Why should we ever nominate ANYONE from a wealthy family again?

[Ken Burch]

FDR was a class traitor and a one-off. No rich people even considering entering politics share any of his values today, at least as far as I know.

JFK was marginal-he was a hardline Cold Warrior and helped get us into Vietnam. Bobby was much better, but there's no one in the 1% today who shares the combination of traits and experiences that made Bobby "Bobby"-by which I mean made him into the transformed post-1965 figure we revere today, as opposed to the person he was before JFK's assassination.

What we need in the future is a person who has a real connection to the lives the majority of the American people live.

Someone who has an actual sense of what hardship might be like, what being on the losing end of bigotry or economic royalism is like, what living paycheck-to-paycheck is life.

That person could be a woman, could be black or brown or Muslim, could be LGBTQ, could be anyone...anyone who has lived on the outside.

What 2016 taught us is that nothing we did in the past works anymore.

Therefore, we will need a candidate unlike any we have ever nominated anymore.

But it probably can't be a candidate raised in nothing but wealth. There are good people raised in nothing but wealth, but none who are so good that they are intrinsically better suited to the presidency than people raised outside of it.

[Chasstev365]

1. The Roosevelts and Kennedys were from wealthy families and Nixon was not

It's not simply money; It's the values.

[Ken Burch]

6. I acknowledged the good points of the Roosevelts and the Kennedys.

That's what some rich people in politics were like THEN.

as in "Then-a period that ended on June 6, 1968".

[Chasstev365]

19. I agree with you about the wealthy of today!

I am stuck with Bruce "No Compromise on Anything" Rauner as my governor. He is a billionare who ran as a phony populist and won.

One of Bobby's sons, Chris Kennedy, is running for governor in 2018 and I am hopeful.

[Ken Burch]

23. Yeah. That would be cool.

n/t.

[whathehell]

127. Exactly...

and I have a real problem with anyone who would so blithely dismiss the great FDR as a "class traitor," and a "one off". FDR was elected to FOUR terms and is rated by American historians as Third (some actually said Second) greatest American president in history.

[caroldansen]

2. Its not about money. Its about heart and humility. Love and compassion. All of which it seems

trump has none of.

[Ken Burch]

8. Agreed about Trump.

It's equally about having lived a life grounded in reality and in the personal awareness of things like poverty and suffering.

[Hamlette]

76. I disagree

you don't have to be black to recognize they are at an extreme disadvantage in our racist country. You don't have to have been poor to know what needs to be done to help them.

FDR is the classic example of why that is not true. LBJ, who had been poor-ish, was the poor man's best friend and did more for blacks in this country since Lincoln.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. With this approach we are sure to lose more seats in the next election.

I shouldnt say "we", I should say democrats, liberals, etc.

[tirebiter]

4. JFK was marginal?

You obviously weren't alive then. Yes, he was a cold warrior and set up the plan used by the European left to fight Russia. He sent no fighting units to Vietnam and had begun pulling out.
I could go on...

[BainsBane]

5. What if they become rich

are born middle class and then accumulate, say $10-12 million dollars in a short period of time later in life?

[Ken Burch]

10. It would depend on the values they lived by while doing so.

If you're talking about HRC-she's not going to run again(and I don't think Bernie should either).

FDR(as much due to the influence of Eleanor as anyone else) and the Kennedys were the kind of rich people you pretty much don't see anymore-or at least not in the realms of politics.

For 2020, we need to nominate someone who represents a clean break with post-1988 Democratic politics.

Not that everything in those politics was bad-it's just that THOSE politics are no longer sustainable.

[BainsBane]

15. So wealth is negotiable?

Okay if they "display "the right values."? Earning money from business, I would assume is bad. How about book sales? We already know speaking fees are evil. What about campaigns? What if someone manages, entirely legally, to funnel millions of dollars to themselves through campaign donations. Would that be the "right values"?

[JI7]

18. just like how we can overlook japanese internment

Everything is negotiable

[Ken Burch]

30. It was people in the 1940s who overlooked that.

Nobody defends that today.

Progressives and historically oppressed communities today have nothing to gain from alliances with non-progressives or the 1%.

Together, we outnumber the 1%-we need to unite and win through for justice from below.

[JI7]

32. people that supported Trump did overlook such things

[Ken Burch]

72. I'm not saying we should try for the votes of people who actually AGREE with Trump

on race, religion, gender and culture.

