The HoF is upset that women are now the icons/spiritual heads of the branches

[Doctor_J]

of the party. Liberals hope that Elizabeth Warren will spearhead a move to the left; conservadems want president HRC badly. This is considered a bad thing.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/125529683

[Major Nikon]

1. Only on DU do you see this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-kelly/nightmare-on-clinton-street_b_4266679.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/11/21/battling-for-the-heart-and-soul-of-americas-political-parties/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/16/elizabeth-warren-2016-race-white-house

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/11/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-democrats-bored-with-hillary-clinton-look-to-elizabeth-warren/2013/11/15/005f36dc-4d56-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. I expect that from people who don't care about Democratic Party politics. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

3. It's the mens group's fault

DU would never be fighting over Warren and Clinton if Skinner hadn't allowed the men's group!!!

[Bonobo]

4. If I didn't know better...

I would think they were TRYING to be funny.

[Upton]

5. Of course they're upset..

two prominent women as leading contenders is tough to blame on the "Patriarchy" and means there's less for the Radfems to be outraged about.

I guess they and their RW allies will just have to continue to focus on ridding the world of porn instead..

[Demo_Chris]

20. Less? There is never LESS. nt

[LittleBlue]

6. Results of your Jury Service

At Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The HoF is upset that women are now the icons/spiritual heads of the branches
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111411551

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

What the fuck kind of call out is this? This kind of over the top ridiculing and attacking makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:40 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No more than the continual call outs from the members of that group.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't see a problem. There was nothing rude or hurtful in the post. The poster is just making an observation.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Um, not really. It's a bit of inter group rivalry between protected groups, one of which is militantly so. The members of HoF indulge in exactly this sort of thing all the time. Deal with it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Ugly-assed callout. Can we please not do this shit? Thanks.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Major Nikon]

7. Thanks for the info

[HappyMe]

8. Oh ffs.

There are plenty of people that are on one side or the other regarding Warren and Clinton, not just here.

It's gotten to the point where I resent this calling for women to fling themselves at Clinton's feet just because she is a woman. I find it very insulting. The very idea kind of borders on the 'vote like I do, honey' that women accused men of doing. I vote, my uterus does not. Gender doesn't enter into who gets my vote. I have voted for women and I have also voted against women.

I happen to be in the Warren camp, because her political ideas are aligned more closely with mine. I don't feel at all that it's women being pitted against one another. I know Warren has said that she isn't running. That's too bad. But that still does not guarantee Clinton my vote in the primary. If more women start to run for office, then it's likely that two women may be running against one another. If it's a D and an R woman, then it's an easy choice. If it's two D women in a primary situation...
What I am most curious about is if some women expect others to cross party lines simply to vote for a woman. I would never do that. I would bet that there are R women that feel the same way.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

9. I think it's coming from people who don't much care about party politics

They are always trying to find the "agenda" behind ever story.

I think it's amazing we've come to a point where a woman is the clear front runner for our party's nomination (over a sitting veep) and another woman is the dark horse candidate. I suppose there's a parallel to the last election, where the same woman and an African American man were in similar positions.

I'm a fan of Liz Warren, I think she falls far more in line with what need economically at this point in our country, but she also just got elected to office. I know, very similar to Obama (and I was for a time in the "too soon" camp with him). I sort of wish the 2013 version Hillary, complete with her record as Secretary of State, had existed in 2008, because I was not a fan of 2008 Hillary.

What the grousers fail to see is that very few are proposing Warren because she's a woman. It's because she's now a political star, same as Obama. They just want it to fit the agenda, so they can pull the "There you go again, DU" card....because this one must shatter all the notions they claim are fact about this place....that it is somehow anti-women, etc. etc.

[HappyMe]

10. I think it's as you said.

There always just has to be a hidden agenda of some sort. Sometimes it seems people just hunt for reasons to be unhappy. If you don't vote for Clinton in primary - you hate women. If you prefer Warren, it's some other odd-ball plot. I prefer to vote for the candidate I think will do the best job - male or female.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

11. And mind you, I'm not pushing for Warren to run

For me, a lot is about being electable, and I don't think she or Bernie Sanders are.

But people acting like Democrats, especially progressives, wanting an option B is some sort of new thing shows either a real lack of knowledge of history, or someone trying to fit a narrative to their great thesis about what goes on here. And just because someone says they are not interested in running has never stopped anyone from hoping and pushing before.

[HappyMe]

12. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton isn't all that electable.

I truly would prefer a much more progressive candidate.

I think it doesn't have a thing to do with policy or platform, it's just push, push for Hillary because she's a woman. A general election, without a primary would really be a sit it out until the election for me. I couldn't get excited about it. I don't understand the vehement 'inevitable' crap that goes along with HC and the anger about people wanting a primary. Seriously, are they afraid she'll lose again? Why can't I support somebody else without getting blasted.

I'll probably get smacked upside the head for this, but I think it would be kind of funny if Hillary didn't run.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. For better or for worse, running is encoded into the Clinton DNA. I would be shocked if she didn't.

