleader".

And perception is everything. And you have to ask yourself why she is perceived as the ringleader.

[wellst0nev0ter]

186. She embraces her role as the ringleader

Which makes me wonder why Gillibrand defenders are running interference for her.

[brush]

122. You can't rewrite history. She was issuing statements and making media appearances...

calling for Franken to step down long before the other senators jumped on the bandwagon she created.

I personally heard her interviewed on satellite progressive radio way before the other senators called for a resignation. She not only rusned to judgment in calling for Al to step down, she also pushed Bill Clinton under the bus by retroactively calling for him to resign over the consensual affair he had with Lewinsky.

Imagine that, as Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton endorsed her to take Hillary's seat in the Senate she vacated to take the SOS job in the Obama administration. Opportunism seems to have trumped loyalty and clouded her judgment on this part of the story that her defenders never bring up, her retroactive attack on Bill Clinton.

[NurseJackie]

97. I do not trust or respect her judgement. I can't support her. Ever.

I can barely stand to listen to her. She may be able to attract fringe voters who aren't very, well... let me just say that she will not be our party's nominee for obvious reasons.

All I'm saying is that the Democrats have a large pool of very talented, energetic, exciting and dynamic individuals to choose from. We can do better.

[Renew Deal]

103. Sounds like we found a leader

The country desperately needs that. Backlash? Are some people pro-harassment?

[athena]

140. You don't know what she was thinking.

And speak for yourself. I believe she and the other Democrats who called on Franken to resign made the right call. Letting him
continue to serve despite the allegations would have made the Democrats look like hypocrites. They would have lost the moral high ground to call on Republicans to resign under similar circumstances. Moreover, they would have conveyed to voters, especially female voters, that they don’t listen to women. Very likely, the midterms would have turned out differently.

I, for one, was greatly disappointed in Senator Franken. That photograph was disrespectful. It’s clear to me that he abused his position as a celebrity to harass women in ways that may not be illegal but that reveal a lack of respect for women as his equals.

[BannonsLiver]

150. ...

?itemid=10294651

[workinclasszero]

195. +1

[Baltimike]

30. She is disqualified because she fell for Roger Stone's sucker bait, and took those senators with her

SHE led that charge.She played RIGHT INTO ROGER STONE'S STRATEGY and she will not get my vote for. Those others aren't running for president (yet) so I'll deal with it as it comes.

[Trumpocalypse]

51. So all 7 women

who accused Franken working for Roger Stone? Any evidence to prove that?

And were Warren, Harris, Sanders Booker and the 30 other Senators all just blind followers?

[Butterflylady]

105. Only 2 identified themselves

The rest where anonymous and wasn't it strange that the accusations stopped the minute he resigned? Guess Roger got what he wanted.

[Trumpocalypse]

107. Why shouldn't they stay anonymous?

But that doesn't mean they were liars. Can you prove that all the other seven women were working for Roger Stone?

[Baltimike]

113. Can you prove they weren't?

Nope. You sure can't. Maybe if we had a hearing on the matter, it would have cleared that up. Gilibrand made sure there weren't any.

And she won't be the nominee

[Trumpocalypse]

118. No I can't

But I can't say they were all lying either.

Plus it wasn't only Gillibrand, it was over 30 Senators.

[Baltimike]

121. Exactly. And when you see Roger Stone, make it a point to KNOW BETTER

KG certainly should have. The two who came out publicly had unbelievably flimsy stories.

One said she agreed to a kiss against her will and the other said he grabbed her ass in broad daylight while she took a picture with him with many people in the background, and no one saw it. Oh, and neither mentioned anything about to anyone until it became politically expedient for Roger Stone.

And she played RIGHT into that sucker bet.

And SHE led that charge. So....

*nope* *IF* she gets the nomination, I will reluctantly vote for her...but she won't

Because she fell for a sucker bet and acted like it was a victory.

[Trumpocalypse]

124. Is there any proof that all 7 other women

were working for Roger Stone?

And were Warren, Sanders, Harris and the other 30 Senators were all blind followers?