If we were to try to win over ANY votes from people who backed him this year, it would be those who thought that electing him was the only way to create jobs where they lived. THAT sort of voter generally isn't a bigot.

The focus I'd take would be on three groups:

1)People whose votes were suppressed, or people from the groups whose votes were suppressed who simply didn't show up.

2)People who voted third-party or didn't vote out of a sense of alienation(they were the voters I argued that we could have won in November if we'd run ads mentioning that Sanders ideas ended up in the platform, meaning that the Sanders campaign had made a positive difference)

3)(this isn't a huge group, but worth some effort to reach out to) people who voted Trump on shake up the system or a desperation to get unemployment dealt with in their areas.

And reaching out to those groups doesn't involve watering-down Democratic support for anti-oppression movements in the slightest-it just means making a stronger case for change, including some systemic change.


What would it take for you to trust that the approach I've laid out there is not a call for throwing anyone in the current Democratic coalition under the bus?

[Ken Burch]

24. THe right values would be support of workers rights, peace, social and economic equality

and serious efforts to eradicate, not just alleviate poverty.

If there was ever another rich person like Bobby Kennedy, I could support THAT person.

But there's no more Bobbys(or Bobbies) among the 1%.

Rich people are never the allies of the LGBTQ community, or women, or people of color.

It's just that there are a few corporations pretending to be at the moment because it's good pr-
And the corporations making those gestures NOW are the same ones who bought victories for the kind of politicians who imposed things like the "bathroom bills".

Why are

[JI7]

26. bs. why should only straight white men benefit from corporations

[Ken Burch]

28. Didn't say they should...just that they DO.

Why would you trust them as allies?

More to the point-why trust them as allies more than your fellow activists?

[JI7]

34. lol . some "fellow activists" supported trump

So fuck them.

[Ken Burch]

43. And I don't defend them for doing so.

Nobody here does.

[mythology]

77. It's really sad and ignorant that you actually believe that nonsense

Elizabeth Warren is solidly in the 1%, Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffet.

Tim Gill's foundation has spent $260 million on LGBT rights. Elton John has raised over $200 million in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

It's amazingly uninformed to say that rich people are never allies to minority groups. It shows you are so blinded by your own small world view that you can't actually look at things objectively.

[betsuni]

89. +1

[JI7]

7. Romney is wealthier than trump but i Would take Romney over trump

[JI7]

9. because Nixon and Reagan were just so great

[Ken Burch]

11. I didn't say ALL non-rich people were saints.

There simply aren't any potential candidates for 2020 who are part of the 1% who have the potential to be the next Bobby.

[JI7]

14. whatever. Clinton would have been a great president.

[Ken Burch]

45. And I campaigned for her in the fall, so why would you think I disagree with that?

I'm talking about the future, here.

Neither HRC nor Bernie is going to run in 2020. They'd both be too old.

[lunasun]

12. i see no reason to discriminate. May the best person for the country win.

[LisaM]

13. What if Malia Obama wanted to run for office? What about one of Bill Gates' kids?

I thought John Kerry was an excellent nominee, and his family had wealth, too.

I don't really buy into this. At some point, the electorate itself has to take responsibility and really look at the person.

[Ken Burch]

31. The people you listed there are mainly ok(don't know anything about Bill's kids)

(btw, our last Democratic president was not wealthy in the slightest, and HE managed to win majority victories twice).

But if we keep nominating the wealthy, that means we are accepting the right-wing idea that no one BUT the wealthy should govern this country.

Why not nominate good people who have actually known poverty and suffering?

Why assume that we HAVE to keep picking nominees from the elites?

[LisaM]

46. Well, people need to run.

If I was just going to choose someone I'd never heard of, I'd look for someone whose family had some history of politics and other things that would qualify her or him for office.

OTOH, I don't think being from a rich family necessarily disqualifies anyone either. There are nasty poor people and nice rich people and vice-versa.

I would hope they had some working knowledge of government.

[JI7]

16. there is no "we".

[Ken Burch]

33. Yes there is.

People not in the 1% can unite as "we".

We can fight together to defeat bigotry AND greed.

What other way of winning is there?

