General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAt Kirsten Gillibran's exploratory committee facebook page, it looks like 9 out of 10 comments are
in favor of All Franken.
I can't find the link but I got it as an ad on my i phone.
Where it asks do you stand with her the no button doesn't work.
I hope she gets the message
Response to wasupaloopa (Original post)
UniteFightBack This message was self-deleted by its author.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)Response to wasupaloopa (Reply #2)
UniteFightBack This message was self-deleted by its author.
BannonsLiver
(16,162 posts)Its going to be a hard road for Kirsten. One should probably adjust their expectations and skin thickness accordingly.
Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #6)
Post removed
BannonsLiver
(16,162 posts)You post in multiple Gillibrand threads upset people are criticizing her because you are a dispassionate observer. Doesnt seem believable but hey, not really that big of a deal. Shes not going to be the nominee anyway.
Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #16)
UniteFightBack This message was self-deleted by its author.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)A woman who has been on the forefront on sexual harassment and violence gets ripped to threads and accused of being THE driving force for Franken resigning (I still can't figure out why someone that make that claim don't realize that if she is that influential, she should be President). But a guy who well could have ignored aggressive sexual harassment as well as pay discrepancies get every excuse made for him as to why he was not on top of those problems.
Nothing to see here, it is just the typical stuff of some men grabbing for their gonads when a women that threaten their sense of manhood walks into the room. I am willing to bet that all the negative comments left on Gillibrand's site were written by men. If she makes her case as to why she should be President, I have no hesitancy in voting for her in the primary, and if she wins that, supporting her 100% from then on.
Response to Blue_true (Reply #26)
UniteFightBack This message was self-deleted by its author.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)BlueStater
(7,596 posts)It actually HURTS the fight against sexual harassment when you call for men to lose their jobs for accusations that haven't been fully researched.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)were going to give Franken a fair hearing.
Mr.Bill
(24,104 posts)given that he probably has about 20 IQ points on every one of them and they would be people in glass houses throwing stones.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)He would have only been in the room during his own testimony. He wouldnt have the rest of the time when the republicans would have made it a circus to humiliate Franken.
Mr.Bill
(24,104 posts)Franken doesnt have super powers once he finished testifying, hed be out of the room and powerless to defend himself.
spooky3
(34,302 posts)He knew it would be stacked against him. To me that was a clear indication that he was not likely to have done things worthy of expulsion.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)because he knew he wasnt going to get a fair hearing and was handing the GOP a propaganda victory so he took one for the team by resigning.
spooky3
(34,302 posts)Dem colleagues urged him to do so. Nt
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)But that doesn't preclude that he was sacrificing himself for the good of the party.
spooky3
(34,302 posts)to take one for the team, but had he not been pressured by the team, he clearly indicated he was willing to go through the investigation process. That indicates to me that he believed he had not done something worthy of removal. And I wrote to my Senators when the first allegations were made that this sounded like Republican tricks. I suspect other Virginians did also, because while Warner and Kaine were not exactly profiles in courage, they were not at the forefront calling for Franken to leave.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Maybe he was pressured. Either way he took one for the team.
DFW
(54,055 posts)I have already posted, and this comes from the man himself, what finally pushed Al to resign, and that was when the Governor of Minnesota appointed his successor before he had even reached a decision. THAT was the straw that broke the camels back.
Sorry, no links and none of his cell phone numbers. If you want to go on making stuff up, be my guest.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)when you claim to have spoken with Franken, so it would be nice if you returned the favor.
DFW
(54,055 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 21, 2019, 01:27 AM - Edit history (1)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)because the charges had no validity, that I could tell. Remember...no one had even spoken with any of the accusers. The two main ones...the first was a total bogus thing by a Republican (just show her video of her twerking a male on the same tour...she was actually rubbing her butt up against one of them; that was typical of entertainment tours like that...Franken's joke was minor; he didn't touch her, the photo just looked like he was), and the one about his putting his hand around the waist of someone who had asked for a pic with him, and he grabbed some flesh...oh, come on. That's just ridiculous to consider as harassment.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)but there were 7 others and Franken wouldnt have been in the room to cross examin them. http://time.com/5042931/al-franken-accusers/
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)You know what evidence is, I'm sure. Someone saying something on Fox or telling a reporter in passing, is NOT evidence.