[Baltimike]

114. You know, if *ONLY* we had hearings on the matter...oh wait...KG made

sure we didn't. She played RIGHT into Roger Stone's hand, and that shows she isn't ready for primetime.

[Trumpocalypse]

117. So you really think the Republicans on the Ethics Committee

would have given Franken a fair hearing and not used it to humiliate him & paint any Dem who defended him as a hypocrite?

[Baltimike]

119. *Nope*. I think Gilibrand fell for Roger Stone's SUCKER BET and you keep trying to reframe things

She won't be the nominee because of it too.

[Trumpocalypse]

125. And 30 other Senators

Why do they get a pass?

And is there any evidence that the 7 other women were working for Stone?

[Baltimike]

135. ...that aren't running for president. nt

[Baltimike]

136. They aren't going to get the nomination either, but she whipped them...

make no mistake.

We won't

[Trumpocalypse]

137. Whipped them?

[Baltimike]

138. Oh Geeze...I used House terminology..she LED them make no mistake

and she not be the nominee...and most probably because of it.

He deserved a hearing, and so did his constituents.

AND she fell for Roger Stone's sucker bet.

[Trumpocalypse]

139. So Warren, Sanders, Harris and Booker

were all just blind followers?

Is there any evidence that all the other 7 women were working for Roger Stone?

[Baltimike]

147. Nice try. No dice.

Conflate much? You keep trying to cast them with what SHE led the way on...*nope*. SHE fell for Roger Stone's sucker bet and LED the way, giving her voice to NOT having hearings.

[Trumpocalypse]

148. She may have led but didn't they follow

If they hadn’t followed she would have been a lone voice and dismissed.

And I’ll ask one more time is there any evidence that the other 7 women were working for Roger Stone.

[Baltimike]

152. again...Nice try. No dice. SHE *led* them, and you know it.

This sucker bet will hang around her neck like an albatross. Each and every Democrat deserved better than that conclusion jumping and band wagoning.

Roger Stone, no less. Unacceptable.

And now, I am probably going to stop responding and kicking this to the top.

It's like beating a dead horse.

[Trumpocalypse]

156. And they followed

how does that absolve them?

And once more, what evidence is there that all 7 other women were working for Roger Stone?

[Baltimike]

170. and we won't follow.

see how tidy brevity can be?

[Trumpocalypse]

171. OK

Where is the evidence that all the other 7 women were working for Roger Stone?

[Baltimike]

172. Where's the evidence they weren't?

anonymous and all...she doesn't get to skate on this. And you know...HEARINGS would have worked for this.

And that is *yet* another reason why it won't be her.

Falling for Roger Stone's sucker bet is insurmountable.

[Trumpocalypse]

175. That's not how it works

Is their and evidence that they were all working for Stone?

And an ethics committee hearing is not something like the Mueller investigation. The republicans on that committee would have made it a circus to humiliate Franken

[Baltimike]

180. Yes it is. You're welcome

This ain't a court of law, it's a court of public opinion and the FACT is, she fell for not JUST a sucker bet, but ROGER STONE'S sucker bet.

[Trumpocalypse]

190. Again

Where is the evidence that the other 7 women were working for Stone? You made the accusation, either prove it or admit that you can’t.

[NYC Liberal]

187. She didn't "lead" them. It was discussed and coordinated

for over a week prior among the Democratic senators. They all were equally involved and jointly decided to call on him to resign. Hence why all of their statements were made within hours of each other.

By the way, it was Schumer who first asked him to resign, at his apartment.

[Baltimike]

189. ***YAWN*** Splitting hairs

does not change her falling for a sucker bet.

This is tiresome because you won't be changing my mind. I *watched* her do it in real time.

[Trumpocalypse]

191. So

Regardless of the facts that is it was a group effort, you are still going to blame one woman.

[OnDoutside]

32. Oh the irony of Gillibrand tarring Franken, being followed by her supporters trying to tar

other Democratic Senators !

[whathehell]

36. Facts are facts, OnDoubtside...Those responsible need to

be held accountable...Just sayin'.

