HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » The Good Fight

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:41 PM

The Good Fight

One of the most interesting dynamics of election contests -- be they primaries or general elections -- is how campaigns adjust their tactics. Being the “front-runner” is very different from being at the back of a pack. When we look at the current republican primary, we see shifts in who will attack who, in hopes of gaining a strategic advantage. And in the Democratic primary, we have witnessed a change in tactics, for a reason that was highlighted by a recent poll.

Attacking your opponent’s strength can be a winning campaign technique. In recent times, of course, Karl Rove attempted to claim this tactic as his original brain-child. The republican Pillsbury doughboy’s lack of any meaningful success since 2004 suggests that Karl understood “how,” but not “why,” this tactic can succeed. Indeed, it can also fail.

A Quinnipiac poll from the recent Iowa primary contest showed that 93% of Democrats view Bernie Sanders as “honest and trustworthy.” While Hillary Clinton won the Iowa contest, it was so close as to be a virtual tie. Hence, the “honest and trustworthy” character traits associated in the public’s mind were identified as the strength that needed to be attacked.

In a general election for the Oval Office, it frequently falls upon the vice presidential candidate to be the attack dog. This has been best illustrated, over the decades, by some of the republican VP candidates -- Nixon in the 1950s, Agnew under Nixon, Bob Dole, and Sarah Palin all come to mind. But, in a primary contest, it is usually better to have the campaign, rather than the candidate, go on the offensive. (Donald Trump is clearly an exception to this rule, which serves as an accurate measure of how dysfunctional the republican party is in 2016.)

To a small extent, both Sanders and Clinton have confronted one another during their debates. Bernie has spoken of Hillary’s “Super Pac,” in the context of it being evidence that she is part of the political establishment that is corrupted by Wall Street. Hillary has attempted to frame this as a smear campaign. Another debate topic came from a non-debate question a journalist asked Bernie: Is Hillary a progressive? Sanders’s answer was based upon Clinton’s telling certain audiences that she is a moderate, centrist Democrat. Her response was to falsely claim that Sanders had appointed himself “keeper of the gate” for defining who is progressive -- something that is pure fiction.

Going into New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton was gaining the endorsements of numerous good, high-profile Democrats. However, while this is effective in some circles, it cemented her image of being an establishment candidate in other circles. More, the fact that Bernie identifies as a Democratic Socialist -- which had been considered his greatest weakness -- was proving to be a strength, when the public learned what that actually implies.

Hence, we are seeing the Clinton campaign go after Sanders on issues relating to his honesty and trustworthiness. This comes as no surprise, as it was easily anticipated. A first step in attacking a person’s character is to attempt to make them appear “different.” Like the infamous “Dean scream” made Howard seem a bit odd. Thus, part of the recent post-debate spin includes “did you see how often Bernie waves a hand while Hillary is answering a question?” Or, the focus on Bernie’s attempt to get in “the last word” on certain questions. Gosh! You’d think he was running for office, or something.

The new low-point that the Clinton campaign has plunged to has been its attempt to discredit Sanders’s history with the Civil Rights movement. Sanders, of course, has never claimed that he was a leader in the movement. Rather, he was one of the thousands of people who put himself on the line -- even getting arrested -- during the struggle.

This Clinton campaign tactic is as unethical as anything the 2000 Bush campaign employed against McCain in South Carolina. Even when exposed, it did not hurt Bush back then, because their party values a good lie over ethics every time. But it may not play as well within the 2016 Democratic primaries. As the public learns that the Clinton campaign will stoop to low blows about an issue as important as Civil Rights, it just might backfire.

