General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Not my first choice, but I voted for her. [View all]clu
(494 posts)emoprog? please. i wasn't here in the run-up to the election so i don't know everything that went on, related to animosity. i found it curious when the media talked the sharp nature of the campaign when the dem debates seemed within bounds to me. the only place i heard about a negative campaign was from Hillary - er Barbara boxer - broadcast on the wall at the NV primary. i concede that during the first debate he came off sounding a little short, but his second debate had a better tone. he won that debate handily - Hillary was booed.
I read somewhere the DNC/party plan is to reach out to middle America. while that is important, remember that we can barely get ourselves (as a nation) out to vote. sanders had a huge amount of momentum going into NY but then we started hearing stories about jane sanders college. that, combined with a perceived lack of energy policy (IMO) fluttered his campaign. that is when the "outsiders" would start hearing a different buzz on the street. he should have come out strong for wind, nuclear (whether he meant it or not), and smart oil/gas less coal and would have appeared much stronger.
just the other day i was thinking about who really would have abstained from voting due to a Hillary nomination. it is not a progressive or dem, but one of those elusive middle-of-the-roaders. i supported Kucinich (how's that for unelectable) but voted for Obama and watched every state of the union until he ruled out a public health care option. at that point i knew it was business as usual. i doubt we'll have as good of a candidate for a while, and it's unfortunate.
i don't mean to single out this post and i skimmed over a few of them. i suppose it was the first two lines that i have a problem with. don't blame progressives for a poorly run party strategy. lobbyist lobbyist lobbyist lobbyist, Koch Koch AM radio.