Time for Change
I think we've come to a point in our history where we are going to have to make a big decision.
For 30 years the corporatists and conservatives have run rough-shod over the middle and lower classes. I don't think any of us here will disagree. Where we disagree is when are we going to stop retreating into poverty and tyranny and stand and fight?
Sadly we have posters here that will argue that things aren't so bad and we can continue down the path for a little while longer. The child poverty rate is only 22%. This is the rational that I see used to justify the support of H. Clinton.
In 2008 people recognized that H. Clinton, the apparent “claimer of the throne”, would not provide the change we needed and a relatively unknown easily defeated her with the promise of change. Whether or not Obama wanted change and failed with his promises or he never was that hot about change is another debate. But here we are faced with the need for change and guess who is once again "the claimer of the throne".
The Democratic Party grassroots should have learned from 2008 and also 2000. In 2000 the DLC/Conservative Wing ran Gore which looked to many as a continuation of the status quo. Gore failed in 2000 and Clinton failed in 2008.
The American people are ready for change and Clinton v. Bush doesn't offer that change.
We need a candidate that is willing to take a chance and fight for change.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)One never gets good results when they act out of fear.
Nobody but a very few really prefer Clinton over Warren or Sanders, they can only point to her INCREDIBLE poll numbers and ability to raise money.
They have no confidence in their fellow citizens that a terrific candidate could raise funds, even more than Clinton, so they are willing to settle.
It's very sad.
I'm glad I have neither children nor grandchildren given how hopeless our party seems to be, and our country, and our future.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)nominated, but will vote for her in November 16 out of fear of the Bush family and the teabaggers. I will do this knowing that it puts the necessary cchange back another eight years. The situation is desperate, and I see no way out in my lifetime.
calimary
(84,332 posts)That boils it down to the very most basic, for me.
I'm DAMNED if I'm EVER gonna vote for a CON to do that! If you have ANY doubts at all, just stop and consider for even a moment - what we get when we have a republi-CON picking Supreme Court justices. Enjoying the reign of terror of the scalia gang? How 'bout the clarence thomas wing of the scalia gang? And their fun new pals, john roberts and samuel alito? How 'bout them? We did NOT get those nominees from ANY Democratic President. Those came from the CONS. Which gave us Citizens United. Which gave us Hobby Lobby. Which gave us the gutting of the Civil Rights Act. And that's okay?
One can be okay with that - when one decides to sit this one out because one was forced to accept the good rather than the perfect?
Now, I FULLY GET your post - how you will indeed vote for the Democratic nominee when all is said and done. Even if it's Hillary. But please understand. I don't like it either. I'd love a full-on Elizabeth Warren-type President. I voted for Howard Dean back in the day, and I STILL think he would have been better than John Kerry and he might even have been elected President. But I voted for Kerry because I wanted the White House back from bush/cheney and their Famous Dancing War Criminal Revue. I'm wondering if enough Dems stayed home and pouted then, too, so that we didn't get enough of a leg up to make it impossible to steal. It's clear that they stole the 2000 election. There are many of us, myself included, who also are convinced they stole 2004. BECAUSE THEY WERE ABLE TO GET CLOSE ENOUGH. And they had a willing accomplice in kenneth blackwell in Ohio, the same way they had a willing accomplice in katherine harris in Florida four years earlier. Both willing accomplices with the identical glaring conflicts of interest, too, as both secretaries-of-state AND state campaign chairs.
I understand you plan to vote for the Dem nominee. And I'm glad. But we all have to do that. And make damn sure we get out there and vote.
Call me paranoid, but as a woman, I fear that the bad guys are looking at MY right to vote and wondering how soon they can go for that, too. They certainly had no hesitation to go after the African Americans' right to vote. And the Latinos' right to vote. And too many of them, some of their women included (!!!!!!!), have actually voiced their opposition to a woman's right not just to choose but to VOTE. And all of that is enabled if OUR SIDE pouts, stays home, goes milquetoast, doesn't fight, drags their heels, and does little to help keep the bad guys OUT of the White House.