[JI7]

36. no. many who are not in the 1 percent do not support rights for others

I have no interest in uniting with them

[Ken Burch]

40. It's about uniting with the ones who are open to that.

Doing that doesn't have to mean abandoning anyone who votes for the party now. It isn't "either/or".

[JI7]

42. i am already United with those who care regardless of money

[Ken Burch]

55. Is there a reason you don't want a stronger coalition for change?

n/t.

[JI7]

83. i deal in reality

[Ken Burch]

85. So do I.

n/t.

[JI7]

86. not really. you dismiss what many others want

[Ken Burch]

90. I support what you want. Always have.

It's just that I reject the idea that the way to get what you want is to assume that we have to choose one justice struggle(social justice-anti-oppression) over another(economic justice).

Or to assume that the economic justice and social justice movements are in opposition to each other, or even that they significantly disagree on most things.

We need to be fighting for both.

That doesn't mean pretending that everyone's pain is exactly equal, OR that victory in one justice struggle will eliminate the need for the other.

Can we please get past the "social justice VS. economic justice" thing?

Can there finally be a transition from confrontation to dialog?

Can we put the question of the primaries to rest?

There's no real reason to see these two great causes as beig in some sort of rivalry. In the real world, virtually everyone who prioritizes economic justice is in full support of the anti-oppression agenda, and vice versa. This isn't 1935, with the CPUSA arguing that everything will be taken care of "come the revolution".

[JI7]

91. why are you telling me ? why you tell the trump supporters ?

[Ken Burch]

95. I'm respectfully responding to your post.

Why do you feel such distrust and suspicion towards me?

We supported different candidates in the primary-I campaigned for the nominee in the fall.

[JI7]

96. i voted for sanders but now i see that clinton was the far better candidate with actual policies to

help people.

[Ken Burch]

100. You have the right to your views, obviously.

I'm trying to get us past the Sanders/Clinton dichotomy. Neither of them will run again, and their supporters are far closer to each other on the issues than the candidates they supported were(the majority of Clinton supporters backed most of Bernie's economic ideas, the vast majority of Sanders supporters were and are as committed to the anti-oppression agenda as HRC's supporters were and are).

Therefore, I'd argue a winning platform would feature mostly Sanders-type ideas on economic justice and Clinton-type ideas on economic justice-combined with a much less militaristic foreign policy approach, which will have great appeal now that it's clear that Trump's approach to the world will get us into a lot more wars than we're in now.

[JI7]

17. should japanese americans look for someone like roosevelt ?

[BainsBane]

22. Shhh

You're not supposed to mention that. Or Jim Crow.

[Ken Burch]

41. We ALL agree that the Japanese internemnt and Jim Crow were abominations.

Nobody who talks about New Deal values wants those things back.

[JI7]

20. we should nominate debbie wasserman schultz . She doesn't have much wealth

[wildeyed]

25. Naughty!

[Foamfollower]

21. Once people go down the road of "class traitor" or other stuff like that

they lose me completely on anything whatsoever they have to say.

[Ken Burch]

35. I meant it as a compliment.

FDR was a class traitor because he put the interests of the impoverished majority ahead of the interests of people in his own class.

That's what made his presidency great.

[Foamfollower]

39. And when I saw that language, I stopped reading right there.

I have no further interest.

Good evening.

[Ken Burch]

54. What is so terrible about mentioning class?

It's not possible to put together a progressive majority without having at least some class basis to it.

Why does the word "class" seem so threatening to you?

[wildeyed]

27. I just want to see the tax returns.

[NCTraveler]

29. Amazingly kind of you.

"That person could be a woman, could be black or brown or Muslim, could be LGBTQ, could be anyone...anyone who has lived on the outside."

I appreciate you find me to be possibly worthy and aren't willing to fully exclude me based on gender alone. Though you do simply dismiss swaths of people you took time to mention.

It's been clear for some time that it isn't "we".

[Ken Burch]

37. There was no dismissiveness intended there.

It was a response to the "you folks only opposed ___ in the primaries because she was a woman" canard.

All I meant was that we need to nominate someone who's never been part of the economic elite.

And I'm open to any suggestion as to how I could rephrase that that wouldn't offend you.

My point is that, since nobody in the 1% can ever be Bobby Kennedy again, we will need to find someone outside the 1%.

Somebody from the coming female working-class multicultural multiracial majority.

