None of the vitriol is toward the man who flat out rolled over on his colleagues and constituents. At DU, anyway.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210049251

A US senator, under multiple accusations, didn't fight. At all. Not only that, he told his colleagues he was going to drag it out and leave the cloud looming.

It made no sense. Franken fought in no way and you cannot claim calling for an ethics investigation is fighting. It's not how politics works at this level. You don't get to hang a dark cloud over your colleagues while not fighting for your own integrity.

Highly questionable accusations were thrown his way and he showed them deference. Did not fight at all. Told his colleagues to sit tight and wait for the investigations. That is what happened. History cannot be rewritten for a feel good moment. He fought in no way.

as the leader of the "dump Franken" movement, isn't Gillibrand entitled to the same treatment and scorn as any man who had led his party over a cliff?? To treat Gillibrand any differently, now THAT would be sexist!!

But internet comment sections never let trivial things like facts get in their way.

swift boating...as in saying war hero Kerry was a coward.

It's so obviously ridiculous one has to wonder at the motivation.

Last edited Wed Jan 3, 2018, 09:35 AM - Edit history (5)

You can say it is unfair, you can say she is being made the scapegoat. However, it is not a smear that lies about anyone - as the swiftboat liars did. She is accused of saying that Franken should resign - something she did.

Like it or not, this is something she did and it is controversial. To some, sexual harassment is an issue, where we needed to have zero (or near zero) tolerance because of what NOT calling it out anywhere it is seen leads to it seeming hypocritical when we raise it as an issue when we do not like the man. To others, Franken was someone they loved partly because of his sense of humor as well as the votes he made and positions he took.

However, she is both seen as having increased her profile and taking a leadership role AND as having harmed her possible role as being a favorite of the left for the nomination. She chose her position on this -- and it relates to what is a signature issue for her. It actually diminishes her given that she thought this out and did it to claim that people attacking her for her position are "swiftboating" her. It also smears people angry over a position she really did take.

Every candidate that has run likely has some position they were attacked on. It could be votes on trade agreements - where many progressives consider that to be unforgivable. It could be one or more of the awful bankruptcy bills - whether one bill like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton or being the lead Democratic sponsor on all of them like Biden, and we all remember the IWR or other controversial bills.

For some, Gillibrand's actions show integrity and commitment to change the culture on harassment. For others, 2 or 3 years from now, it will not even be remembered. (I saw on pollingreport.com that in a recent poll on her over half the respondents said they did not know enough to answer.) Then, for some, including a disproportionate number of people active on blogs - it might be the deal killer for PRIMARY support.

I do not argue with people who detest the political calls for Franken to step down. But there were many calling for it, not just Gillibrand. Why aren't we seeing similar criticism of all the others?

It cannot possibly be that she was the "ringleader," or that "she started it." That implies that all these other senators are so weak and she is so strong (dare I say ambitious) that she bent them to her evil will.

making life better for all of us.

All the Senators who stabbed Franken in the back without a hearing have hurt us all.

Thank you!

Sen Franken had a stellar political career. I will miss him. I hope, and think, he'll continue to be a powerful voice.

I don't agree with the move, but it's clear that the majority of the Democratic caucus had already decided Franken should leave, and Gillibrand was chosen (or volunteered) to make the first call.

Could not have been done without him.

...but if he'd told everyone it didn't matter whether Franken was guilty, it was only important to hold his seat, that attitude would have been welcomed here.

all of them did the wrong thing.

Sometimes the leader has to bear the brunt of the blame. That's just the way it goes.

So she might not even be the real leader, just the one standing there when everyone else took a step back.

She was in the front, one way of the other.

We lost a fine senator and possible presidential candidate at the hands of our own party.

We never learn.

I did not see a single post in the general election period that spoke of the IWR. Kerry was trashed on DU in the primaries and for decades after the vote.