Keep on fighting the Good Fight!
H2O Man

57 replies, 2798 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Good Fight (Original post)
H2O Man Feb 2016 OP
antigop Feb 2016 #1
H2O Man Feb 2016 #6
antigop Feb 2016 #12
passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #26
myrna minx Feb 2016 #2
H2O Man Feb 2016 #7
BeyondGeography Feb 2016 #3
H2O Man Feb 2016 #8
BeyondGeography Feb 2016 #13
mrdmk Feb 2016 #4
H2O Man Feb 2016 #9
mrdmk Feb 2016 #15
Zorra Feb 2016 #5
H2O Man Feb 2016 #10
Zorra Feb 2016 #20
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #11
H2O Man Feb 2016 #33
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #37
H2O Man Feb 2016 #38
antigop Feb 2016 #14
H2O Man Feb 2016 #34
Gregorian Feb 2016 #16
H2O Man Feb 2016 #35
cyberswede Feb 2016 #17
H2O Man Feb 2016 #36
malthaussen Feb 2016 #18
winter is coming Feb 2016 #21
Z_California Feb 2016 #23
passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #27
H2O Man Feb 2016 #41
malthaussen Feb 2016 #50
H2O Man Feb 2016 #52
bigtree Feb 2016 #19
Z_California Feb 2016 #22
bigtree Feb 2016 #25
passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #28
bigtree Feb 2016 #29
H2O Man Feb 2016 #42
Dont call me Shirley Feb 2016 #24
H2O Man Feb 2016 #43
Dont call me Shirley Feb 2016 #48
Unknown Beatle Feb 2016 #30
H2O Man Feb 2016 #44
Unknown Beatle Feb 2016 #56
H2O Man Feb 2016 #57
Ron Green Feb 2016 #31
H2O Man Feb 2016 #45
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #32
H2O Man Feb 2016 #46
2banon Feb 2016 #39
H2O Man Feb 2016 #47
enigmatic Feb 2016 #40
H2O Man Feb 2016 #49
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #51
H2O Man Feb 2016 #53
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #54
H2O Man Feb 2016 #55

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:53 PM

1. well, what do you expect? It's all they got. If you can't attack on the issues... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:53 PM

6. As has been noted before,

the Clinton campaign did not consider Sanders a serious threat when he entered the campaign. Even in the fall, Bernie's growing strength was considered regional and temporary -- something that could be effectively countered by simply having their candidate "go to the left" for a time. It has been a strange reality for them, for the long-time Hillary supporters remember very well how the right-wing,rabid republicans have long attacked her for being a "Marxist." And here she is in a close contest with a socialist.

It's a fascinating era we live in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:20 PM

12. all this is doing is damaging the party.

If HRC happens to make it through to the Dem nomination, she will have p*ssed so many Dems off that there will be little enthusiasm for the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:51 PM

26. Well, to be honest

Chomsky is correct on this. Bernie may call himself a socialist, but he's not. He's a New Deal democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:05 PM

2. Your essays and insights are always a pleasure to read. Thanks. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:56 PM

7. Thank you!

I do hope that my education and experience in politics allows me to contribute things that add to our DU community's discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:08 PM

3. Love taps compared with what he would face in the GE so, good practice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:58 PM

8. Respectfully disagree.

I believe that the Clinton campaign is superior to anything the republicans can produce. I think that the 2008 Democratic primary and general election proved that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:25 PM

13. That's TBD

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:09 AM - Edit history (1)

In a primary some things are off limits because you want your opponent's supporters to vote for you at the end of the day. Plus whatever disagreements you have are usually questions of degree rather than profound philosophical disagreements, which is another limiting factor. That said, it's still early and the Clinton campaign probably will throw the kitchen sink at Bernie if his momentum continues to build.

On edit, Skinner says it well here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1246527

There's a productive side to attacks. Obama was well-served by his trials in the 2008 primary, which took potentially devastating issues like Rev. Wright off the table (not only that, they gave him the chance to shine, as in the Philadelphia speech). By the time the GE came around he and his ideas were pretty much fully vetted. Bernie hasn't faced a fraction of that yet and if he does it will only mean he has a chance to win and he will be a better GE candidate for it, as was Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:21 PM

4. Character is still important to this society, up and down, left and right, what-ever to what-ever


There were a lot of views expressed back in the year of 2000 that were less than honest. To tell the truth, I feel as if most people were just glad to make it pass the New Year. Being told that airplanes were going to fall from the sky, a long list of assorted power grids that were to cease to function thus blow-up, Russian society is going to fail and become some sort of, 'Mad Max!' It was a hell of a year to have a presidential election when people were tired of hearing bullshit.

Today people feel empowered to call out the B.S. with impunity. For the most part, the media needs to wake up to this fact. Sometimes the media is very slow about these facts. Just like they woke up to the Vietnam war back in the Nineteen-Seventies after fifth-teen years of an annihilation of a country . For the most part, the media is too big, too expensive, and most of all, too full of itself. People are in a mode to not put up with it anymore.