It's going to take enthusiasm and fire - on EVERYONE's behalf. Even those who didn't get quite the gift they wanted from primary season. It just comes down to THAT. I simply do NOT want the GOP picking the next Supreme Court justices. PERIOD. ANY way you slice it, a Dem is extremely unlikely to pick a SCOTUS nominee who'd further erode the Voting Rights Act, or be okay with overturning the ACA, or then go on to dismantle what's left of Roe v Wade.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,250 posts)too many will huff and puff and scream and holler but in the end it is just noise and will go along with whatever is served so there is no actual need to change the menu and all the bluster can be safely ignored.
What difference does opposition make if you know exactly where it will fold?
We'll be right back here in four or eight years with an even more right wing Manchurian Trojan Horse but the TeaPubliKlans will have some villains and the window keeps moving.
For fuck's sake! Almost two years out with no nominee and already folks are prefolding, unable to even maintain an illusion to apply a little pressure much less the real knife work required to oust or even weaken the hand of the Turd Way in the party.
The digging is our collective grave and it never stops, we can't move the needle on that much less really change the direction if there is no beachhead to fight from.
Graves are holes to deposit corpses into, no it doesn't matter who is digging my grave because the end is the same a dirt nap.
If the plan from jump is unconditional surrender then what is the purpose of fighting at all, may as well get the transcript of Lanny Davis talking points memorized, swear fealty to Dimon and Blankfein, join PNAC, set up a live stream of your life to the NSA, and join the Rainbow Ronnie coalition full throatedly it seems to me.
What is the practical difference?
The more desperate the situation the more resolved people seem to be to keep doing what caused the desperation.
The false risk aversion of the desperate is so easy to manipulate.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)A good case can be made that HRC can't beat Jeb, but that doesn't slow some down that are living in the status quo denial bubble. They are oblivious to the pain and suffering around them and just want to hang on a little longer.
I believe that Theodore and Franklin Roosevelts, both members of the financial elite recognized that impoverishing the population for personal gain wasn't moral. We must get to that place. We need help from the financial elite.
appalachiablue
(42,908 posts)
Martin Eden
(13,471 posts)Fear of change would be the R's strategy against a progressive like Warren or -- gasp -- a socialist like Bernie Sanders. 
They'll paint any left-of-center Democrat as a dangerous extremist, and use fear to rally their base to the polls.
What the Democratic Party establishment -- and the propagators of conventional wisdom -- ignore is the fact that Barack Obama won in 2008 by running on the idea of change and Democratic voters turned out in droves because they were hopeful and felt they actually had something to vote FOR.
What the professional political operatives also ignore is the fact we are right on the issues -- on the economy, the environment, and the need to steer a course away from perpetual war.
And the reason they ignore all of that is, I strongly suspect, they're being paid to ignore it.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)I think we have seen that in 2010 and 2014. Especially last year, dems ran on nothing but fear of a republican majority, and people stayed home in droves. In 2008 people had enthusiasm and hope, 2012 less so but still Obama offered more hope than mr 47%.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)majority could work with our president to accomplish many of the things we wanted to do. Instead we have the present congress.
valerief
(53,235 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
stonecutter357
(12,769 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)is used to reply to everything and appears to mean nothing.
TheKentuckian
(26,250 posts)There is little or no purity in our politics rather what we have is a hell of a lot closer to a sickly corrupt and highly toxic dumpster fire not too many choir girls and boys do gooding our nation into oblivion.
So, when someone gets all diarrhea of the mouth about "purity" big green Ben Franklins to little brown Lincolns they are trying to remove what little fiber there is in some fit of avarice for money or power even if not personally vested but rather what they make believe to be their Avatar or falling prey to puffed up Mayberry Machiavellian snake oil they have sold to them fucking selves despite in no way corresponding with observation.