Not to mention, for many of us of a certain age, we first saw John Kerry as the intensely serious, eloquent, moral young man speaking against the Vietnam War. John Kerry's vote came with a promise that he was voting to give Bush the levage needed to negotiate with Hussien to assure that he did not have or build WMD and he promised he would speak out if Bush did not do everything Bush said he would before going to do before going to war only as a last resort. Kerry DID speak out in January 2003 saying if Bush went to war it was not then as a last resort. To me, having grown up Catholic - that meant it would not be a just war. This was a strong statement.

I was not surprised that Kerry actually won a higher percent of voters in Iowa who said they were against the war than Dean did. People in Iowa meet the candidates. Hearing of Kerry's very emotional comments after the Iran deal was finalized on the importance of avoiding war, I KNOW now that those of us who chose Kerry (although as I was in NJ it didn't matter) probably picked the person who would have actually (as he spoke of repeatedly) gone to war only as a last resort after exhausting the diplomacy.

In fact, Kerry lost more with that vote than you might imagine. He was more liberal than Dean and the other likely 2004 winners. He would have been the natural favorite of the antiwar community had he lent his eloquent voice AND HIS VOTE against the IWR. It still would have passed, but not with his vote. He made it clear for years that he realized that - no matter the reason - his vote was wrong.

that would have been against TOS. Many people who left this site continued to insist that HRC's IWR vote made her anathema to them - some of the same people who excused Kerry's vote.

HRC also said her vote was wrong, but that was not accepted. She was continually referred to as a war monger. In your post, you indicate Kerry's motivation for his vote. HRC had a motivation too, but it, again, was not accepted and she was held to be nothing but ambitious and calculating.

warmonger. Here, after Dean was out, DU and DKOS bizarrely had more people backing Edwards over Kerry - even though Edwards was genuinely pro going to war and was a one of those who cosponsored the IWR! (In late 2002, there actually was little difference between Dean and Kerry - but Dean did not have to vote - both backed Biden/Lugar -- which Bush would have used in the same way he used the IWR.) Not to mention, Kerry had been adamantly opposed the first Gulf War (which was over over oil) - dramatically reading antiwar poetry on the floor of the Senate) , while Dean was publicly for it. Unlike 2008, there was not really a clear alternative.

I think in the population at large, was more willing to believe Kerry was not a warmonger than DU was - possibly due to his history or given that he consistently said the same thing before the vote and after the vote warning not to rush to war or possibly as the country was then only around 50/50 on the war. (Kerry's argument on giving Bush leverage was likely more who he is - he himself used the leverage of an attack to get 1200 tons of chemical weapons out of Syria and destroyed - and the US media to the contrary, THAT was better than the impact of the limited attack that was argued for.)

Not everyone who voted for the IWR was in the same position. David Frum, in an early 2003 National Review oped, wrote that France, Germany and John Kerry would NEVER agree that Bush was not "rushing to war". The Clintons had the most powerful megaphones and they absolutely did not speak against going to war in early 2003.

Note that Kerry's own best chance to have become President would probably have been if he gave the exact same speech, but rather than giving his vote to give Bush leverage - he would have said that he could not vote for it at that point because it prematurely gave authority. If he then did not run in 2004 for personal reasons - he was treated for cancer in February 2003 - he would have been a very strong candidate in 2008 - especially as he authored Kerry/Feingold with Russ Feingold. The country was more antiwar which would have been a better fit and he would have been healthier. Obama would have been a first year Senator and likely would not have been the keynote speaker as he was picked by Kerry at the advise of a Kerry friend from Illinois. Oddly, 2008 would likely have been a fight between HRC and Kerry.

during 2004. Relentlessly attacked during the primary and smeared during the general as well

John Kerry and John Edwards were both criticized heavily for their IWR vote.

I don't recall anything near the criticism of HRC for her vote. YMMV.

She made her statement on her own. Others could have made statements saying they disagreed with her. She isn't the leader - Schumer is.

Gillibrand, Harris, Warren and, of course, Sanders.

I will not vote for any of them in the primaries.