[OnDoutside]

37. And she will be ! 😉

[whathehell]

39. ..As will they all..

No scapegoats allowed.

[OnDoutside]

40. Hahaha !

[brush]

123. Whataboutism doesn't stick as much as the original sin, which sticks like super glue.

Why one can even see the handle of that baggage stuck to Gillibrand's hand no matter how hard she tries to shake it off.

[whathehell]

197. Nice try..

but no cigar. Try again.

[brush]

199. Don't have to. You can see as well as I can from the posts on this thread...

that her lead part in the Franken kneecapping is not popular.

[whathehell]

200. Not denying that .

but her "lead part" would have gone NOWHERE without all those other signatories. End of story.

[brush]

201. It stuck on her though.

[Trumpocalypse]

52. How are they being tarred?

Was something untrue posted about them?

[tonedevil]

42. Good luck with this. /nt

[shanny]

43. She's disqualified for me because I consider her

an opportunist. That was just one example.

[onetexan]

60. Ditto

[athena]

144. "Opportunist".

Another word used to describe a female politician. What politician is there who is not an opportunist? In men, of course, it’s considered a good thing and is usually called “resourcefulness”.

[shanny]

145. lol I use it all the time to describe

far too many politicians, as contrasted with "principled" which gets a very small workout. And I have never, in memory, used "resourcefulness" to describe a politician.

But do carry on with your broad brush; I'm sure it is a comfort. And before you ask, I'm female. There are women I'd vote for in a heartbeat. Gillibrand is not one of them.

[athena]

149. Being female is no defense.

If women couldn’t be sexist, we would be living under President Clinton. Whenever someone argues that a woman can’t be sexist, they reveal how little they’ve studied or thought about sexism.

Moreover, the argument “I would vote for such and such other woman in a heartbeat” is an empty defense, since it is by definition unprovable. We heard it from the hundreds of DUers who claimed in 2016 that they would vote for Warren “in a heartbeat” but couldn’t bring themselves to support HRC. The same people are now claiming that Warren is too old, not exciting enough, and “lacks energy”.

We all have to fight societally learned tendencies toward sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. It’s the person who assumes s/he is by definition not bigoted who ends up unwittingly perpetuating bigoted attitudes. Calling a female politician an “opportunist” is one such attitude. It’s hard to argue that that’s not sexist. And my opinion doesn’t matter. What matters is the truth, and it should concern you more than anyone else.

[shanny]

153. And I need none. Buh-bye.

[whathehell]

198. All oppressed people, including racial minorities, internalize the negatives that

are projected on them by the Dominant group -- That's "why women can be sexist".

[earthshine]

45. She's not disqualified ...

She's just the least preferred. Words matter.

No one has said they won't vote for her in the general.

Many have said they won't vote for her in the primary.

[dalton99a]

46. +1. She has every right to run and present her case

[earthshine]

47. She's over 35 and born in the USA. That makes her qualified.

It's a pretty low bar.

[Trumpocalypse]

83. Our current President lowered

Even more.

[Meowmee]

57. Most of them aren't running.

She played a more key role than most. I never liked her and I don't find her to be credible or a prez candidate material the two times I have seen her on tv since the debacle. She is not comfortable with herself, she seems ill at ease and she is not on a level to be a candidate imo.

[madaboutharry]

76. You made an important point.

"She is not comfortable with herself, she seems ill at ease..."

This is what I also sense from Gillibrand. When she talks it sounds as if her words have been well rehearsed. There is something almost robotic. I think you are right, she isn't comfortable with herself and seems ill at ease, as if she is very insecure and unsure of how she is presenting herself.

[Meowmee]

168. Exactly

We agree😊

[madaboutharry]

77. On the Franken matter

Gillibrand has spoken of how she was sexually harassed, I seem to recall that it may have even been an assault, by her commanding officer when she was in the military. I think she was unable to separate her emotional reaction to what was going on with the "me too" movement and the facts surrounding Al Franken. She put her own feelings ahead of process.