Of course the perfect can be the enemy of the good but when was the last time EITHER was in the equation? Particularly the "perfect".
Shit, I can't think of a single subject where "perfect" was even sought or discussed to even act as an aspirational mooring from where the compromises that eventually the "good" is comprised of would start from.
Then we have defined "good" as any hair or bit better than the wicked and lousy TeaPubliKlans might do which means about every time the now completely trite little proverb is rolled out it actually means don't let the minimally tolerable be the enemy of something less than our most paranoid and fevered nightmares.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or start the revolution, or whatever it is they have to change?
Most people are satisfied with their lot - that's the problem.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hang out in but in my community over 50% of the children are food deprived at some point, esp in the summer when free lunches at school aren't available. I volunteer at a foodbank and see lots that aren't satisfied.
A lot of people buy the message that the Oligarchs are selling on the corporate media that there isn't anything they can do. The Corp-Media is selling a Clinton v Bush shoo-in. The Democratic Party Machine is ok with HRC as the candidate and really don't want a primary battle.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Get them out to vote in local and off year elections. They can run as Green or Socialist if the Democratic party is too far right for them. Nothing stops them. No matter how hopeless it sounds it is better than doing nothing and complaining
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Please come back.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I wish he'd come back also. Like to know if he did well with his book.
He is still listed here. I sent him a message. I hope he still lurks.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Dale's comin' back!
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Time for fresh blood and fresher ideas. Neither of those candidates offer either. We need an FDR, someone willing (and able) to rattle the cages of Power and and take it back for the People.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Fla Dem
(25,692 posts)I want to see a left leaning candidate, one not tied inextricably to Wall Stand the Corporatists. But I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate. In the meantime we bash the one candidate that might have a chance at keeping the WH out of the hands of the Republicans and Teabaggers. She's not perfect, but she does represent what I believe in more than any Rebublican does. If she is the candidate I will vote for her.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/11/20/hillary-clintons-potential-platform-for-a-presidential-run
kacekwl
(7,511 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)A true democracy would have more than two choices, especially when the non social issues parts of the two current parties are not always much different. The main thing is that big money and Wall Street run things, they have more money and that talks.
As Brian Schweitzer said not too long ago, how can you expect someone to vote against a company/corporation on Friday when they took big cash from them on Tuesday? That of course is bribery, which in real life lands people in jail but it's business as usual now in politics.
I'd really like to see the Green Party get some traction, and that may be possible if we can get big money out of the system, if we can get that amendment passed in enough states to do away with The Kochs/Wall Street/Supremes Special, Citizens United.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Don't most of us take money from those same corporations every other Friday?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)we share the same guilt as Congress-critters. If I got that wrong, straighten me out.
Millions of people that don't work for those corporations that pay bribes to our Congress-critters. Federal and state employees for example. Even people that do work for Comcast for example, fixing my cable, don't make national policy.
It seems you are trying to belittle the problem of money in politics.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of Congress was ok.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have said nothing approaching that. In fact, I am on record here on DU, advocating for getting money out of politics.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)and their numbers should start growing.
Undo Privatization.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I continue to hope she will respond to the call, if enough people ask her to run.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And if Sen Warren challenges her, they won't be pleased and it may cost her in support. Also, the unlimited resources of the Oligarchs will come to bear on her. She will be swift-boated and probably worse. I would love for her to run but will understand if she doesn't.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)The unanimous "It's Hillary's Turn" from the Dem leaders is leading us to disaster.
marym625
(17,997 posts)The idea that people are willing to continue with the status quo is actually not what will happen. What will continue is the further gap between rich and poor, fewer middle class, and more people living in poverty unable to make a decent wage. Religion will continue to be a bigger part of law and corporations will continue to control employees with it.
We can't go another four years with this or we are just done.
Alkene
(752 posts)Time has come today
Young hearts can go their way
Can't put it off another day
I don't care what others say
They say we don't listen anyway
Time has come today
Time for change
(13,737 posts)Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders come to mind.