Still, interesting, that when the pundits talk about Gillibrand, they mention her work on sexual assaults. And I wonder: is that all? a one trick pony? What else makes her a presidential material?

How many new threads get posted calling them out specifically?

Though I think that when first started, Harris was mentioned. Together with Gillibrand.

It's been 100 percent Gillibrand.

at the start.

But, as I corrected, above, it will be my vitriol during the primaries

She was the natural person to carry the message. I think that was a caucus agreement. There not an ambiguous he said she said story to continuously hammer on cable news, and there is not going to be a legitimate accusation of hypocrisy. Political calculus can be really unpleasant but sometimes it's necessary.

Far back as March 2013. I am not happy Franken is gone.

The political realities put Democrats in an impossible situation. "Women leading the resistance." More and more women running for office, the me too movement, and the first woman candidate just lost and election to a serial sexual predator.
With all of that, a hint of possible hypocrisy on the issue could be seriously damaging. Particularly during an election year.

It feels like the moment of Miranda reciting 'O brave New World' ...and then the realities of cut throat American politics reassert itself.
Having so many Dem female senators is great & amazing, however they have to play as well & better then rep males in the Senate.

"Sell outs to the boys club" would have followed Democrats - women and men - for a long time. Cultivating and strengthening a base isn't easy.

Franken's. I really like Al Franken, but it was his decision to resign, and I trust him to have made the right decision.

Al Franken is a really, really smart guy with a good heart. I trust him.

while they were considering his case.

On edit:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/full-list-senators-call-for-al-franken-to-resign-282175

There were two other female Senators (not on Ethics Committee), Masto and Klobuchar, who did not sign on.

It’s incorrect to say that “all” of the female Senators publicly called on him to resign.

No credibility, IMHO. And the date on that story is the same as the date on the Politico story.

All reports that I saw on the day he said he would resign said Klobuchar chose to talk with him privately.

“All” means 100%. She and another senator were not part of the 100%.

As long as people are speculating, I suspect that several of the female Senators regret their decision.

On edit: I see that you changed the OP. Thanks.

I know only know Sen Masto is from Nevada& there since Jan 2017. Maybe a Nevadian DUer can tell why she didn't sign that letter.

Senators signed. It’s simply a matter of fact.

And her own political career.

She made that clear publicly before he announced his resignation and after.

A Google search showed me a cnn tv article W/ her on Fri 12/8, he announced his resignation on Thur 12/7. It will take me some time to read the Minnesota newspapers for things she said between those dates; but as of the time I'm typing this I do not see anything she said about him on a national newspaper level between those dates. No snark, but a request for education; if you can point me to anything she said publically between those dates, I'd be grateful. Thanks

The letter from 20 plus Democrats calling on Franken to resign was released on December 6, 2016. While Klobuchar didn't sign it, she put out the following statement: "Sexual harassment is unacceptable. This morning I spoke with Senator Franken and, as you know, he will be making an announcement about his future tomorrow morning. I am confident he will make the right decision."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/klobuchar-confident-franken-will-make-right-decision

While put gently, it was clear what Klobuchar believed was the right decision. And she made that clear the next day when she put out another statement in which she stated that 'this was the right decision" she had discussed with Franken the day before.

https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=A5C80467-5C7E-4286-9920-3F9FC0ABD099

Gillibrand thought she would be seen as a champion of women if she led the charge against Franken, and she would have basked in the praise and glory had things gone differently.

But it backfired, so now she is getting the brunt of the blame instead.

"It's because she's a woman" is not the appropriate response to everything. In fact, it is self-defeating in that it suggests that being female means not being held responsible for one's actions based on one's gender.

wagon did the same political calculation.

Because they went so public to the news media with all these Democratic Senators asking for Franken to step down, that insured Franken would not be afforded the opportunity of an investigation.

There is no doubt in my mind that if they let the investigation proceed to its normal conclusion, no matter the outcome, there would not have been the blowback they are feeling now

… I don’t know what they thought they were going to accomplish.