The fact is that she stepped up to the microphone in front of the cameras and the news media and said that she didn't care about nuance and demanded Franken resign. I think that in itself was not presidential. A president needs the quality of being able to step back and dispassionately evaluate circumstances without projecting their own personal experiences into the situation. Gillibrand doesn't possess that quality.

[Trumpocalypse]

84. Actually

it was Kamila Harris who was the first to go on TV to call for Franken’s resignation: minutes after Gillibrand and was the first to go on TV to denounce him
https://m.

And exactly when did Gillibrand specifically say she “didn’t care about nuance”?

[brush]

132. TV is not the only media. I personally heard Gillibrand on progressive satellite radio...

rush to judgment and fall for the Roger Stone ratfucking of Al Franken by calling for the senator to resign long before any other senator had jumped on the bandwagon she created.

And, something you supporters never talk about, Gillibrand also threw Bill Clinton under the same bus she kicked Al under during the same interview. She retroactively called for Bill Clinton to resign for the consensual Lewinsky affair—imagine that, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton had endorsed her to take over Hillary's Senate seat that she vacated to become O's Secretary of State.

Poor judgment, opportunism and non-loyalty do not a good presidential candidate make.

[Trumpocalypse]

158. Was it this show?

Speaking to Susan Arbetter, host of "The Capitol Press Room" on WCNY Radio, Sen. Gillibrand was asked if she thinks Franken, who has been accused by six women of groping and other sexual misconduct, should resign from office.

"It's his decision," Gillibrand said. In the same interview, she elaborated by saying that "this is a watershed moment" for sexual harassment.

"What's so powerful about this moment in time is that survivors are willing to tell their story."

The catch here is that Sen. Gillibrand only wants heads to roll if the alleged perpetrators represent the other side of the aisle, or, in the case of the Clintons, when their grip on power has passed. Gillibrand hasn't been asked about Conyers because he's in the House, but with Franken, she whiffed on a golden opportunity for the Democrats, in general, to regain some credibility and moral high ground.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kirsten-bill-clinton-shouldve-resigned-gillibrand-cant-bring-herself-to-call-for-al-franken-to-resign

[JustAnotherGen]

78. It's a non starter for me

I just don't think she has the grit to get up in the GOP's grill.

[beachbum bob]

80. all I know, I won't support her. Period. The Al Franken debacle by her is enough proof for me she

is not qualified.

[LexVegas]

87. Only her, because....perception.

[Bettie]

88. No one said she's disqualified

though many, myself included, have said that it makes her NOT their primary pick.

For me, there are other reasons not to choose her as well, but the Franken thing was the cherry on top, because of how she handled it. She made that grab for publicity by being first, after, by all accounts, agreeing to a group statement.

There are plenty of candidates, if I don't like one of them, I can vote for someone else in the primaries.

If you think she's the best choice, go for it. I disagree.

[Mr. Ected]

90. Al Franken deserved due process, so ANY Dem that precluded that option is dead to me

None of us really know what Al did or didn't do. I give him the benefit of the doubt because he was truly one of our shining stars, AND many of the accusations appeared to be spurious. Others take the exact opposite tact and I understand their viewpoint as well. We needed more time and a presentation and weighing of the evidence. I wish Al had not resigned as quickly as he did, but obviously he did it to stop the bleeding within the party. There was so much more to this than what met the eye, and now it's impossible to draw any veritable conclusions.

I miss Al. If Al was a serial molester, I wish someone could have proved it, so the cloud of guilt would either rain or dissipate.

[athena]

143. It's called politics.

If his actions are hurting the Party, he has to go, even if what he did is not technically a crime. It might not be fair, but if you want to be treated fairly, you don’t go into politics. Look at all that HRC had to go through. She didn’t even harass anyone. But you don’t see thread after thread bemoaning how badly she was treated. Instead, you still see post after post hatefully telling her to shut up and go away.