[NCTraveler]

62. At some point you are going to have to stop blaming others for your own words.

"That person could be a woman, could be black or brown or Muslim, could be LGBTQ, could be anyone...anyone who has lived on the outside."

I appreciate your willingness to include me. You are a generous soul.

[MedusaX]

38. It is a vicious circle...

The current state of campaign funding practices demands that a candidate have access to substantial financial resources....
Those who are willing and able to provide such financial backing do so with the expectation that the candidate they support will be of benefit, should they win.
The typical candidate-- who is willing to be financed knowing that it comes with an expectation of ... shall we say 'future acts of appreciation'-- is not likely to possess the integrity that the citizens deserve from their elected leader.

Conversely, those who truly embody the ideal qualities and who would diligently serve in the best interest of the nation--
would never agree to be financed ...
Even though they would never allow the expectation of influence to actually influence their actions,
it is simply unacceptable to accept financial support knowing that it is accompanied by an 'expectation' that they have no intention of meeting.

So as long as campaigns require big money and those with big money can find a candidate to accept their support.. it is unlikely that anything will change.

[guillaumeb]

44. When you said: "What 2016 taught us is that nothing we did in the past works anymore."

In the face of GOP obstructionism, and willingness to violate the law, and willingness to suppress the vote and disenfranchise the voters, it is not a question of nominating that magical Democrat, but working to reverse what the GOP has constructed.

And that starts with local candidates and a Party that is willing to support those candidates.

But in a money system that will be an uphill climb.

[Ken Burch]

48. There's no contradiction between saying our campaign didn't work and ALSO saying

that GOP and Russian tactics played a crucial role.

There are some simple changes we can make that would make a huge difference-for one thing, we need to make sure we use tracking polling in every state where the contest is close, and get our nominees TO those states as soon as there's an indication that we're losing ground in them.

And I agree that we need good local candidates and stronger parties-your statement there actually supports my point.

We all agree that we need to reverse what the GOP will have done. ALL of it.

[guillaumeb]

50. I appreciated your reference to the 50 state strategy.

Polling is a great tool, combined with an aggressive ground game.

[Ken Burch]

51. Yeah...our ground game was supposed to take care of everything this fall.

We all kept hearing "don't worry...the ground game will pull us through".

What happened there, in your opinion?

[guillaumeb]

56. Taking for granted that any state that supported Obama would be won by a Democrat.

Combined, I feel, with selective voting machine tampering and shutting down early voting in likely Democratic areas. It happened in Michigan and Wisconsin. Both states with GOP governors.

And you?

[Ken Burch]

59. That probably did happen.

What disturbs me is that some people seem to be arguing that it's disloyal to the party and dismissive of the Russian/white supremacist influence to acknowledge ANY mistakes in the way our fall campaign was run.

Ironically, people IN that campaign have admitted that it was a mistake, for example, to focus mostly on attacking Trump on his personal sleaziness rather than emphasizing the popular and effective ideas in our own platform.

[guillaumeb]

61. Yes, the disloyalty meme IS very popular.

Part of the problem was, and is, that the media would much rather focus on personalities than issues. Issues require analysis rather than simply showing short video clips with flashy headlines.

[JI7]

47. So you would be opposed to elizabeth warrren running ?

[Ken Burch]

49. Like FDR, she doesn't put her own class first. That's a huge difference.

She challenges the power of the 1%-not many other politicians today with sizeable personal wealth do that.

And since she wasn't born into wealth, Warren has had personal experience with harder times and survival on a daily basis.

[JI7]

84. she voted for Reagan

[Ken Burch]

92. And then admitted she was totally wrong,

and has devoted the rest of her life to working to reverse Reaganism.

In 1956, Bobby Kennedy voted for the Eisenhower/Nixon ticket, too.

And Henry Wallace, the most progressive member of FDR's cabinet as Secretary of Agriculture, served in the same job in the Coolidge Administration in the Twenties.

[JI7]

94. who do you think we have nominated that we should not have nominated ?

[Ken Burch]

97. It's not about anyone personally.

n/t.

[JI7]

98. so what is the point of your OP ?

[msongs]

52. 1984 - the book: dominant theme is the filthy rich keep the poor oppressed using endless war nt

[delisen]

53. Emotionally I agree but logical I don't

I would not want to rule out an Eleanor Roosevelt. on the other hand I would probably never vote for a Susan Sarandon.

All corporations are not alike.