Did they think any Republican voter was going to look at this and change their voting pattern because the Democrats were showing some ridiculous notion of “moral superiority”? Did they think the Republicans would be shamed into following suit? Did they think that the GOP would withdraw its support for Roy Moore as a result of what the Democrats did to Franken? Did they think Trump would be shamed into resigning, given his own record of molesting women?

Shouldn’t their “calculations” have included the fact that ousting Franken would anger Democrats, would put a senate seat in play, and would have zero effect on Republicans – other than their celebrating the demise of one of our party’s most effective politicians?

I don’t know what these Dems thought they were going to achieve beyond infuriating their own constituents, and demonstrating that an investigation into accusations (especially accusations as flimsy and ludicrous as those levelled at Franken) should never even be considered.

The Democrats lost much and gained absolutely nothing. AND they have out a valuable weapon in the GOP’s hands.

I wonder if any of those who called for Franken’s head realize that if a handful of RWers accuse any of them of sexual misconduct in future, they will have no choice but to resign immediately – by virtue of having insisted Franken resign in exactly the same circumstances.

This whole fiasco was such a dumbass move.

step down would take it off the headlines, because they felt it only served as a distraction to what the republicans and trump were doing. While there may be some validity in that argument, the fact that Al Franken wasn't given his chance defend himself, has upset a good number of people, because most people believe in fairness, and that fairness was not extended to Franken.

Exactly.

Just ssying.

Ending others political careers for hugging is insane.

Will backfire on women big time and let pressure off the real scumbags doing real bad things.

These are the things that frighten Democrats. While a group of frat boys are ripping off the nation blind, we’re still worried about the whatabboutist media.

And she also was the one being frequently asked to comment on Sanders from the beginning - and for a while was not suggesting he resign. It was only after the eighth accusation that she did so.

"Gillibrand thought she would be seen as a champion of women if she led the charge against Franken..."

I consistently see that allegation/talking-point, but I never see the hard evidence supporting it. Ever. Just more allegations.

It's a magic premise that strokes a particular narrative, but is nothing more that editorial and guess-work.

It's a great bumper sticker though. Works for the back of a t-shirt just as well.

Last edited Tue Jan 2, 2018, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

sensitive person, decided to resign and may have granted permission for fellow dems to make hay out of this horrible swiftboating event.

Unfortunately, there is no hay to made of swiftboating other than to let justice proceed -- the investigation should have gone forth (I believe the media should have been brought to task for smearing him with the frenzy they created)...even though there never should have been an investigation of Al...it's the swiftboaters who should be facing the investigation -- I wish those who retracted their calls for Al to resign would call for this.

Leahy, Heinrich, Merkley, Wyden, Carper, Udall, Whitehouse, Peters, Murphy, Booker, Tester, Reed, Nelson, King. Somehow, saying "Bernie and all the rest" doesn't adequately acknowledge the other men who were part of the dogpile as well.

yet it is very rarely mentioned that he signed the letter and made a strong statement calling on Franken to resign. Not all of those you named issued separate written statements, did they?

By CRISTIANO LIMA
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/full-list-senators-call-for-al-franken-to-resign-282175
12/06/2017 12:56 PM EST

Updated 12/06/2017 06:59 PM EST

A wave of Democratic officials, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and more than half of all Democratic senators, called on Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to resign Wednesday over numerous allegations of sexual misconduct.

SNIP
------------------------------
They all called upon him to resign, not just "Bernie and the others."

Sanders Statement on Franken
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement on Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.):

"Sen. Franken has said that he will be making an announcement about his political future tomorrow. The right thing is for him to resign. We are now at a crossroads in American culture. And it is an important one. The way we treat women in our country has been abysmal in almost every way. We are finally addressing the issue of sexual harassment, and we need to get it right. But the conversation we are having now is only the tip of the iceberg. It needs to be an ongoing movement of women and men that includes a national discussion about sexism, sexual harassment, objectification, inequality and abuse of power."