By the way, Karl Rove was no genius, he got lucky with his timing. This is said because, there is a lot of doubt in my mind Rove could pull off another Bush Jr. if he tried. He's not that good.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrdmk (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:01 PM

9. Right.

I hope that I made clear in the OP that Rove's lack of anything approaching success since George W. Bush indicates that he didn't have any special talent. In fact, Bush lost in 2000, but for the US Supreme Court's corruption of the presidential election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:30 PM

15. Yep, 2000 and by extension 2004. Bush did not win...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:25 PM

5. Recommend.

It's heartbreaking to see Democrats sink so low; and no matter who wins the nomination, low blows have already landed, and have backfired with Democrats who expect, and demand, integrity from those who seek to represent them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:03 PM

10. I don't like it.

As the great Smokin' Joe Frazier said, "There's no wrong way to do right, and no right way to do wrong." If the Clinton campaign brought up true weaknesses in Sanders's past, it would be one thing. But to peddle lies is just plain old wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:00 PM

20. I really, really like that saying, thanks.

Not keeping it real was, and is, a huge mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign, and the fact that they don't even seem to understand this yet is disturbing.

The only professional boxing match I've ever seen live was Joe Frazier vs. Jerry Quarry at MSG in 1969. A famous old time boxer, I think it was Jack Dempsey, spoke from ring prior to the fight. I was going to school on the east coast at the time, working there during summer break, and a friend had tickets and invited me.

I'm sure you know the rest, poor Jerry Quarry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:19 PM

11. Well said, keep on keeping the good fight, Bernie peeps...it is far from over. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:27 PM

33. Right.

Social justice requires on-going struggle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:36 PM

37. Absolutely and well after should we win. I feel people are prepared for this fight for democracy.

I remain hopeful, H20 Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:28 PM

38. I am more

than hopeful; I'm downright confident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:27 PM

14. and thanks for some sanity in GD-P nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:28 PM

34. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:41 PM

16. I can't quite put my finger on what I see between the lines.

Your posts are like little courses in political science. I had never thought that what Rove does could fail. I thought it was simply lighting a match. This is hopeful.

What I think I'm reading between the lines is that when someone is only playing to win, the hand they can play is limited. It's a destructive hand. Whereas, even though on the defensive, if someone is working to build something, the hand they are dealt is one which contains hope for the people, and their future. It contains something which is vital for human society and wellbeing. Tearing down can only go so far. You can only crush down to the ground. Building up knows no limits.

While thinking about this I can see that this can span administrations. The history that Rovian politics has revealed is a sinister plan, despite being hidden. Time has revealed the truth of those attacks. Some still don't see it, but most do.

I think we're making a case that the good fight will win in the end. It sure hasn't felt that way though.

It's great that you share your wealth of experience. I continue to learn from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:30 PM

35. I think you

get what I'm saying. And I appreciate like-minded people participating in a discussion. It is one of the most valuable things associated with DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:47 PM

17. Excellent, as always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:30 PM

36. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:50 PM

18. I'll be interested to see how the Sanders camp deals with legitimacy.

When/if Mr Sanders is clearly seen as the front-runner, and acknowledged as such with attendant media fuss and bother, will those who embrace him because he is an "outsider" lose their enthusiasm? Will his campaign start to make compromises with the power brokers that are viewed as invidious by the unwashed mass? There is a possibility, probably remote, that the campaign will begin to implode under the weight of its own success (I can find a cloud in every silver lining).

The other day somebody posted an article which asserted that the millennial generation do recognize that Mrs Clinton is astute, competent, and a consummate player of the political game, and despise her exactly because of that, not despite it. That they want a revolution, and voting for the status quo candidate, however excellent she may be, is not going to satisfy them. While I'm leery of categorizing whole demographic segments in this fashion, it is an illuminating point, which boils down to telling the Clinton people that yes, these children are opposed to her as a conscious and informed decision, and not because they are simply spoiled brats who don't understand the stakes. That Mr Sanders has the overwhelming support of those millennials who choose to be involved at all is clear, but the number of millennials who choose to be involved is still disappointingly small. No doubt there are strategies evolving to address this, but it also should be considered that the last thing Mr Sanders needs is to evoke a reaction among the disaffected of "he's just like all the rest."