Evidence is sworn testimony, in person or by affidavit. But they didn't even pick up the phone and CALL any of these women. They didn't even SPEAK with them.
In short, there was no evidence. I'm not going to respond any further to attempts to excuse the wrongful actions against Al Franken.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)But there is evidence that there were over 30 Senators who called for Franken to resign on the same morning.
dansolo
(5,376 posts)You are saying that a hearing wouldn't have helped Franken because the Republicans on the comittee would have said really bad things about him? That is utterly rediculous. The point of the investigation was ensure that all the facts were known, but apparently anonymous and biased accusations from partisan Republicans are sufficient for you.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)And an ethics committee hearing is not the same thing as an FBI investigation. Do you really think the republicans would have given Franken a fair hearing?
Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)With the way he questioned Sessions, I have no doubt he could have handled himself well.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)But that would have only been during his testimony, if the republicans had even allowed him to testify. During the testimony of others he would have not been in the room or allowed to cross examin.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The ethics investigation cleared him.
A longstanding Democratic Senator with some clout.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)The Ethics committee issued a letter which severely admonished Menendez despite the fact that all the changes against him had been dropped.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Since she's all keen on ethics and all...why not insist on ousting Menendez? Or Schumer? Maybe because he wasn't popular on a national level like Franken, and the public wasn't asking him to run for President, maybe? Maybe.
Franken would still be a Senator, if he had gone through an Ethics Investigation rather than the ouster that Gillibrand spearheaded.
It was the wrong thing to do, what they did to Franken. As a result, I doubt she'll be the nominee.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)with no evidence to support any of them. And it was over 30 Senators who called on Franken to resign. As far as what would have been the outcome if the ethics committee hearings had happened, no one can say with any certainty.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)This was discussed in an interview.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)and she was the first one to demand his resignation. (I think she was the second one, actually, but the interviewer introduced her as the first.) She proudly explains why, and still defends it...the right thing to do, etc.
What else can she say? Admit she was manipulated by the Republicans? That she's that naive? Or admit that she was very wrong in killing someone's political career without even checking out the accusations or the people making them? No,,,,that would kill HER career. Or admit that she put her own career aspirations above the career of someone else, without evidence to support her claims? She has no choice but to continue to defend her position. The result is that she won't be the nominee. Not gonna happen.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)And one of over 30 on the same morning.
I have no doubt she defends it, but proudly is your impression.
And there were 7 other women not just Tweeden. Were they all Republican plants?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)She's toast. There was no evidence at all. None.
She was the face of the bandwagon to oust Franken. She accepted that tag, when an interviewer introduced her as that.
She's toast.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)on the same morning. That is a simple fact.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)And Im just stating facts. Nothing wrong with repeating facts.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Gillibrand was not even the first Senator to call on Franken to resign. But the unreal hatred of her continue. People are granting her amazing powers to tear her down, like she was the cause of Franken resigning, or that as a very young lawyer, she led the effort on behalf of a then major tobacco company that would not put it's fate in the hands of a greenie. Every decision that she has ever made is frozen in time, while one person that has made mistake after mistake gets a fresh start over and over.
Celerity
(42,663 posts)hampered from doing so, or I am fairly sure would have also said he needed to go. 48 out of 49 Democratic Senators gave him no support.
Joe Manchin was the lone voice of support.
Also, Gillibrand was far from alone in planning (for a week or two) to call for him to resign. I am pretty sure Schumer signed off on the women Senators who met so many times and decided to do this. If he had no clue then he is incredibly out of touch, and if they all still went against his wishes, he was not in power over his caucus.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211564417#post46
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Nice to meet someone with an open mind who will accept the facts.
DFW
(54,055 posts)See if you can name all seven, and when they decided to come forward, and at whose urging.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Please provide links to credible sources.
brush
(53,471 posts)because your post smacks of it.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)the accusations, however supported or unsupported they may have been, were out there, and anyone who spoke up is opposition to them was branded a misogynist (if not a rape apologist) and told to "shut up" and "stay in their lane".
No evidence needed, no investigation required; you're accused, you're gone, along with anyone who dares to utter a word in dissent.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The Senators don't each act alone. They work in groups and on committees. They rely on the other Senators in their party. Without the support of most of the Senators, and particularly Schumer, Franken would not have been able to function properly in the job. So he did the only thing he could do, for Minnesota.
When Schumer joined the fray, that was the death knell.