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-franken

Not sure anybody ever actually looked.
She was horrified by the thought of testifying and said she only wanted to make sure everybody just knew what she had gone through. Where did all that angst go?
Everything has now sunk into the swamp and we will never know the truth.

That’s like saying she only signed that resignation demand because she is a woman. She made a political decision that went awry.

She is one who showed lack of decernment to the individual claims made. She is jointly responsible with the others.

The cries of “it’s because she’s a woman” in this circumstance (and many others) is actually anti-woman. It implies that women are not equal to men, because any blame affixed to a woman’s own statements or actions should be seen through a different lens, or measured by a different metric based on her gender.

Chuck Schumer is also taking flack for his role in calling for Franken’s resignation – and yet no one has said, “Well, people are only blaming him because he’s a man.”

Women have fought for the vote, the right to own property, the right to higher education, the right to have dominion over their own bodies – the list goes on. To see some women promoting the idea that females should be treated differently due to their gender flies in the face of those who fought so hard for equality, NOT special treatment.

Gillibrand chose to be at the forefront, assuming her position on Franken would end in praise. When it ended instead in anger and ridicule, hiding behind the “it’s because she’s a woman” bullshit is tantamount to saying her actions had nothing to do with the backlash she herself invited, but is only because she is merely a helpless woman who is being pilloried based on her gender alone, without any regard to her actions.

The ONLY reason Gillibrand is targeted is because she tipped the sacred cow. It's not because she's female, it's because she didn't stand by the party line on Bill Clinton.

But I'll try.

Gillebrand can be distinguished from the dozens of other Democratic legislators calling for Franken's resignation in only one way, she also said that Bill Clinton should have resigned. When she did the former, she was just being a good DNC Democrat following the curremt party line, just like the others who joined her. When she did the latter, she stuck her finger in the eye of a DNC a majority of which continues to idolize Bill Clinton. That's why she and only she is being attacked over Franken.

when it was convenient to her, then stabbed them in the back when she thinks they are not useful to her anymore?

I am not thinking I have some grand insight here, mind you. From the start it's been nothing less than obvious that the people attacking Gillibrand care nothing about Franken, or else they would have gone after EVERYONE who called for his resignation. It's all about the dogma that Bill Clinton and "Clinton-brand" politics should be revered, not forced to take responsibility for three national electoral losses, evisceration of the power of the Democratic congressional caucus and the decimation of enthusiasm for our party in urban areas.

I'm just not into idolatry.

backstabbing of the Clintons after using them when it was convenient. Both instances show the kind of person that she is, and it is not flattering at all.

No, I'm not into idolatry. I just can't support a back-stabber who doesn't believe in due process.

Your hatred of the Clintons is showing.

Against the other signatories to the letter calling for Franken's resignation (which, btw, we won't see because the same people who wish to cannonize "Clintonian politics" believe that pandering to the sensitivities of the segment of white women who hate the Al Frankens of the world is in the party's best interest).

Yet still I await the day when even a simple majority of the putatively "pro-Franken" posts here state that they support primary-ing and/or will oppose the presidential aspirations, of every signatory to that letter, INCLUDING early party favorites for 2020 like Kamala Harris, and centrists like Amy Klochubar, Patty Murray and Claire McCaskill.

One other matter, I support Franken, just not the people who CLAIM to support Franken but who really are only upset about Bill Clinton being called on the carpet.

Last edited Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Most of us don’t idolize Bill Clinton. If there is idolatry (if you need that extreme language) then it’s for Al. And THAT is Gillibrand’s problem. Or should I say was.
She, Sanders and even Schumer (who I think has huge political ambition) saw a way to eliminate the most popular person in the Senate.
Everyone on Gill’s side says get over. Maybe we will maybe some won’t.
Gilli supporters need to get over the fact that she’s the one that’s being blamed. Woman or not.
Maybe some will maybe some won’t. That’s how it works.

A large percentage of the politicians who openly, and stupidly, called for Franken's ouster have big time political ambitions and, by your analysis, made that same political calculation . . . why is ONLY Gillebrand getting attacked?