If the choices are Warren or Clinton, I'd go with Warren- because I think our party has underestimated the simmering leftover anger from the economic collapse. People have cried out for a strong clear voice against the sorts of abuses of the system which led to that situation, and Liz Warren is really the biggest- in many ways the only- one doing that.

But HRC has some undeniable strengths, too, going into it- not the least of which are her connectedness, her familiarity with the game-playing in DC, etc.. and certainly she's better prepared than most for the inevitable crap they're going to sling at her.

At the end of the day ( Bonobo) my biggest problem with Hillary is still her vote for the IWR. It sticks in my craw, even after all these years.

[HappyMe]

14. I don't know. To me, the ability to fling an insult,

name recognition and knowing how to play the game aren't great recommendations for a presidential candidate.

I guess we'll see how it shakes out.

We have to get 2014 done regardless of what 2016 brings.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. If Bill's recent potshot at the ACA and Obama is the sort of "triangulation" we can expect from

Hillary, no fucking way am I supporting her in the primaries.

[RiffRandell]

19. Yeah, that really pissed me off too. nt

[RiffRandell]

16. I honestly wish she wouldn't.

I like her and admire her for certain things but like you said, I don't think she's all that electable.

The Clinton name brings out rabid, insane hatred from most Republicans and even some moderates ,so they'll vote against her on name alone. Being a Dem, I have issues with her so I understand the frustration of other members of the left as well.

At least we have valid, sane reasons to vote against Republicans. I am way more focused on next year but agree with you about the "gender voting" as I remember how 2008 was around here.

I remember standing in line in GA for 2 hours to vote for Al Gore in 2000 after work and had to listen to 2 women and a guy behind me rake the Clintons over the coals, mainly about Monica and Vince Foster.

I remember getting home and being so stressed out and had gone to the grocery store and bought a bottle of wine and a pregnancy test prior to voting as my husband and I were trying and I was late. Well, the wine went unopened and with the whole Florida fiasco I was like, shit is this a sign our kid is going to be Damien from The Omen? Luckily he turned out okay.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

17. But Bill Clinton would have easily been re-elected if he could have run again

Most Americans, NORMAL Americans, didn't give a shit about Monica, nor even know who Vince Foster was. Obviously living in GA is a different story.

Al Gore wasn't Bill Clinton. Gore had zero clue how to handle a media that was stacking the decks against him and lowering the bar for Frat Boy Bush. And in fact, picking Lieberman was a way to run from him. Bad move.

All the things you say about the Clintons could be said about 2012 Barack Obama, and yet he won by a comfortable margin. Why? Because he, like the Clintons, brings people to the voting booth who are otherwise indifferent. Voters that guys like Gore and John Kerry can't get. I'll take that intangible any day of the week.

[RiffRandell]

18. Living here is a different story, and has made me extremely pessimistic

Last edited Sat Feb 1, 2014, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

when it comes to politics. Gore shouldn't have run from Clinton, Lieberman was a bad choice but I don't regret voting for him one bit.

Republicans gave a shit about Monica (or pretended to) and that fueled their base. I'll admit I was pretty pissed at him for it, not because of the infidelity but because he gave them a "scandal"....they couldn't wait to nail the guy...look at the bullshit WW investigation.

Shit really started going downhill here in 2002 after 9/11 with our Dem Gov being ousted, the disgusting shaming of Max Cleland...etc.

I was so happy when our former SOS Karen Handel was forced to resign from Komen...couldn't stand her.

My husband and I always vote and in our subdivision of almost 200 houses we have 3 liberal friends...I'm sure there are more as obviously we don't know everyone who lives in it.

Jason Carter announced he is running for Governor so that gives me some hope.

[RiffRandell]

21. Look, I don't want to hijack the thread but a couple things.

I agree that Gore was too soft and the media annihilated him and he let them (he invented the internet) but in 2008 and 2012 Republicans were so against Obama here...after his first election when he gave the speech on education my son's school were getting so many calls about it a letter was sent home saying you could pull your kid out.

I asked my son and he said half the kids in his class were pulled out by their parents; most of whom lived in the gated golf course community around the corner.

In 2004 Rove pulled the terrorism card and people fell for that BS...I believe Ohio was rigged...the Swiftboating...and Kerry did screw himself with the Iraq war vote.

I was 22 when Bill was first elected and campaigned for him...met him and shook his hand. I grew up with Dem Reagan-hating parents.

I know some people think he's Republican-lite, but I loved him. If you want to fight/discuss feel free to pm me. I grew up in New England and now live in a very red state and it's depressing. We have friends here that loved Clinton and thanks to RW radio are now hardcore RW. Perhaps I am coming across too negatively...my apologies as I know I have become very jaded. I miss New England so much.

ETA: If Hillary is the nominee I will definitely vote for her...and I wouldn't be holding my nose. I'm not a third party voter even in a red state. I remember reading a post on a now-defunct left site in 2012 that said vote 3rd party (against Obama) if you live in a safe state. That poster is alive and well here.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

22. No worries

I think you just need to look at the bigger picture that thankfully, we are not all like Georgia or the deep South and 2008 and 2012 proved that. I believe the same dynamics that helped Obama politically can be used with Hillary.

I cannot imagine what it is like to live in an area over run with right-wing idiots. I feel your pain.