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:15 PM

21. Being perceived as the frontrunner won't lessen Bernie's support.

People are embracing him because he champions the cause of ordinary people. It's not about Bernie; it's about us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:28 PM

23. It's about honesty and integrity

That won't change when he's perceived as the front-runner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 04:20 PM

27. He's not changed since he first entered politics

He's never been like all the rest. He is consistent. That is why people trust him. And he will not change because he becomes front runner. It's far fetched to even consider this a possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:45 PM

41. Very good.

There are definitely distinctions between being the top choice and an underdog. No doubt about it. In Bernie's case, I think that as his strength grows, he will become even more popular with the younger generation.

I think that a bigger question would be if Bernie is elected, if people of all ages will continue to be active participants in the political process, exercising their constitutional rights -- and recognizing them as responsibilities -- or will they view his winning as the completion of their service? I think that was one of the huge failures with regard to our having elected President Obama -- far too many people then sat back, satisfied that this defined "victory."

In order to reduce the differences in how Democratic politicians campaign, and how they serve, we need to remain very active.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:02 PM

50. Also an excellent point.

In a way, I consider the election of POTUS to be a side-show, because the greatest POTUS in the world can do very little without cooperation. (Imagine what Jesus Christ would accomplish in today's Washington... probably be hung up on a tree again, and by the very people who brag about their "Christianity." This is why it is important, IMO, to consider the ramifications of that word "revolution." Although the John Birch Society was an abomination on the face of the earth, they did give us one useful precept: "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." As the majority of Americans appear to have decided to hide their heads in the sand and let Saint Reagan make it all better a generation ago, they definitely need to wake up and realize that the Presidency is not a Maverick missile, you can't just fire and forget about it. Democracy requires participation, especially in a country where capitalism is so dominant, or else the rascals will take over at first opportunity. I don't think this is fully understood, and I cringe whenever someone talks about the need for "leadership," because it implies that we followers can just let Daddy take over and make all well. Leaders are nice if one needs the way pointed in the wilderness -- but the path still has to be walked by the people, not just the "leader."

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #50)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:06 PM

52. Right.

I am convinced that as an individual, the president is generally more able to do harm than good, in our current political environment. For in his/her attempts to do harm, a president will have the backing of 60%+ of Congress. The only way that a president can institute progress in this era is if he/she has the active support of a large percentage of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:53 PM

19. the 'Clinton campaign' did not attempt to discredit Sanders on civil rights

...if you want to go down the road to blaming supporters, we can begin to associate all sorts of nonsense to the Sanders campaign in rebuttal.

Hillary Clinton has never questioned Sanders civil rights efforts. The effort to make an issue out of the claim by highlighting what independent allies might say or do is a slippery slope which could very well backfire for the Sanders campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:26 PM

22. Oh please.

I know you can't believe that. It wasn't even artful. This was an obvious coordinated attack that has been planned and timed to come after NH going into the Southern primaries.

People aren't only tired of corruption, we're tired of our intelligence being insulted which is what her disaster of a campaign staff does to us on an almost daily basis.

We're not dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Z_California (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:37 PM

25. campaign rhetoric

...I could just as easily claim Bernie Bros. misogyny is a deliberate campaign strategy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 04:29 PM

28. It's just a coincidence that it happened all together, right?

Sorry. Brock was involved in this whole smear campaign to discredit Bernie's creds with civil rights and African Americans.


Mr. Sanders released a 60-second commercial in Iowa on Thursday that features the Simon and Garfunkel song “America” and that seeks to remind his supporters how far he has come since declaring his candidacy.


the advertising presented a “bizarre” image of America focused on white voters. Mr. Brock also said the ad was a “significant slight to the Democratic base,” according to the news agency.

“From this ad it seems black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders,” Mr. Brock told The Associated Press.


http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/21/david-brock-ally-of-hillary-clinton-skewers-new-bernie-sanders-ad/?_r=0

It's a well orchestrated smear campaign, and no accident that AA's (Capehart and Lewis) are involved in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 04:48 PM

29. like I said, if coordination can be claimed for Clinton

...the same can be claimed for Sanders.