There is one thing and one thing only that distinguished Gillibrand from the rest . . . she stood up against the Clinton version of what was much worse than anything Franken even dreamed of doing. Some who have singled out Gillibrand are folks who simply refuse to accept one cross word about Bill. Some are folks who have no personal affinity for Bill but are huge fans of his centrism and believe that anything that hurts him hurts centrism. Some are just uninformed and have no idea how the party orchestrated Franken's ouster and think Gillibrand was behind it.

If one takes the role as a leader then they take the role of a leader.

Some of us have moved on from the last election let alone Bill Clinton.

Since folks want to tell me why I support Al and not Gilli here’s some info

I did love Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1992 and through their stay in th WH.

I did love Bernie Sanders in the primary.

I did love Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate who was the most qualified ever.

Today, I find Bill a bit doddery. I find Bernie Sanders to be a bit stringent. As for Hillary, despite my disappointment she is no longer in public office.

I’m not voting for any of the above again unless by some miracle (my opinion, not asking for it to be yours) Gilli wins a GE election years from now, ask me then.

I stand with Al Franken. I’m not supporting ANY of that list of hatchet persons at this point in time.

I applaud that position. I stand solidly with Franken and against his critics. My only issue is with the transparency of those who attack Gillibrand while giving establishment darlings who signed the letter a free pass.

Franken's ouster is a stain on our party and its leadership.

I’m done now. We don’t agree but I thank you for arguing civilly.

And others agree to.

the one who had to be the first to talk and the one who showed her true colors by taking all sorts of help from the Clintons and then throwing them under the bus.

No loyalty whatsoever to anything but her own ambitions.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in all of them, but she chose to be the figurehead of this whole fiasco.

on her part to take that role or a way for her to further her own ambitions.

Look, I think she should stay in the Senate, I simply won't vote for her in a presidential primary.

I won't vote for any of them in a primary, because they chose to silence one of the few people in the senate willing to speak up and ask the hard questions...and all for right wing ratfucking.

But it's not, so. Look, no one is letting the other Dems off the hook. I've repeatedly stated I've switched to giving individual donations over this and I've seen plenty of other people criticizing the Dems as a group over this fiasco. But Gillibrand deserves to get blasted for her role in this and it has nothing to do with her gender.

I hope she enjoys it; revels in it, in fact, because it's probably the last serious attention she's ever going to get.

the Independent?

Gillibrand stepped in it. The answers aren’t going to change and all of a sudden Gillibrand is back in her past popularity.
You can bring up her being a woman a hundred times and you’re going to get the same answers. It has nothing to do with her being a woman.
Face it, tons of people would give her up for Al Franken in a heartbeat. In seconds!!
The shame is we should have them both.
Many feel she’s responsible.

Be able to discern one or more answers to the question you keep asking.

However, you don’t agree with me so I bid you goodnight.

are who I am angry with. Actually I am angry with all signers. It was a stupid thing to do.

She made a statement on her own. Others decided to make statements as well.

Saying she wasn't leading the way is really an insult to her. She took the brave step of speaking out first and yes there is some backlash, but she did it. Her supporters should own it and instead of diffusing her agency by saying she was just one of many.

If he had made a statement - there would've been pressure on other Democrats to follow suit.

Gillibrand took a stand, certainly, by being the first to issue a statement suggesting that Franken resign. Others could have easily issued statements after hers saying they did not think Franken should resign. The other Democrats made statements on their own because they came to a similar conclusion. It is an insult to Harris, Feinstein, Brown, Murphy, et al to say that they were led - this was something they had been discussing for weeks.

That would be my take.

My main point, though, is that anyone who feels like they can no longer support KG because of her stance with regard to Franken should feel the same way about Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, et al who took the same stance.

It seems odd to me that only Gillibrand really seems to be getting any blowback from this here.

With my demo senators from WA. They're lucky that the only probable alternative to them will end up being Dino Rossi..

are not exclusive to males.