I do find that while people often rail against "the corporations" the same people vote corporate with their wallets as a matter of choice-Apple?

The manufacturer of Skittles (Mars) rebuked the Trump scion's nasty attack on immigrants.

"Skittles are candy, Refugees re people" While the may have been protecting their brand-they did not have to speak up on a political issue.

I think putting all rich people, or all. corporations in the same bag, or all Republican voters is not helpful.

[Ken Burch]

57. There aren't any Eleanor Roosevelts or Bobby Kennedys anymore

We can't win by waiting for such people to reemerge out of nowhere.

[delisen]

63. The worthiness of E Roosevelt was not realized when she was first on the national scene

I am not waiting for someone to emerge-just don't see logic in discriminating based on wealth.

I think there were better people ,more experienced and wiser than JFK in 1960. He probably got much traction from his wealth and social set, and personal charm.

I am definitely in favor of a more level playing field and could see the search for not rich candidates becoming a stated objective for Dems-but don' want to rule out a person of wealth. There are rich women, who have put themselves on the line for others

I note that many of the ruthless and unwise tea partiers now in office were not rich but toady to the rich.
In the past I have known Democrats who were not rich when entering office-but had no problem selling out their constituents and enriching themselves.

[Ken Burch]

70. With JFK, charm and charisma played a huge role.

And the only reason the race between JFK and Nixon was a cliffhanger was anti-Catholicism. take that out of the equation and JFK would probably have ended up with 54-56% of the vote.

My point is that we need someone with no real connection to any semblance of an elite.

A qualified, intelligent person who has a real sense of what living outside of wealth might be like.

[Hoyt]

58. Carter was well enough off, as was Kerry. But I agree, the wealthy should be looked at closely.

[lunatica]

60. Do you seriously think all rich people are like Trump?!

Even the rich don't like him.

[delisen]

64. Should we also limit our voters to the non-rich?

[Ken Burch]

101. There's not that many rich voters, so even if that were possible-and it isn't-it wouldn't harm us.

n/t.

[JI7]

110. except the non rich that voted trump did more harm than any rich that didn't

[George II]

65. "we will need a candidate unlike any we have ever nominated anymore"?

Was Bill Clinton wealthy in 1992? Was Barack Obama wealthy in 2008?

I would take either tomorrow. Why do we need to apply a financial litmus test on our candidates, rather than just assess their policies and character?

[Ken Burch]

107. Actually, neither was.

Bill was a sitting governor and Obama was a first term U.S. senator. Neither of them came from a wealthy background.

[George II]

119. Exactly my point, you said though that....

"we will need a candidate unlike any we have ever nominated"

[WinkyDink]

66. Well, there once was a Joe Biden we could have had. And a John Edwards who doomed his own career.

[BainsBane]

68. Edwards talked a good talk

I just couldn't believe anything he said. I'd look at him and think, this guy would be great if he were sincere. I just got a dishonest feeling from him. I later discovered my sister felt the same way. Turned out we were on to something.

[WinkyDink]

69. I'm not so sure infidelity is a good way to judge a person's attitude about the poor.

[tammywammy]

71. No, when he went to work for a hedge fund to learn about financial markets & poverty

Was a good indication.

[WinkyDink]

120. I'm a Democrat because I believe in the haves helping the have-nots. I can draw a distinction

between private life---including wealth---and social consciousness, in this case a politician's proposed programs and laws for the have-nots.

[BainsBane]

75. This was before the infidelity became known

I trusted my instincts.

[JI7]

82. agree, and he is the one who said he joined the hedge fund to learn about poverty

he also exaggeration where he came from. he had a pretty good life.

it wasn't like bill clinton grew up.

and he switched his positions depending on what would benefit him. in 2004 he attacked kerry with right wing attacks such as wanting to throw money at the problem. and he went after clinton on morals.

he also co sponsered the IWR but a bunch of those who attacked other democrats for it supported him.

[Ken Burch]

87. I felt the same way.

There was just something way too slick about him-too John Grisham cynical lawyer-y.

[Ken Burch]

73. Biden kept dooming his OWN career, too.

He lost women by throwing Anita Hill to the wolves in the Thomas hearings and there was that absurd situation where he plagiarized a great speech from a British politician(having apparently forgotten that that speech might possibly have been preserved on videotape.