[delisen]

91. Looks like we will have to draft President Hillary Clinton for 2020 run

[lunamagica]

154. I'm all for it!

[Joe941]

92. Al Franken was railroaded. I'm still mad about it.

[Polly Hennessey]

94. Putting the Franken question aside,

momentarily. She is uninspiring. Nothing she has said or done so far in her interviews shouts presidential. Reminds me of an empty chalkboard - blank and boring.

[NurseJackie]

98. Excellent observations. Thank you. I can't stand to listen to her, personally.

[yardwork]

95. Chuck Schumer coordinated and led the Democratic attack on Franken.

I agree that Gillibrand has been unfairly blamed for a coordinated strike that could only have been organized by Schumer. As the junior senator from New York, she naturally followed Schumer's lead.

I used to blame Gillibrand more than I do now. Unfortunately, she took the fall and I think it will haunt her.

Gillibrand is not my preferred candidate for a number of reasons.

[Evergreen Emerald]

96. Not to mention Biden and his handling of Anita Hill

I am still pissed at him for that.

[athena]

142. But he's a man,

so, instead of thread after thread attacking him, we see thread after thread admiring him. Really tells you all you need to know about how important women’s concerns are in this society.

[Evergreen Emerald]

161. Amen

[WeekiWater]

99. Gillibrand is currently near the top of my list.

Outrage needs a single point target. Spreading it across all who called for him to resign would leave people with no one left to support. I really like both Gillibrand and Franken. In the end, I don't think she had much to do with why he quit.

[crazycatlady]

100. I guess women can't speak out against powerful men

Bottom line is Al Franken has nobody but himself to blame. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time.

[athena]

141. I agree with you completely.

As always, people want to find a woman to blame, but Al Franken was an adult and should have known not to make himself vulnerable to such allegations if he wanted to be a Senator. We’ve lost many good Democrats over the years (e.g., Spitzer, Weiner). Each time, by compromising themselves, they betrayed the very people they were supposed to represent. Men need to understand that if they want to represent us as Democrats, they need to treat women like people, not like sex objects.

[crazycatlady]

155. your post just made me feel that much more welcome here

Thank you (I say this sincerely).

[athena]

157. Thank you for saying that.

Your post made me feel good, too. It’s demoralizing to see so many people defend or minimize sexual harassment, and it’s encouraging to see someone stand up against it.

[SHRED]

104. I called both my Senators Feinstein and Harris offices

I left my displeasure regarding the Franken ousting.

[Rene]

106. Dem pile on/treatment of Al Franken was disgraceful.

Gillebrand initiated it needlessly....prematurely. Cost us the Best Senator. Franken is a tremendous loss to us. Gillebrand..wouldn't be missed.

[Tarc]

109. Franken was in the wrong, Gillibrand was in the right to call him out

I have no issues with her running. She's not my first choice (Kamala or Booker), or worst choice (Warren or Biden), but I'll listen when she comes around.

That's the fun part about being in NH, we get to meet everyone at the coffee shop and diner-type visits they all do.

[Caliman73]

115. No one should be "automatically disqualified". Gillibrand isn't disqualified.

She is just not likely to get as much support as other people who appear to be running. I would vote for Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren over Gillibrand in a heartbeat. I would also vote for Julian Castro over Gillibrand at this point. If Gillibrand wins the Democratic primary however, I will enthusiastically support her over ANY Republican candidate.

[Andy823]

130. I agree

We have a lot of great candidates so let them run and let the voters make their choice.

[Caliman73]

133. Yes. Choice is typically a good thing.

I think that the candidates need to make an agreement, at least internally that if they are not selected, then they will get out of the race without problems and will not prolong the situation and will supporting the selected nominee. However, no one should be "disqualified". If they do not hold the policies and values that the Democratic Party supports, then that needs to be pointed out in the primary and the voters need to decide.

We also need to be wary of false attacks and attempts to disrupt the process from outside sources.

[Andy823]

173. I totally agree with you.

nt.

[Bayard]

127. I think most of the people on this list

Didn't necessarily believe the allegations, but didn't want the continuing bad press. Fake outrage. The "victims" were not at all convincing. We lost one of our best senators.

