Try and promote one candidate other than Hillary

[bigtree]

...ffs, and don't just rail on and on about how opposed you are to Hillary. It's self-defeating to do nothing but just line up against one Democratic candidate and spend absolutely no time promoting the positions, declarations, opinions, etc. of others you would support. In the end, most of that negativity will just play into the hands of those whose goal is to divide our Democratic coalition among ourselves.

I think Hillary Clinton would be a tired and stale choice for those who expect more progressiveness in our politics and presidency, and I regularly post the views on issues and events from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Martin 'O'Malley. I've seen others here mention potential candidates, like Joe Biden, Sherrod Brown, Jim Webb, and several others who I have not considered as my personal choice, but I'd be very interested if their views were posted here (by those who support them) on a regular basis for contrast.

Bottom line is, though, it's easy as hell to talk about who you oppose; much more complex to present a candidate whose views are counter to that opposition; even easier to just throw your hands up and say screw them all, as some will do. We need positive politics to go with progressiveness if we expect to propel our issues into the national debate. That means making the hard choices of who to support and representing and defending them. That's what I'd like to see, going forward.

[msanthrope]

1. Excellent point...it's easy to cut down HRC...what are people doing to build other

candidates?

[MineralMan]

2. Just in the past couple of days, I've seen some folks promoting

O'Malley's candidacy, but only in general terms. Not too much talk about his positions on much of anything. Maybe people will start with that, since most of us aren't really that familiar with him. I don't follow politics in his state much at all, really, so his name really wasn't on the tip of my tongue. I suspect that's true of voters in most states, frankly.

I'd like to see people talk about his positions and why they make him a winning potential candidate. I've done a little looking, but there isn't a lot about him on national issues, and those will be the important ones.

I wonder if there are positions on some issues that will cause concern among progressives.

[leftofcool]

6. Progressives will love him but he has tax problems

He is a tax and spend guy which middle of the road Dems will hate. He loves raising taxes on the middle class to support the 1% no matter what he says. Under his governorship in Maryland, middle class income people lost their homes not because they could not pay their mortgage but because they could no longer afford their property taxes. We saw our property taxes jump from 700.00 per year to over 4000.00 in just one year and yet we did not get better roads, better schools etc... When we sold our home he charged us an extra 4,000 just because we retired and bought a home out of state. He claims to have a good environmental record and yet Perdue Chicken has been dumping toxic waste into the Bay for years and he allowed it. Don't even get me started about how the Chesapeake Bay looks. The new motto in Maryland while he was Governor instead of "Save the Bay" was "Pave the Bay."

[MineralMan]

7. I'm betting that progressives will also find fault with him.

In some cases, for the very things you mentioned. Environmental concerns are an issue, as is middle class economics.

[bigtree]

12. I heard him address the 'tax' issue in a speech last week

. where he declared that we can't just 'cut' ourselves into prosperity, but we need to invest in people in education; invest in our infrastructure; invest in new and emerging technologies in renewable energy; in health care, child care...

[bigtree]

10. Senator Sanders has said that he'll need an actual 'movement' to make a presidential bid real

...I agree with that. There's still time to make one happen, if he can achieve enough interest in a contrast between what he's proposing and what other establishment-oriented candidates represent.

That's the tack O'Malley is taking, speaking out about Wall St. reform last week - insisting that real reform comes from a willingness to actually hold banks and bankers accountable for abuses.

Another issue in the next election is immigration. O'Malley, in my state, has been an unabashed, unequivocal defender of immigrants; particularly children. He's been recognized by many prominent immigration organizations in Md. and has a solid record of not just support, but actual accomplishments in Md. for our immigrant community.

The environment is another area where O'Malley has staked out a very solid position and record of advocacy and action. I look forward to amplifying those initiatives (in other threads) and helping to provide a clear contrast with other candidates who are discussed.

[MineralMan]

11. Thanks. As I said, I'm unfamiliar with him.

We need information more than anything else.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. And just as quickly ...

I have seen folks casting his (possible) candidacy as a oligarchic plot to push to party further to the right.

[MineralMan]

35. In reality, there is no candidate who can win

who will meet the requirements of some. That has been clear to me since 2008. The failure to recognize that any President must satisfy over 50% of actual voters, nationwide is the cause of this. Any candidate who has the approval of the leftmost minority could never be elected. That is the incontrovertible fact.

Now, I'll duck and hide.

[Major Hogwash]

46. Things that make ya go "hmmmmm".

The failure to recognize that any President must satisfy over 50% of actual voters, nationwide is the cause of this.

Bill Clinton received only 43% of the vote from actual voters in 1992.

Link --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Then again, in 1996 Bill Clinton received only 49.2% of the vote from actual voters.

Link --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

[FrodosPet]

47. "Hi! I'm Martin O'Malley, NOT Hillary Clinton. and I AM running for President"

That would make him instantly popular. Nothing else would matter.

[HereSince1628]

3. Why at this time must we choose? It's not part of a logical sequence to do this first.

The way it works should be something like

1) Identify and prioritize problems that need solving.
2) Examine possible leadership to capably recruit an administrative team and enthusiastically lead the nation, party and administration along a path that -really- addresses those problems
3) Select the leader who can best do that.

The notion that the best leader has been selected before there is convergence on what the problems are is backwards.

At best it suggests that any person can address whatever problems are about to come along. On the down side is the likelihood that the person's skills, experience, and interest don't match the job. Worse it sets the nation up for a journey addressing problems the electorate doesn't want addressed.

IMO, the problems we face are mostly not on the financial/banking/corporate side of the considerable needs of domestic economic and social issues.

[MineralMan]

4. Well, by this time in 2007, people were already discussing Obama.

That discussion needs to come early, because things like name recognition and listing of positions are really important early on. For a candidate to compete well with a well-known and presumed leading candidate, the discussion can't start too early.

Take O'Malley, for example. Outside of his own state, he's an unknown to most voters. I know nothing about him, really. I know Sanders, for example, because he's a Senator and has been clear on national issues. I like him very much, but don't consider him a serious primary threat. I will vote for him if he's on the Minnesota primary ballot, but I doubt he will be. He may do better than, say, Kucinich, in the early primaries, but, then again, he might not. I personally doubt that he'll win any primaries, which means that he'll be out of the race before our late primary here in Minnesota.

It is, indeed, time for people to start talking up primary candidates they support. Perhaps even past time.

[bigtree]

9. wrong spot

[bigtree]

5. there's no correct 'sequence,' really

...it takes a great deal of time and effort for a candidate to achieve enough name recognition, organization, and other exposure to compete. The sooner they begin, the better, imo. I think we have enough idea of where we stand on issues; less clarity on which politicians or legislators we need to give elevation to in their efforts to propel those ideas and interests into action or law.

There's a disconnect between what folks say they want in government and the people who are in a position to make it happen - lots of focus on President Obama and Hillary - too little focus on legislators and other candidates for office who would usher in those progressive changes. We can't lose sight of the electoral process which is our main engine for promoting and propelling change.

[HereSince1628]

8. Well, for most people who do planning for problem solving I think there really is.

That isn't to say that emergencies that emerge can't or shouldn't be addressed.

But if you have no idea of priority problems you just get pushed into a reactionary mode...for which there may or may not be correct people in place.

What we get it seems, is candidates who go around telling us what our problems are and how they, unsurprisingly, best match those problems.

A party has come to that point sits before the ultimate existential challenge when it has only 1 person who has 'enough' name recognition, organization, and 'other exposure'.

Failure would represent the end.

I'm not really willing to concede that is the status of the Democratic Party even if some candidates and their supporters suggest that is why success of their candidate is so critically important

[pnwmom]

17. We don't have to. But many people are choosing to use this time to slam Hillary,

even though she at this point seems to be the only serious candidate.

Why not hold our fire on everyone till people actually announce?

[HereSince1628]

19. I see voting as a type of informed problem solving...

It's really not a matter of where the potential candidates are in the primary cycle.

It's not a question of celebrity or charisma...and lord knows this party has tripped that later trap repeatedly over the past decades...

If people really think a candidate is best suited to problems they think are priorities I have no problem with their choosing someone...even someone I would not.

At least then they could argue why I should want those problems solved instead of carping endlessly about the need for solidarity, unity etc. which would naturally follow the best candidate.

[pnwmom]

20. I think people appear to be "carping" about unity because they're responding to others

who are attacking the only Dem who seems to have a campaign organization.

[HereSince1628]

22. I think that's actually not quite the way the events transpired

I think it was really a pretty close tie...which at this point matters not

Choosing a shovel, a hammer, or a saw before you know what work on a construction project needs to be done greatly limits what contribution can be made by the person toting the tool.

The same goes for choosing a politician before you've given serious thought to what national problems need to be addressed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Because 'holding fire' serves her.

If you don't want HRC to be the candidate, then simply 'holding your tongue' as to the problems with her as a candidate only serves her interests. If you want someone else, you want to discourage her from even running if possible, so that it opens up space for others to run, and makes them push fewer resources into the primary, so they have more for the general.

Waiting til people actually announce is like waiting until a bill to use chained CPI is already in Congress before attacking the idea. The best time to shoot down chained CPI trial balloons was before any such bill ever got a toehold, not to wait until it would be far harder to kill.

[LWolf]

13. I'm happy to promote a whole host of other candidates.

Here are just a few; at this point, I don't really care which one. I'd love one to jump into the arena, and I've let them all know that.

Russ Feingold
Bernie Sanders
Dennis Kucinich...yes, I'd still support him, lol
Alan Grayson...yes, I'm aware of his baggage, but he'd sure as hell bring a much needed breath of fresh air
Warren...I'd rather she keep working in the Senate, but she has the greatest name recognition and the momentum, so should she challenge HRC, she'd have my support
Barbara Lee
Pete DeFazio

I could add another 10-12 quite easily; I'm simply waiting for some, for any, to announce their candidacies. Meanwhile, I'm actively asking for them to run.

When HRC's opponents have declared, I'll be glad to represent and defend my choice.

[bigtree]

14. I don't believe we have to wait for these folks to declare just to have a discussion

...I'd like to see some posts showing us where they stand on the issues of the day - where they weigh in, and whatever else they're involved with at the time. After all, this discussion board provides an excellent opportunity to keep us informed and active on issues and the folks who manage them (or seek to) in our political system.

'HRC's opponents.' That's an interesting way to frame the next election. I'd prefer to represent it as a contest against the republican nominee, but that's me.

[LWolf]

18. Okay.

Start here, if you are unaware of these candidates on issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Peter_Defazio.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Russell_Feingold.htm
https://www.google.com/search?q=bernie+sanders+on+the+issues&oq=bernie+san&aqs=chrome.1.0l2j69i57j0l3.4412j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Barbara_Lee.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Alan_Grayson.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/dennis_kucinich.htm

I'm an issues person. Unfortunately, it's really difficult to get concrete, specific information about the one issue that could be a deal maker or breaker with me; politicians don't like to be straightforward about it. But then, that's politics, isn't it?

That issue? High stakes testing in public education. Find me a politician who will oppose it without qualification, and you'll have something to persuade me with. That's a promise.

Meanwhile, there are other Democrats who are better on other issues than HRC, and I'll be looking closely at anyone who is ready to take her on. FWIW, while I never wanted her to be president, and she and Obama were tied for the bottom of my preference list in '08, when my primary rolled around, months after there was no real choice left for me on the ballot, I cast my primary vote for her because I thought she was marginally preferable to Obama...on women's issues and on education. I don't see that happening this time, but feel free to try to change my mind.

[Dems to Win]

15. Congresswoman Barbara Lee is the choice for Democrats if we want to WIN!

If we as a party and country had any sense, we would be pounding on Barbara Lee's door, begging her to lead us. I've heard no indications that she will run, but if she did, I do believe she could win. I wish that Harry Reid would encourage her to run, as he encouraged Obama in 2007.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have drained this country of blood and treasure and there is no end in sight. Let us turn to the one brave woman, the lone prophetic voice in our Congress who stood against these travesties and whose warnings have sadly come true.

I'm Ready for Barbara Lee -- the only member of Congress wise enough to vote NO on the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002. NO on the Patriot Act. NO on the Iraq, Afghanistan, and drone wars.

Democrats are united in mourning and opposing these wasteful wars and the threats to our civil liberties from the NSA. Let's put up a candidate who we can support with enthusiasm, who supports our values 100%, who will bring droves of voters to the polls because the Democrats are truly offering a bold choice.

Demand the BEST for our beloved country. Barbara Lee 2016!

[lovemydog]

51. More info on Barbara Lee:

I'd vote for her in any election!

Barbara Jean Lee (born July 16, 1946) is the U.S. Representative for California's 13th congressional district, serving East Bay voters from 1998 to 2013 during a time when the region was designated California's 9th congressional district. She is a member of the Democratic Party. She was the first woman to represent the 9th district and is also the first woman to represent the 13th district. Lee was the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and was the Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Lee is notable as the only member of either house of Congress to vote against the authorization of use of force following the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1] This made her a hero among many in the anti-war movement.[2] Lee has been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and supports legislation creating a Department of Peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lee

[Hekate]

16. It's getting really old, isn't it? It's almost as if DU...

....was being trolled. Shocking, I know. And I'm not saying >winkwink< that we are being trolled, because after all DUers are all very sincere in their well-thought-out beliefs.

I'd like a robust primary season, but it's sure not happening at DU. ONE candidate is being robustly held up -- by her sworn enemies. ONE candidate is being robustly held up -- to scathing denunciations of things she has said and done. ONE candidate is being robustly held up -- to scathing denunciations of things she has NEVER done, but emanate from the VRWC.

Can we please have some other candidates analyzed?

[Jim Lane]

30. I've seen negative stuff about O'Malley, Sanders, Warren, and Webb.

Feel free to add your own analysis. Here in GD there are no "safe haven" rules that protect anyone from criticism.

The tactical situation for Clinton, however, is different from that facing anyone else. First, and most obviously, her lead makes her the person to beat at this point. For someone backing Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb, Clinton is much more of a threat than is that other guy.

(Irrelevant side note: In the preceding sentence, why does the DU spellchecker flag "O'Malley" with a red underline but have no problem with "Webb"?)

A similar calculus applies to Clinton supporters. Typically, a candidate with a large lead refrains from attacking the others. Stirring up more interest in the race and drawing attention to someone who's now at 12% in the polls is seen as working to the leader's disadvantage. Such a candidate usually tries to coast along and not rock the boat.

If I were a DUer committed to supporting Clinton, I would probably incline to spend little or no time analyzing any of the other prospective candidates. If the actual Clinton supporters are reasoning that way, it would be another part of the explanation why non-Clinton candidates have come in for less criticism.

[Scuba]

21. I'd support Bernie Sanders if I thought he could win, but I don't, so I support Elizabeth Warren.

I not only believe Elizabeth Warren can win, but that she's a much better candidate policy-wise than either Hillary or O'Mally, neither of whom I think can win.

[YvonneCa]

34. Kerry/Warren?

[Scuba]

38. Sure, Kerry was such an exciting candidate in 2004. He really knocked 'em dead.

Besides, he also voted for the AWR. That's a deal-breaker to me.

[karynnj]

59. You know my immense respect for Kerry, but there are two problems here:

1) With both from Massachusetts - and I can't see Kerry pulling a Dick Cheney and claiming he is from another place (likely where Teresa has a home) -- he is from MA. This means they lose MA's electoral votes.

2) He is incredibly busy as SoS and is legally not allowed to engage in politics. In addition, he was instrumental in the China and India climate change deals and would likely lead on Paris 2016 climate change.

Consider that today he is meeting at Camp David with the two Afghan leaders - note that without Kerry, there would likely not have been a good resolution of that government. This has given that troubled country a chance at peace. He is almost certainly involved with the continuing international Iran negotiations and likely trying to keep sufficient Democrats on Obama's side on this. If everything holds together - and this deal is made, Kerry may be instrumental in preventing a war with a country more powerful than Saddam's Iraq and three times as large.

Kerry is outstanding as a Secretary of State. He has the potential - on Iran and climate change - to be one of the best US SoS - maybe since George Marshall. This is the job he has and it places him in a position to use every skill he has to make the world a better place.

To run for President, he would have to give up that job and all its potential, for what could be a quixotic run.

Lastly, even though Teresa worked extremely hard for him in 2004 and strongly supported him running again, she has had health issues. It likely has been an immense sacrifice for them to have had him working these last years as Secretary of State - out of the US more than within it. He would have been an amazing President and she an amazing first lady - but I don't see it happening.

[TheKentuckian]

23. We do not control the game nor are the rules for our benefit so why the devotion to playing as

prescribed?

My belief is the Clinton and the their Turd Way have substantial control of the party machinery and have deals and agreements with the elements that they do not as the price of not "taking it to the convention" in 2008 resulting in a fixed race unless Clinton and the Turd Way Superfriends become so weakened that the pack feels safe going against them.

Why coddle cancer? The first priority is to know our needs, then to identify what kind of policies address them to our benefit, next the necessary space for a candidate must be created to fill those needs, then we can identify those who fill the space created and evaluate both fit and ability.

The goal is not to build a movement around a candidate but to build a movement that requires the right sort of candidates, eliminating the falsely safe Turd Way crooks as a option for a crutch.

[bigtree]

24. organization is everything

...in every state, if possible.

I do think we need someone to lead that movement if we expect to generate some type of viable candidacy in the future. There really no way around that if we're talking presidential politics. Of course, a movement could persuade existing candidates and potential ones to adopt those goals and interests.

Outside of the Democratic party, there are certainly organizations and coalitions which do represent more progressive stances and initiatives. It's not merely an issue of taking these progressive stands, there's also a need to attract enough voters to the cause. When that doesn't happen, there will be a need to coalesce. That's the idea behind our Democratic coalition of voters. That's where progressives need to focus on generating support for their issues, rather than just pushing off from the party for pique's sake.

[TheKentuckian]

54. I don't think any organizing can happen as long as the party is run by the crooks and conservatives

They have blocked all paths so first things first is to to break their grip and that isn't going to happen by holding ourselves hostage to them and their perverted right wing worldview.

We've played this out for a generation and matters are more dire than ever in the big picture and nothing on the agenda but promises of more of what got us here.

If you want to keep playing the losing game until the grave takes you then you'll have to face the person in the mirror on that but I am done giving good for bad.

Create a vacuum and something will fill it, give the status quo a path or even just an excuse to continue and it will with all of its strength.
The party knows most folks are going to swallow whatever they are served no matter how much they cry and complain so their answer is to ignore the belly aching and force what they want down our throats so the only way to move the needle is to take that path off the table and there is no sense talking about anything else until the grip is broken.

It might take a few cycles for people to get desperate and scared enough to move forward which is beyond unfortunate because it will cause a lot of suffering and misery but that is the way they insist it be so that is what they will have to get it.

It didn't have to be this way but the footpads and suckers will dig us a hole all the way to China and so we will all have to have bitter tears, I reckon. Otherwise, the death spiral will continue for generations until humanity is lost from this universe, a wasted opportunity.

[bigtree]

55. the Democratic party isn't going anywhere

...and the idea of waiting out a republican victory while some ideal party or organization picks up steam is a pipe dream; a dangerous one when you consider just how much damage a republican presidency can do to our country. We've been there, done that. That awakening you're hoping for won't come by abandoning our party and hoping some fringe movement fills in the gaps. It's even more of a sham for some offshoot effort to pretend they're going to transform politics without having a national organization in place and having a sufficient base of voters to make their agenda a reality. There's really no substitute for attracting enough voters to win elections. We can complain (rightly) about the faults of the Democratic party, but coalition politics in our system of elections is necessary and indispensable.

The Democratic party coalition of voters is the only vehicle available to garner enough votes to achieve the presidency and deny republicans their choice in the presidential contest. There's certainly opportunity for influencing the party and candidates with movement politics, and that should be a serious consideration and effort, but, in the end, it's going to take a broad coalition of voters to win the presidency. That's what the party offers.

[TheKentuckian]

61. You're missing me, I'm talking about control of the party not another one.

Hell yes it is dangerous just less so than continuing indefinitely along the current path.

The people driving the car are drunks heading us off the cliff and I intend to stop them even at the risk of going off the cliff since that is the game plan anyway.

The "coalition" can either come to their senses and help get us back on track or they can try to work out what terms they can to join the TeaPubliKlan coalition or go to Hell as they seem determined to send us all anyway.

Plus, there is no real coalition but rather a few overlords that dominate the agenda giving not a shit what anyone else has to say, suckers that eat up their scammy rhetoric and excuses, desperate and afraid hostages, and those willing to oppose the bosses.

If this was a real coalition then things like the progressive budget would at least be in the conversation if not part of the template rather than roundly and soundly ignored despite coming from the party's largest caucus.

There is no coalition, just marketing to keep the less stupid and regressive serfs from losing the hope and faith that keeps us lining up behind the less bigoted wing of the real coalition to exploit the people and our habitat for the benefit of the few.

[Cosmic Kitten]

31. Populism vs Corporatism?

[HereSince1628]

53. very much agree...

though that requires a willingness to -really- hold the candidates accountable when they do get elected.

There is substantial resistance to criticizing those who become unassailable heroes by winning an election.

[Jim Lane]

25. People have been promoting candidates, but the Hillary-bashing is appropriate, too.

The singular feature of the race at this point is that, although there's no incumbent running, one of the prospective candidates has an enormous lead in the polls, far greater than most or all of the historical precedents. (Incidentally, this fact is one that Clinton's supporters are happy to reiterate when it suits their purposes.)

If our poll situation were like what's currently seen on the Republican side, your advice would make sense. With so many people still able to be considered as serious prospects, attacking one of them is less effective, because there are still plenty of others who significantly threaten your favored candidate's hopes.

On the Democratic side, however, that's not so. Any non-Clinton who hopes to be the Democratic nominee must reckon with Clinton's lead in the polls, not to mention her high level of support from the big-money donors and the party establishment. Therefore, for supporters of other candidates to try to present Clinton's flaws isn't merely permissible, it's pretty much a practical political necessity.

I invite your attention to Clinton's campaign for re-election to the Senate in 2006. Although she had a progressive challenger in the Democratic primary (Jonathan Tasini), her lead over him (polls, money, establishment) was similarly overwhelming. As a result, she simply refused to debate him. At all. (Yes, this is the same Hillary Clinton who, two years later, complained after several debates that Obama hadn't debated her enough.)

Tasini was caught in the vicious cycle of modern American politics. He was way behind Clinton in the polls, so the media largely ignored him and Clinton wouldn't debate him, so he couldn't bring his views to the attention of the electorate through free media, so he remained way behind in the polls, so he didn't attract significant donations and couldn't compete with Clinton in paid media.

That's the daunting prospect that supporters of any non-Clinton face going into 2016. One way to address it, in addition to being positive about one's own candidate, is to try to reduce Clinton's intimidating lead and her air of invulnerability, by presenting reasons to be negative about her.

If Jim Webb were 50 or 60 points ahead of Clinton, instead of vice versa, you'd be seeing a lot more negative stuff about Webb and a lot less about Clinton.

[bigtree]

42. It's primarily the challenger's responsibility to generate enough support to promote and defend them

These campaigns don't operate in a vacuum. There's little to be gained by harping on Clinton without promoting a Democratic alternative, basically enabling a republican challenge to that 'front-runner' - doing their ground work in working tp divide Democrats among ourselves. Much better to contrast her candidacy with another choice to keep the republican challenge at bay.

[Jim Lane]

45. This theme of "doing the Republicans' ground work" is misguided.

I keep hearing it from Clinton supporters but it makes no sense.

* Most of the criticism of Clinton on DU is that she's too conservative. If she's the nominee, the Republican candidate isn't going to attack her for supporting the Iraq War or for voting for the PATRIOT Act or for not pushing single-payer health care. In fact, because the Republican will be attacking from the right, these kinds of criticisms of Clinton now would help her in the general election. "You call me a socialist? Ha! In the primary I defeated that guy who wanted an actual federal takeover of health care. I'm the one who's standing up to those evil socialists."

* Some of the stuff, like the email thing, is going to be brought up in the general election even if every progressive on DU takes a vow of silence on the subject. This is what people mean by the benefit of a primary in vetting the candidates. Let Clinton hear the criticisms of how she handled email. Let her develop her responses. Let everyone see how much it resonates with the electorate. Let independent voters have plenty of time to consider it, and (we can hope) decide to give it little weight, instead of it joining a bunch of other such controversies in a Republican "October Surprise" attack barrage.

[bigtree]

48. well, Jim, I'm not a 'Clinton supporter'

...criticisms of suggestions like mine here usually get that kind of response.

The way republicans I know talk, Hillary is an evil liberal and they have no clue that the actual left of the party has so much problem with her.

I do think it makes a difference how we talk about our Democratic choices; especially if you acknowledge that Hillary has a chance of becoming our nominee. if that happens, there will be a need (and ample room) to make contrasts with the republican challenger, so I think it's whistling in the wind to think that nothing we say or do will have a bearing on that eventuality of a general election.

I believe the 'email thing' and similar republican-fueled scandals against Clinton have the effect of drawing democrats to her defense, more than they repel the party faithful. I don't think republicans realize that - I wish more folks in our party understood that dynamic, but oh well. It's actually funny how blissfully unaware republicans are of the hypocrisy and the opening these recent attacks on Clinton give potential nominees to point to their own more egregious abuses.

For example, the 'foreign money' scandal just serves to highlight their party member's fondness for offshore bank accounts and foreign investments and, in Bush;s case, actual lobbying for Chinese interests. It's amazing how anyone in our party can see these issues becoming consequential at any point in the upcoming contest to folks looking for leadership on jobs, the environment, immigration and a host of more important issues and interests, but, there it is.

That said, I don't really think threads here at DU have the kind of impact that will make or break Hillary. I do think that we could benefit from an actual candidate to serve as a contrast to those expressions of concern or animus. We might even learn a thing or two about presidential politics in the process.

[Vattel]

27. I respectfully disagree.

Weakening Clinton with criticism from the left might help to get other candidates into the primary. And if she wins the primary anyways, those attacks from the left might even help her appeal more to conservatives and moderates. What I do reject is smearing her or subjecting her to unfair criticism.

[bigtree]

40. who?

Who's waiting for you to rip Hillary on DU before entering the race?

[Vattel]

44. You misunderstand me.

Obviously no single criticism of Hillary will make a difference. Each is a drop in the bucket. But it is not unrealistic to suppose that, collectively, many voices complaining about the prospects of Clinton being our nominee for President could make a difference in terms of whether she does become the nominee.

[Agschmid]

28. Kick!

I'm all for a contested primary!

[riqster]

29. I wanted Joe in 2008.

Still do.

[KamaAina]

56. Oh, Biden.

For a second there, I thought you meant Lieberman!

edit: The only problem I have with that Joe is he's an old-school, hardcore drug warrior.

[riqster]

60. Ain't no perfect candidate.

Joe Biden is as good as they get in this sorry age.

[wyldwolf]

32. I'm going to do this in another thread at some point.

Let me think about who and what approach to use.

[Logical]

37. LOL, OK, thanks for posting your thought process. I will alert the media. nt

[Logical]

36. So your logic is that if Hillary has many non-progressive stances we cannot call her out unless.....

we find another candidate that is electable?

LOL, wow, talk about shutting down the conversation.

But I imagine many Hillary supporters don't want a debate.

[bigtree]

39. call her out all you want

...don't pleasure yourself thinking I give a shit.

Shutting down conversation? You're delusional to the extreme. Is ANYONE shutting down your conversation? ANYONE?

The point is, the constant focus on Hillary, without any effort at all to promote, defend, support another candidate is self-defeating, and ultimately does nothing. Nothing at all, until you can figure out how who, and how, to challenge and defeat her. It's simple, really. You can't beat her without a candidate to challenge her. You can't beat her with these republican-generated non-scandals - they draw even more Democrats to her defense than they dissuade people from her candidacy. You can't beat her with nothing.

You want to defeat Hillary? Find a candidate and promote them. Otherwise you're running the risk of becoming little more than a republican-enabling bore.

[Logical]

41. I could not understand your whining. I still don't. Nt

[bigtree]

49. that's because you see it as 'whining' and have no interest in an actual discussion

...I can't account for that.

[Fumesucker]

43. I think quite few of us are just boggled that a pro Iraq war politician is now the chosen Democrat

The Iraq War vote was a defining moment in American politics, some people came down on the wrong side of that defining moment and some came down on the correct side.

If you had told me in 2003 that a politician who not only voted to enable Dubya's obvious foolish war against Iraq but urged others to vote the same way would be the front runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016 I would have laughed at you.

My mind is absolutely boggled that Hillary is even a candidate on the Democratic side at this point, some level of stupidity should be disqualifying in a politician and voting for that completely voluntary unmitigated disaster should be a prime example of a disqualifying stupid act. That it isn't automatically disqualifying says a lot about our political landscape and none of it is at all good.

[bigtree]

50. I think it's a consequence of our two-term president's lack of leadership away from that militarism

...the response to ISIS has been an incredible regression to the days of the Bush terror alerts and our party's unwillingness to stand up against counterproductive military actions which are designed to prove that we're not 'soft' on military. Funny how republicans won't even rush to approve the AUMF proposal from the WH on perpetual war against the new nemesis, but Democrats are still afraid to stand up like they postured against Bush's own unbridled militarism. You're right about the political landscape. We definitely need better leadership out of this self-imposed conundrum. Sanders is the only one making any sense on those issues right now.

Hillary needs a challenger who will knock her of of her comfort zone on the military and other issues, or else she'll continue to play 'tough.' Trouble with Hillary is, though, most of it's not just posturing - like we found out with Barack Obama and his willingness to 'surge' troops into Afghanistan and sacrifice 1000 more U.S. troops there to defend the Karzai regime into power than Bush did pretending to avenge 9-11. There, again, someone needs to emerge to take this argument to the voters. I'd welcome the contrast.

[leftofcool]

52. You're talking to the walking dead

I stopped posting in anti-Hillary threads and just trashing them a long time ago. Let them have their right wing talking Rush Limbaugh talking points.

[mmonk]

57. I would have to know who's running. There is nothing "wrong"

or disloyal in having questions about a candidate's positions or track record.

[bigtree]

58. no, nothing wrong with that

...but we need actual examples, actual individuals to contrast these objections off of. Otherwise, it's just an endless stream of cynicism and apathy.

[hamsterjill]

62. I'm happy to have all candidates participate in a robust primary season.

Make no mistake. I will be voting for the Democratic nominee. I simply believe that nominee is going to be Hillary. If it is not, then so be it.

I wanted her as the nominee in 2008 and the nominee turned out to be Barack Obama. When that fact was fully realized, I immediately shifted my energies to the support of him, and stood in line the first day of early voting to make sure I voted for him.

In all honestly, I feel like the "deal was made" back in '08 that Hillary would get her shot in 2016. I certainly have no proof of that, but I have a sense that happened. To believe that backroom deals aren't made in politics would be pretty naïve.

I am happy that we have other, talented and qualified Democrats (like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) to promote discussion and differences in opinion. I will gladly listen to all of them. And if one of them is the nominee, I'll be fine with that. I do remember that Howard Dean was the presumptive nominee at one time - until he screamed, so I realize that even one wrong move can create a disaster for a candidate.

If indeed as I suspect and Hillary is the nominee, I certainly hope that she will be smart enough to use the resources available to her (like Sanders and Warren) for cabinet positions, etc.

I hope we, as Democrats, can come together to support the nominee, whoever that will be, stop all the negative bashing, and realize that if we don't stick together - the Republicans win.