[PoliticAverse]

105. Many people still don't forgive him over the Anita Hill issue. As to the plagiarized speech...

I've never considered that a big deal. It's not like politicians write most of their speeches themselves anyway.

[alarimer]

67. We need people from all levels to run.

I think it would be a very good idea for the DNC (or whomever) to recruit candidates from the working and middle classes, because they would know what they are talking about. Too many Democrats are wealthy (or somehow got wealthy as politicians-how in the hell does that happen unless it's graft?), Ivy League types who have no idea what it's like to struggle.

And yet we still seem to nominate the same old, same old every single time.

[NCTraveler]

74. I worked on a house campaign for a middle class business owner.

It almost destroyed her. At that point in time her business had around three million in revenues. That means she worked a lot of hours to keep things going. You don't just get to hire someone. People like that, who we would love to run for office, are the most personally damaged for doing so. It's a really tough aspect. Being a candidates means time. What many of these people have the least of.

[PoliticAverse]

106. Yes, being wealthy gives you a great advantage in time. n/t

[Worktodo]

111. NC state reps get $13k a year

That's not a government of the people. So for a population of 10 million and 120 house members -- that's an average of 83000 constituents per member. To represent 83,000 people you get paid $13k a year? No thanks. In practice this is disenfranchisement of the common citizen and locks out all but the wealthy / clergy / farmers.

[alarimer]

118. In practice, I know it isn't easy.

Especially on a state level, where it would be a fulltime job at a fraction of the pay.

But the result is that on the already well-off are capable of doing it. I do think local races (school board, councils) are important too and maybe wouldn't be too onerous in terms of time.

Or maybe I just mean recruiting people from different backgrounds, even if their present circumstances are different.

[NCTraveler]

121. This is where we should be able to rely more on the DNC...

for stronger structure, organization, and support. I'm all about the school board and such. Those campaigns are often very difficult with more insider dealing than the "larger" seats. Such a difficult aspect. It can be done. I'm not simply dismissing it over this aspect. Just saying it is another advantage in electoral politics for the wealthy.

[JHan]

78. seems a sure fire way to become disappointed ...

Yes, we do need representatives who understand , are sympathetic to, can relate to what constituents need/want.

But there is no guarantee the special someone described in your OP, just going by what you're describing, will be what you want them to be when they're in a position to govern.

You've already placed huge expectations on them, assuming that their being an outsider means they will and must govern a particular way. It doesn't account for the support needed for them to be who you want them to be or the political terrain. And understanding hardship is a very broad requirement, people learn different lessons from hardships.

Note well, that FDR was FDR because he had majorities to be FDR.

There were similar expectations of Obama, who ran as a gadfly, and who progressives quickly became annoyed with when he hit the executive branch. And he was abandoned in 2010.

There's no perfect way of making sure your method will give the outcome you want. Maybe it shouldn't be the focus.

[GulfCoast66]

79. When you call Kennedy a hard line cold warrior is that a complaint?

Because the Soviet Union definitely was a huge threat and defeating them was a noble goal. Many great members of the Democratic party worked hard to make sure that happened. The model societies that many of us see in the western European Nations only exist because there were hard line cold warriors like Kennedy.

The fact that we starred too long at the abyss and became too much like them does not discount the horror that the USSR afflicted on their own people, not to mention their neighbors.

Too many liberals, like conservatives, want to see the world as a black and white place. Hell, that is human nature...good vs. bad. The reality is much more complicated.

We need good people. Rich or not. But I will tell you this much. There are very few Americans, including this one who will vote for a person on their late 40's, 50's, 60's or even 70's who have not experienced success in their chosen field. It that field happens to include becoming wealthy, so be it.

That is why I see the right as total hypocrites. A man who has declared bankruptcy 4 times is by definition incompetent.

[onenote]

80. Because they might be the best candidate?

Its silly to say we shouldn't nominate someone wealthy without knowing who the other possible nominees are and what their record and positions are.

[democratisphere]

81. The wealthy and the wealthiest are completely out of touch with humanity.

THEY can not effectively represent contituents that largely live paycheck to paycheck and struggle everyday to pay their bills.

[pnwmom]

114. How about those who spend two years working in the Peace Corps? Are they all completely

out of touch with humanity?