[Stinky The Clown]

128. Fine point: Sanders is NOT A DEMOCRAT!

Why is he always counted as such?

[LanternWaste]

164. My guess is for the same reason people sometimes count

My guess is for the same reason people sometimes count Rachel Maddow as a 'ratfucker' without providing evidence to support it... laziness.

[zipplewrath]

131. I'm good with the whole list.

Most of the candidates that will be running aren't on that list.

[rzemanfl]

134. The Republican primaries were influenced by rigged polls.

If they are outraged I missed it. There is a Russian stooge in the White House. The country is twirling around in the bowl. Yet we on DU are arguing about an election a year from this November, while the Repukes are pissing in our Wheaties TODAY!

Putin smiles.

[Vinca]

151. Gillibrand got the snowball rolling, but it's not just that.

She doesn't seem genuine at all to me. In fact, just a few weeks ago she was promising voters in her state to serve out her entire 6 year term if they voted for her.

[revmclaren]

160. I gave my opinion about the others calling for Franken to resign in another OP

and my reply was this:


For those who keep reminding us that other Democrats also called for Franken's resignation, I'll use this analagy...

After Custer led his forces into the disasterous battle at the Little Bighorn, only Custers name has been remembered by the average Joe as being at falt. None of the other soldiers names are even known to the average American.

Leaders always get the most pushback for their actions.

Gillibrand lead the charge against Franken with others (by bad judgement) following her. Combined with her statements against the Clinton's and her disturbing history with big tobacco, I and many others will not vote for her in the primaries, PERIOD!

If by a miracle she gets the nomination, of course I'll vote for her, but the primary is mine to decide.


ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[Trumpocalypse]

169. False analogy

Custer was the commanding general. He was in a leadership position and by definition responsible.

In the Senate, Gillibrand was not and is not in a leadership position. She is one among equals. And it is pretty weak to claim that posting on Facebook a few minutes before several others is somehow leading the charge.

[revmclaren]

181. Keep saying that to yourself.

Gillibrand literaly led the charge against Franken. So no, it is accurate. We will vote the way WE see things. You and your excuses for her will never change our minds. But keep wasting your time. I don't care.

Bye....



ONLY! 2019 and beyond.

[Trumpocalypse]

192. So the definition

of leading the charge is making a Facebook post a few minutes ahead of others. Yeah.

[Devil Child]

174. Damn good post NYC Liberal!! K&R

The inconsistency in the outrage towards Sen. Gillibrand is very confusing and absurd to me.

My outrage, if any, regarding his exit is purely with Franken for making the choice to surrender and resign rather than stand his ground and face his voters.

Flame away.

[Desert grandma]

176. No way I will vote for her

Unless she is the only alternative to the Orange Buffoon. There are lots of other men and women in our party that I would rather see against 45.

[mia]

177. Yes and no.

All listed have lost my trust, except for Jon Trestor. Prove it for me.

[redstateblues]

179. I loved Al, I miss Al but let's face it, Al blew it.

If there was no issue he would have fought. In politics, appearance is reality. If we are going to beat the Rs we have to be better.

[wellst0nev0ter]

183. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, you know

You think us critics of Gillibrand are hypocrites because we don't condemn every member of the Democratic lynch mob in the same breath.

Rest assured that all of them are suspect in my eyes. Gillibrand is the worst since she led the pack, since she believed a bunch of lying, two-faced trumpanzees who voted for a pussygrabber over a smart, decent man.

Don't worry, I'll vote for whoever wins the primary. I'm a Minnesota transplant now living in Highbridge, so I held my nose and voted for her in last year's election. Couldn't vote against her in the primary since she ran unopposed.

[Trumpocalypse]

193. And where is the evidence

that all the other 7 women were ? And real evidence from credible websites.

[orleans]

194. i think it's pretty fucking sad what ALL of them did n/t

[stonecutter357]

202. Gillibrand is automatically disqualified !

[Turbineguy]

203. Democrats can help trump

by choosing the least qualified candidate to run against him.

[customerserviceguy]

204. There's a difference between

"Automatically disqualified" and "Not my first choice."