They all fell for the Republican manipulation, IMO. What was disturbing was that altho Gillibrand said the accusations were credible, there was a difference of opinion on that, AND they did not even speak to one of the accusers. Not even one of them. They didn't ask questions. The accusers did not swear in affidavits or in person...so it wasn't testimony under oath (which is not evidence).
In other words, Gillibrand was all too eager to get rid of Franken, who had not long before started receiving calls from the public for HIM to run for President. Gillibrand, who was planning to run, ....well, I think she was all too eager to get rid of a potentially strong opponent in her bid for the nomination.
As a consequence, she made it all but certain that she will not be the nominee.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)She does NOT get a pass because she is a woman. She screwed up by leading, or nearly leading the charge to get rid of one of our best Senators. THAT is why she is a target. She knows now she fucked up big time, but is unwlling to back down and admit she was wrong.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Then why aren't you and others falling over yourselves to make her President. All great Presidents in the country's history have been the ones that convinced often skeptical populaces. You claim Gillibrand greatly influenced 30+ ambitious, independently minded people, well if what you claim is true, she has the one key ingredient that all great Presidents have had.
vdogg
(1,384 posts)There are plenty of influential people who should have never been handed the reigns of power. She influenced many of her colleagues to go along with this guilty until proven innocent crap that caused Franken to resign. Thats not a quality I want in a president. Thats not the type of influence someone should have.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)For example, if Lincoln had put George Henry Thomas in as the leader of Union forces and gave him the room to lead those forces, hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved by the civil war ending quicker. Thomas was by far the best Union command officer, if you take time to read all historical accounts of command officers in that war, but Thomas was a southerner. Lincoln made compromises for political reasons that led to bad outcomes. But even with all of that Lincoln is arguably our best President (maybe a nudge past Washington, a man who also made significant mistakes, if you read historical accounts and don't go on recreations of the quality of his leadership).
So, I am perfectly fine with the idea of Gillibrand as President, she would have a capacity to make both mistakes and great policy, just like the greats through the country's history.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)In the fucking back. That is why.
What happened was a lemming moment.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)So Shumer, and many others are lemmings. How insightful, I would have never guessed that. 30+ Senators looked at information that was available and made up their own minds.
vdogg
(1,384 posts)I do not support Gillibrand. Does that make me misogynistic?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I do think a segment of her most virulent attackers are.
Since you spoke out, answer this question for my. One of the points that people that take your position keep harping on is that Gillibrand came out strong against Franken and that started an avalanche of illogic. Ok fine if you want to believe that.
But if you do hold on to that claim, you by default say that she is a powerful influencer. Why wouldn't she be a great choice for President given that you literally admit that she is a powerful influencer? Every single one of the great Presidents had very large faults, but each was able to convince a critical mass of people to do something they saw as important, even when it turned out wrong.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)And yes, you clearly did imply that criticizing Gillibrand is equivalent to misogyny, in my opinion.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)You seem to not be distinguishing between good convincing and convincing that has evil at it's core. Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, FDR, LBJ were convinced that had mostly good ends in mind, even as they made massive mistakes that history showed to be wrong and even a bit unethical.
BTW, I just found out that "someone" and "some" meant "all", thanks for clearing that up for me.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)As to your earlier post, you did say all:
I think that we are seeing misogyny rearing it's head again.
A woman who has been on the forefront on sexual harassment and violence gets ripped to threads and accused of being THE driving force for Franken resigning (I still can't figure out why someone that make that claim don't realize that if she is that influential, she should be President). But a guy who well could have ignored aggressive sexual harassment as well as pay discrepancies get every excuse made for him as to why he was not on top of those problems.
Nothing to see here, it is just the typical stuff of some men grabbing for their gonads when a women that threaten their sense of manhood walks into the room. I am willing to bet that all the negative comments left on Gillibrand's site were written by men. If she makes her case as to why she should be President, I have no hesitancy in voting for her in the primary, and if she wins that, supporting her 100% from then on.
I don't see any ambiguity in that statement. A lot of sexist bile, but no ambiguity.
Edited to add: And, you'd lose that bet; a quick look at her Facebook page would show you that many of the posters chastising her for her role in the Franken situation are women.
Response to UniteFightBack (Reply #3)
Post removed
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)In the United States we support our favorite candidate and oppose the others. It has been that way ever since the first elections. We like to call it democracy.
Response to wasupaloopa (Reply #12)
UniteFightBack This message was self-deleted by its author.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Lets be clear, what happened to Franken sucks. If this happened at any other time Franken would have survived. Compared to people like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein, Franken was at worst a rude jerk.
However, the demonizing of Gillibrand is unfair. As is the willingness by some to disparage 7 women including an veteran as all liars without any evidence. It is like something out of the 1950s at times.
mastermind
(229 posts)It doesn't do the party any good. If members don't wish to support a candidate and want to explain the reasons, fine, but lets not go after them in the same way we go after the fascists because they don't deserve it but the fascists do.
nini
(16,670 posts)Can we not bring that up if it is one's belief that person is wrong? Who gets to decide which democrat is off limits?
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Of what you noted on the page and I appreciate the information.
Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)are ok some are not.
jpak
(41,742 posts)yup
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Response to USALiberal (Reply #22)
UniteFightBack This message was self-deleted by its author.
aeromanKC
(3,307 posts)No worries though for Gillibrand 2020, she will be one of the first ones out. It will come down to Biden, Beto, Harris, and Warren. (and Klochubar moving up on my list!!)
Stuart G
(38,359 posts)... The contrast to Trump is amazing. We must win to save this country. Biden has the best chance...and I will propose a VP...(although I do not think he can run.??) Barack Obama...if not Barack, then how about Michelle.?
regnaD kciN
(26,035 posts)Think of him as a younger Biden, whos been able to succeed with a progressive message in a state that seems to otherwise have turned straight red.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,043 posts)And his wife, Connie Schultz, would be one kickass FLOTUS.
safeinOhio
(32,531 posts)Wins.
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)and there is a large segment of the stupid population who votes on who 'they like'...and that is it.
Stuart G
(38,359 posts)We almost never talk politics, but a few months ago, we talked about candidates for president. He said that he would easily vote for Biden because Biden is the "best candidate"
That is all I need to hear. Biden will win, and we need to win. Again,..."We need to win" If Trump is running or Pence or some other jerk, we need to win. Biden will win.
....I sure hope he is available to run and win.
Response to Stuart G (Reply #29)
UniteFightBack This message was self-deleted by its author.
regnaD kciN
(26,035 posts)...but I worry that shell be the natural V.P. pick, particularly if the nominee is male. Which would, of course, put her front-and-center as his successor, should he defeat Trump, or as the 2024 nominee otherwise.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,043 posts)dhol82
(9,351 posts)Harris, Warren, Klobuchar. Any of them would be the better choice.
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)great VP pick.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)every time Gillibrand's name comes up, some one associates her with Franken.
This happened this morning when a discussion of 2020 came up and no one else had an such an absolute dealbreaker.
Gabbard, Biden, Harris, Bernie, Warren... All were worthy of discussion, but Gillibrand had Franken around her neck.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)LOL
There was a thread a few days back concerning Gillibrand and one of the first replies was simply "al frenken" (sic).
It's almost become Pavlovian.
brush
(53,471 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)Anyway, there are plenty of great dems. I won't waste one unnecessary minute on her.
She did it it to herself
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)Sorry, Im fresh out.
SharonClark
(10,005 posts)There is really no explanation for the inordinate Franken-love and Gillibrand-hate on DU. You don't like that she was one of 38 Dems who asked him to resign but some Duers put almost the entire blame on her. She has been a leader against sexual harassment, I would expect her to do no less.
Franken's permature resignation, before the Ethics Committee issued a report, is on his head. Let me repeat that - his resignation is on his head. It was his action, not Gillibrand's. She is not responsible for his actions.
I loved Franken, as much as the next person, when he out-smarted repugs and I was very disappointed when he resigned. I wanted to know the truth and now we may never know because of his actions. Franken lovers should ask themselves why he resigned so quickly, why he didn't stand up for himself, why this very articulate and smart man could not respond to the allegations in a thoughtful way, and why so many of his supporters on DU have become such bullies.
I'm sad about Franken's behavior, we lost a good senator because of it. But I'm also sad about the gleeful Gillibrand-hate on DU. It is not becoming.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)The hatred against here here is astounding. Someone in an earlier thread said the only reason shes opposing Trump on everything is because thats what NY wants. I mean hell, Id be happy to have a Senator that listens to its constituency and acts accordingly. Somehow, thats a bad thing because Gillibrand?
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)But that doesn't excuse Franken's behavior.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)And since there was only the bare minimum of an investigation, that's all it'll ever be.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Over thirty Democratic senators called for Franken's resignation including some who are running for president. Why is only Gillibrand the target of their ire? I like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris better but it has nothing to do with Gillibrand's Franken stance. IMO she is being bullied.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)Will get my vote as they have demonstrated they lack the judgement to be President.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)doc03
(35,148 posts)Paladin
(28,202 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)That's one way to look at the positive side.
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)Thanks.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Had the Cavanaugh nomination gone in the Democrats' favor, she'd be further towards rehabilitated among the donor class.
She's keeping the brand as strong as possible and taking her lumps. We'll see if the tide of resentment and spite about Franken recedes enough to give her a base to rebuild for 2024.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Possibly she did....
Gillibrand defends her statement before Franken's ouster: 'Enough was enough'
<snip>
"Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand defended her decision to call on former Sen. Al Franken to resign after allegations of unwanted touching and kissing were made against him, earning praise from a friendly audience of Iowans in Sioux City on Friday."
<snip>
"Gillibrand's comments were well received in the room, including by Bernie Scolaro, the 60-year old woman who asked the New York Democrat who is running for President the question.
"It was the only thing I keep reading about" regarding her, Scolaro said. "She believed what she said, and she spoke to the truth. She followed her conviction. I respect that."
<snip>
"The Franken saga, however, was not a primary concern for Iowans on Friday.
Marlene Sturdevant, the host of Friday night's gathering, said she really "liked" Franken but described Gillibrand's role in pushing him out as "so-so."
"It's just unfortunate," she said.
David Halaas, a 64-year-old man from Sioux City, said he didn't think Gillibrand's role in Franken's ouster would hurt the senator in Iowa.
"I think she spoke her mind and answered honestly," Halaas said. "She was speaking from her heart."
And Jim Jung, a 70-year-old from Sioux City, said he believed people "have forgotten about all that."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/gillibrand-franken-iowa/index.html
getagrip_already
(14,250 posts)That this is EXACTLY the kind of issue that bots would seize on to exploit. They are looking for natural fractures to blow wide open.
I realize a lot of dems don't like her stance on franken, or clinton, (including me), but try not to get into a nuclear debate with people you don't know over it.
Disagree, sure, but keep it between the navigational beacons.
Lets not do their job for them. They are like the miserable little snits in school that were too cowardly to something, so they egged others on to do it instead.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)OTOH where is the ire for the thirty some Democratic senators who joined her in asking for Franken's resignation.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)They also didn't use the scandal to shamelessly grandstand for the camera and try to score political points like Gillibrand. That's why she's catching more heat than all of the others.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Kamala Harris
Elizabeth Warren
Cory Booker
Bernie Sanders
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/full-list-senators-call-for-al-franken-to-resign-282175
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)There's around 40-something Democratic senators and only a few of them are pursuing the presidency.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)There are seven or so Democratic senators who are running for president or are seriously considering running for president:
Cory Booker
Kamala Harris
Elizabeth Warren
Jeff Merkley
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders (not a Democrat but caucuses with them and will run as a Democrat in the primaries if he chooses to do so)
So only one out of seven Democrats running for president or considering running for president didn't call on Franken to resign and that senator is from his home state. A more accurate statement would be most Democratic senator called on Franken to reign including most of the Democratic senators running for president.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Gillibrand stood in front of all the network cameras, condemned Franken for allegations that were never properly investigated, and made herself look extremely opportunistic in the process. The others did not do this. If they had, they'd be catching the exact same level of flak as her.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)....misogynist.
Mad as hell at Gillibrand and don't appreciate that she was a Tobacco industry defense attorney before turning to politics.
Hard to trust this person.
Will of course vote for her in the general, but will work hard to primary against her.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)and a lot of reasons, including Franken, that I won't choose Gillibrand in the primary.
Her principles seem to be based on what is convenient for her at any given time, I guess it depends on who is asking and what they can do for her.
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Frances
(8,531 posts)in an interview I saw. Unfortunately, that reminded me of the kind of things some Republicans have said in the past.
I make it a habit to keep an open mind in the early days, but at his point, I think there are far better candidates.
Fuzzpope
(602 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)is suffering any "consequences" here. And the standard reply that she was the "first" is a steaming pile that doesn't pass the smell test.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Or are you trying to tell me that the other 30 to 40 Democrats (and BS, the non-Democrat) that called on him to resign would have kept quiet? And that she is so powerful, that she and she alone got them to do this?
As to President Clinton, there are many Democrats that believed he should have resigned. I'm not one of them, but I can't fault someone for having that opinion.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)The only reason I still give him a pass is because, if you believe what has been report, she was chasing him. There is no doubt he should have known better ... but she wasn't just an active, willing participant ... it sounds like she was the aggressor. Which, when it comes to Bill, probably need require much aggression.
That's why when Monica came out with her #MeToo moment, it was nauseating. She was diminishing people who really had been victims of harassment and assault.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)a consensual bj. And, those that were making the most out of it were in the midst of an extramarital affair themselves or at least had had one (or more) in the past.
I used to call him Slimy Newt back in the day.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)opposition to same sex marriage against him? No because he evolved on the issue and came out in the right place.
brush
(53,471 posts)when the repug hit job on Franken first surfaced. No one else was talking about it and her gullibility combined with her opportunism shown through as she proceeded to call for Al's resignation. And she didn't stop there, she called for Bill Clinton to retroactively resign because of the Lewinsky consensual affair.
I knew then her judgment was extremely questionable as there was absolutely no reason to drag Clinton into it, especially since the Clintons had helped her fill Hillary's vacated Senate seat.
And anyone with ambitions to run for president on the Dem ticket is kidding themselves if they think the Clinton's don't still have influence in the party.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)if he should have resigned. But I'm sure that doesn't make any difference. You want your pound of flesh and you're sure going to get it.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)What excuse could she have given for not answering the question?
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)The Clintons are out of politics so who did it really hurt.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)This is the only radio interview from that period that I could find:
"It's his decision," Gillibrand said. In the same interview, she elaborated by saying that "this is a watershed moment" for sexual harassment.
"What's so powerful about this moment in time is that survivors are willing to tell their story."
The catch here is that Sen. Gillibrand only wants heads to roll if the alleged perpetrators represent the other side of the aisle, or, in the case of the Clintons, when their grip on power has passed. Gillibrand hasn't been asked about Conyers because he's in the House, but with Franken, she whiffed on a golden opportunity for the Democrats, in general, to regain some credibility and moral high ground.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kirsten-bill-clinton-shouldve-resigned-gillibrand-cant-bring-herself-to-call-for-al-franken-to-resign
The record shows that Gillibrand didn't call for Franken to resign until the morning of December 6th, the same morning as over 30 other Senators did so. Franken announced his resignation the next day on the 7th.
As far as Bill Clinton, that was a completely separate interview:
But she also appeared to signal that what is currently considered a fireable offense may have been more often overlooked during the Clinton era.
Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction, Ms. Gillibrand said. And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him.
https://nyti.ms/2hGKxYL
If there is a different radio interview that you are referring to, please post a link to it.
brush
(53,471 posts)When was it? Do you have a link?
mastermind
(229 posts)went through any investigations if there were to be any. It was a movement to prove to the world that we are better than the repugs and Sen Franken was the sacrificial lamb. In the end it was his choice to resign. I'm not going to go after any Dem who pushed for his resignation. It doesn't do the party any good. If members don't wish to support a candidate and want to explain the reasons, fine, but lets not go after them in the same way we go after the fascists because they don't deserve it but the fascists do.
rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)Yawn. I will vote for her if she gets the nomination, but not before.
TeamPooka
(24,155 posts)like they did in 2016.
Their use of online trolls in this way is unprecedented.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)She's toast, I think.
Hangdog Slim
(80 posts)Her first visit was to Wall Street! You can't expect her to hold Wall Street firms accountable if they fund her campaign.
Cattledog
(5,897 posts)brooklynite
(93,853 posts)If memory serves, Bernie Sanders supporters regularly point to Facebook posts as a sign that their candidates was rolling to victory in 2016.
flamingdem
(39,304 posts)after to what she did to Franken
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)bitterross
(4,066 posts)Let's not forget she represented Philip Morris. If throwing Franken under the bus isn't enough representing Philip Morris should be.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl in 64
Elizabeth Warren was a republican for decades.
And Trump was a Democrat until he decided to run for President.
People change and evolve so let's focus on the here and now.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)oasis
(49,151 posts)who believes they know more than he does about this particular situation.