[democratisphere]

115. Who are "those"? Chris Mathews?

[pnwmom]

130. I was thinking of this person:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8898669

[betsuni]

88. This has to be about a Clinton, but the only one who comes close to being raised in wealth

is Chelsea, and she's not running for anything. If she does it'll be far in the future. Not to worry! The United States is safe from the scourge of Democrats raised in nothing but wealth for the time being. Whew.

[Ken Burch]

93. It's not about a Clinton. It's about whoever we might consider in the future.

I'd say the same thing about anyone else raised in luxury.

[betsuni]

99. The only ones being "raised in luxury" are the vulgar rich like Trumps and Kardashians.

I don't know who you're worried will be like Trump.

[JI7]

102. i'm wondering the same thing

who does he think will be like trump...............

[betsuni]

103. I think this game is called Extreme False Equivalency.

[NCTraveler]

122. I think you are spot on. nt.

[nini]

104. Ridiculous broad brush

How about we judge people on their character?

The richest guy i know - and he is uber rich- has quit work and dedicates his time to low income tenant rights. He'd make a fine elected official.

[Worktodo]

108. Elected officials have low low salaries

In some states below minimum wage. This ensures that only the independently wealthy or clergy have the time and money to run for office. Want a better state legislature? Then stop paying them $23k/yr and start paying them $70k/yr or more. Want a better Congress? Then stop locking out everyone but the wealthy (and clergy) from state legislatures. I know this is a vastly unpopular idea (it's expensive!) but we as citizens are getting what we pay for.

Edit: I didn't realize but some states are worse than I thought possible. $10k/yr. or $100/yr. or no salary at all. You get what you pay for. Only the wealthy can afford to run for office.

[Ken Burch]

109. You've got a valid point.

n/t.

[Worktodo]

112. Yeah I worked for a guy many years ago...

and asked him why he paid so well (it was a pretty low level job but I did handle cash), and he said:

"When you pay people $6 an hour they'll steal from you. When you pay them $10 an hour they won't steal from you. But when you pay them $15 an hour they'll tell you who's stealing from you."

I think about that a lot when I look at these legislative salaries!!!

[pnwmom]

113. Suppose that a person from a wealthy family had worked hard his whole life

to make something of himself. Should he be denied that chance because of an accident of birth?

Suppose he worked hard and did very well at Stanford. Suppose his roommates called him "Milk man" because he didn't drink. Suppose he spent 2 years in the Peace Corps before going on to get his law degree at Harvard. Suppose he was a prosecutor before running for Congress. Suppose in 2016 he beat his Republican opponent by more than 40 points.

Should that fact that his name was Joseph Kennedy exclude him from ever running for President, no matter how hard he worked or what he had accomplished?

[ck4829]

116. It's easier (and more comforting I guess) to beg for scraps than to have the people lead

People are resisting this concept I see, kind of like how people are resisting the concept that the House and Senate under Ryan and McConnell are not legitimate bodies befitting of the first article of the Constitution... the fantasy that we somehow beat gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the sway of propaganda that is leading a small but organized number of people to be more and more willing to inflict harm on themselves and others just to show up liberals and the 'other' to regain power in 2018 or 2020 is more comforting than the idea that the reality that the system itself is becoming anti-Democrat and anti-liberal.

Money and extreme wealth is a table scrap just like working with the system even though that same system is being used to erase liberals from the discourse except as a pejorative term is another. The sooner we realize this, the better.

[get the red out]

117. I care more

about the policies someone embraces and their track record supporting those.

[NCTraveler]

124. This one took a little effort. lol. Just kidding.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. Let's judge folks by the content of their character and not the size of their assets.

[Orsino]

126. Because that might be our best available option at the time.

I would like us to view wealth and dynasties with suspicion, but as long as America is equating money with power it will be difficult to avoid rich candidates completely.

If the left had a Trumpishly-wealthy celebrity willing to jump in as a relative neophyte, that candidate could still be worth a look.

[whathehell]

128. Your dismissal of FDR as a "class traitor" and a "one off,"

disturbs me..

For one thing, he was proud of the term "class traitor" applied to him by his greedy peers, and those who elected him to an unprecedented four term presidency loved him for it.

You do know that historians rank him as the Third greatest American President (some say 2nd), in history, don't you,?

Sorry, but I agree with the others -- It's not money, it's values.

[tinrobot]

129. I might support Bill Gates if he ever ran...

Not every rich person is evil.