Dems Rebuild

[Danny Bateman]

Calling Warren a 3rd way Dem on the basis of one bill is kind of hyperbolic, isn't it?
 

Not that I think we need an increase in defense spending or anything...

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, dudeguyy said:

Calling Warren a 3rd way Dem on the basis of one bill is kind of hyperbolic, isn't it?
 

Not that I think we need an increase in defense spending or anything...

It was meant to be somewhat hyperbolic; partly to show that Warren, Harris, and Booker aren't necessarily progressive and often support the 3rd Way part of the party.

[NM11046]

Seriously people need to get over HC.  She wrote a book.  Big woop.  So did Bernie.  Did his get this kind of beat down?  You know who else wrote one after losing the presidency?  Mike Huckabee, Barry Goldwater, Gary Hart, Mitt Romney etc etc.  She is not any different.  Except she's a woman - and she's actually won the popular vote.  Why in the world wouldn't she write a book to talk about that?  First woman to win a party vote to run?  First woman to lose?  One of two (?) that won the popular vote but didn't take office?  

 

My understanding in talking with people who have read it (that stuff isn't my cup of tea) is that she takes full blame, but points out all that played into her defeat -  she says she could have beaten any one of those candidates on the R side BUT Trump, that he was the strongest candidate for the Republicans.

 

Anyway people need to drop it.  Don't like her?  Wish she'd go away?  Don't buy/read the book and turn the channel or scroll by news about her.  I think she's taken enough battering from people who have no reason to be dragging out the hate.

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

Seriously people need to get over HC.  She wrote a book.  Big woop.  So did Bernie.  Did his get this kind of beat down?  You know who else wrote one after losing the presidency?  Mike Huckabee, Barry Goldwater, Gary Hart, Mitt Romney etc etc.  She is not any different.  Except she's a woman - and she's actually won the popular vote.  Why in the world wouldn't she write a book to talk about that?  First woman to win a party vote to run?  First woman to lose?  One of two (?) that won the popular vote but didn't take office?  

 

My understanding in talking with people who have read it (that stuff isn't my cup of tea) is that she takes full blame, but points out all that played into her defeat -  she says she could have beaten any one of those candidates on the R side BUT Trump, that he was the strongest candidate for the Republicans.

 

Anyway people need to drop it.  Don't like her?  Wish she'd go away?  Don't buy/read the book and turn the channel or scroll by news about her.  I think she's taken enough battering from people who have no reason to be dragging out the hate.

 

 

We're not the ones putting her out there or bringing her up again - Hillary is doing that herself. If she doesn't like it, then maybe not go on a book tour rehashing the 2016 campaign. But I suspect it doesn't bother her as she's been in the public her whole life.

 

And it's not the fact she wrote the book, but that she disingenuously claims to take blame right before putting everyone else on blast. She apparently spends 3 chapters on how Bernie hurt her chances, which is the very definition of a sore winner. It's stuff like this that makes her so unlikable. And Romney's book was similarly disingenuous and I thought even less of him after that one too. And Bernie took some heat for his own book as well.

[zoogs]

If we applied the same standards, then Bernie should shut up, his supporters should take a seat. Instead, they are both eager to assert themselves, their narratives about the election, and their agendas while simultaneously saying it's only right for Hillary to shut up. It's amazing, really.

 

I don't mind disagreeing with people or holding their policies in low esteem. You can defend your positions that way. What's far less defensible is the arbitrary, self-serving, and hypocritical standard people use to try to pummel an opponent into going away.

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, zoogs said:

If we applied the same standards, then Bernie should shut up, his supporters should take a seat. Instead, they are both eager to assert themselves, their narratives about the election, and their agendas while simultaneously saying it's only right for Hillary to shut up. It's amazing, really.

 

I don't mind disagreeing with people or holding their policies in low esteem. You can defend your positions that way. What's far less defensible is the arbitrary, self-serving, and hypocritical standard people use to try to pummel an opponent into going away.

Hillary's supporters ARE saying Bernie should shut up and sit down. Some lady who's name escapes me just said that on Bill Maher's show last week. Let's not pretend like this is one-sided.

[BigRedBuster]

11 hours ago, zoogs said:

If we applied the same standards, then Bernie should shut up, his supporters should take a seat. Instead, they are both eager to assert themselves, their narratives about the election, and their agendas while simultaneously saying it's only right for Hillary to shut up. It's amazing, really.

 

I don't mind disagreeing with people or holding their policies in low esteem. You can defend your positions that way. What's far less defensible is the arbitrary, self-serving, and hypocritical standard people use to try to pummel an opponent into going away.

Bernie is still involved as an elected official to the US Senate.  He is probably going to run for President again.

There is a HUGE difference between the positions both are in.

 

Look, Hillary can do whatever she wants.  My personal opinion is that the more she is involved with writing books blaming everyone but her and being in the public eye.....the more damage she does to the Democratic party.  Have it however you want.

[knapplc]

Where are the young, new Democrats?  I've been asking this since last November.  We still have Bernie (who's only half a Democrat), Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer & Warren as the face of their party.  You want me to vote for you?  Don't run on last election's failed ideas.  Duh.

[knapplc]

This is not helping my "Hillary is no longer relevant" mantra.  This is just going to keep her in the spotlight longer and longer. 

 

 

 

[RedDenver]

24 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Where are the young, new Democrats?  I've been asking this since last November.  We still have Bernie (who's only half a Democrat), Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer & Warren as the face of their party.  You want me to vote for you?  Don't run on last election's failed ideas.  Duh.

Kamala Harris is younger and is likely the big money choice thus far, so pencil her in as a front runner.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Bernie is still involved as an elected official to the US Senate.  He is probably going to run for President again.

There is a HUGE difference between the positions both are in.

 

Look, Hillary can do whatever she wants.  My personal opinion is that the more she is involved with writing books blaming everyone but her and being in the public eye.....the more damage she does to the Democratic party.  Have it however you want.

 

That's not what she does in the book.

[knapplc]

She casts blame in a lot of places, but should be almost entirely focused on herself.

 

LINK
 

Quote

 

Clinton is unsparing in her criticism of Trump and also lays out some of the factors she believes contributed to her loss: interference from Russian hackers, accusations leveled at her by former FBI Director James Comey, a divisive primary battle with Bernie Sanders, even her gender. She also addresses common criticisms of her campaign, including the idea that she didn't have a compelling narrative for seeking the presidency and that she ignored Midwestern turf where Trump picked up enough white working-class voters to win several battleground states.

 

"Some critics have said that everything hinged on me not campaigning enough in the Midwest," Clinton writes in the book "What Happened." ''And I suppose it is possible that a few more trips to Saginaw or a few more ads on the air in Waukesha could have tipped a couple of thousand voters here or there."

 

"But let's set the record straight: we always knew that the industrial Midwest was crucial to our success, just as it had been for Democrats for decades, and contrary to the popular narrative, we didn't ignore those states," she wrote.

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

One thing I've admired (and still admire) about Clinton is that she just does whatever she wants. People can hate her all they want, tell her to shut up and go away... but she's going to do what she is going to do. She wrote a book and occasionally makes statements on the state of the country. God forbid. I do admire the ability to just ignore the fact that half or more of the country despises her mere existence and go on about her life as usual. 

 

As for young Democrats, I'd suggest Harris, Booker, Seth Moulton, Jason Kander, Tammy Ducksworth, Joe Kennedy... there are plenty of fresh faces if you look a bit. Yes, Pelosi & Schumer are going to be faces of the party as Congressional leaders. Yes Bernie and Hillary are still around. But that doesn't make them the future of the party. Just the one's with the biggest platform at the moment. Bernie is the only one I could possibly see running in 2020. 

 

There's a collection of different profiles & perspectives on them from Politico if you want to learn more about any of them.

[Danny Bateman]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

She casts blame in a lot of places, but should be almost entirely focused on herself.

 

LINK
 

 

 

Multiple things can be true at once. I think we have to be honest about that.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

One thing I've admired (and still admire) about Clinton is that she just does whatever she wants.

 

So does Trump.