This is bush league stuff for campaigns. i suggest leaving this kind of nonsense out of discussions here. It's better suited for campaign operatives with their millions of dollars in fees riding on their performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:52 PM

42. Sure they did.

There is absolutely no question about that, so now I'll address your second point.

Without question, there are pro-Bernie people -- even here, in the highly civilized environment that you and I know as DU -- who make ugly, untrue statements about Hillary Clinton. And I find that equally objectionable.

However, one thing that each of my four children learned early on was that if I was talking to them about a specific behavior on their part, it was a waste of their time to say, "Oh, yeah? Well, what about ______'s behavior? He/she did _______!" For my answer was always the same: we are not discussing anyone but you. I don't do distractions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:31 PM

24. Would love to see the next president (Bernie Sanders) start a new New Deal Revolution. Undo

the Reagan/Bush "Revolution"! 35 years of misery, fraud, deception, war on everything, declining wages and benefits, expansion of bigotry, religious "right", rabid growth of .01%, spy on your neighbor, overt meanness, mass shootings, return of Hoovervilles, police killings of innocents, militarization of police, destruction of business and environmental regulations, corporate Fascism, attacks on women and our rights, and a constant heavy feeling of impending doom is more than anyone can tolerate anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:52 PM

43. Well said!

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:56 PM

48. Thank you for your awesome OP, H2O Man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:18 PM

30. This is not a good political era we live in.

Because of Bill Clinton's policies, with strong support from Hillary, we have record high numbers of children in poverty, homelessness is on the rise, Hillary's support for the Iraq war, millions of dead and displaced Iraqis, I could go on, but Hillary is a neocon war hawk with no regard for poverty and homelessness.

We needn't be in such an era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Unknown Beatle (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:54 PM

44. Interesting.

I tend to agree with what you said. But I suspect that things had to become this bad, inorder for enough people to become ready to do so much good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 04:34 PM

56. Why do things need to become bad for people to do good?

We were on tract for doing good when JFK was elected president. Then someone assassinated him. Same thing with his brother RFK and someone assassinated him too. There's people out there that don't want to help the common people and they'll do anything to stop it. Scalia was a perfect example.

But I get your point. It's bad enough now that we need people to do good, and enough are ready and willing to contribute to end greed and madness. On that I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Unknown Beatle (Reply #56)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 04:41 PM

57. Very good.

I think that your example of JFK was more accurate; things were pretty rough in the US in 1968.

I do not know the answer. But, so often, we see the very best in humanity, as a group, when there is some tragic event, and people in need. That's not to suggest that we see the daily behaviors of all the individuals, most of whom are good people. And some behave the same, and treat others with equal respect, on good days as well as bad, and everything in between.

But, for some reason -- likely a variety -- everyday good behavior rarely makes the news, and society tends to set back much of the time.

That's a great question -- one I surely can't answer -- and thank you for posing it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:31 PM

31. Recommended. Hillary's very methodology is part of the old paradigm,

the one Bernie is seeking to change. He's so outside the norm for candidates of the past half-century, I don't see anything they can throw at him that'll stick - as long as we are indeed moving into a new political economy. And if we're not, then we're no more screwed than we would have been without Bernie as a candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:55 PM

45. Right.

Our system requires more than a mere tune-up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:44 PM

32. Great post. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:55 PM

46. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:00 PM

39. outstanding post, H2O Man, as always!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:55 PM

47. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:07 PM

40. Yo'ure the best, most talented writer on DU, Waterman.

I've been here off and on for 12 years and you consistently raise the the level of your writing each year.

Always look forward to your OPs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enigmatic (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:58 PM

49. Oh, thank you!

As tempting as it is to ask, "What? I couldn't quite hear you!," I will say that I am glad that you and others appreciate my contributions to our community's discussions. I'm glad to be on the same team ....and hope that it includes everyone, no matter which of our twoo candidates they may support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:05 PM

51. An excellent OP!

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:07 PM

53. Thank you!

There are a lot of really good points raised in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #53)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:13 PM

54. I agree this thread has made many good points, to all the participants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #54)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:15 PM

55. I like that

even those who disagree with the OP are engaging in meaningful, non-hostile, discussions of the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread