General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader: 'Cowering' Democrats face defeat [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)I'll just say this--Clinton had that "total control" because no one else would step the fuck up and lead. He was a damn governor from Arkansas, not a Goliath. He took charge and so what? Those that can, DO. Those that can't, sit on the sidelines and mumble, and then write shitty mean retrospectives years later to try to make a buck while minimizing their own failures (hello, Stephanopolous!).
I knew what Clinton was doing. I didn't agree with him all the time, but I was damn glad that he had the deck and the conn and was willing to step up and lead. Just because I didn't agree with everything he did, I never felt like I was treated "contemptuously." See, I understand the whole "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" thing. Most people I know--who do get involved, either a bit or a lot, in elections, big and small-- feel the same way. Of course, I hang around with people who are active and do actually work to get candidates elected. So no, I can't "admit" what you want from me, because I just do not buy your argument.
Maybe spending more time on a local election would help your perspective. If not, maybe you really are in the wrong place and you'll never be happy. All I can say is, if Wellstone and Kennedy and Feingold could deal, I am challenged to understand why someone who purports to understand their ideals can't "get" the Big Picture like they did. They certainly managed to hang in there and do their pissing from inside the tent out--I just find it odd that someone without their responsibilities, their workload, their challenges, thinks it's somehow optimal to stand outside the tent pissing in.