That modern politics demands hate, and anyone who tries to fight a boxing match as opposed to a street fight is considered weak. To quote Bill Clinton himself "people would rather have someone strong and wrong than light and right."

That's quite the quote. Unfortunately i think he is bang on.

Sadly, it doesn't look like it's going to end until the primaries are over, at which point the Rules will come down on the place -- or at least that portion of the rules about not undermining the Democratic candidate.

You might check out the Groups, if you have not already done so. Civility is strongly enforced in them, and the only caveat is to rein in criticism of Hillary if you're in the HRC Group, likewise in the Bernie Group.

See you around, I hope.

are excited about Bernie's campaign, because he represents something that has been missing in American politics for ages-- a proven track record of the things he sincerely and genuinely believes in, which are something we also believe in. I personally have never been as enthusiastic about a Presidential candidate since 1968, when everyone seemed to be supporting Robert Kennedy, until his untimely demise. Bernie projects a lot of the qualities that RFK did-- and I'm proud to support him.

I really don't see nastiness. I see honest enthusiasm for an amazing candidate. (and I have also seen some hand-wringing from a few Hillary supporters, and I certainly understand why)

I personally have never been as enthusiastic about a Presidential candidate since 1968, when everyone seemed to be supporting Robert Kennedy"

WRONG. Maybe everyone YOU knew was supporting Kennedy, but even with his name and money ties, he was BEHIND MCCARTHY at the time of his assassination. The California primary he had just won was by a razors margin. The likelihood that he could have pulled off an upset at the convention is a very slim possibility. Humphrey, though having never won a single primary had the support of Johnson, and got the nomination.

Kennedy was never widely supported, and had he not been murdered, likely would not be remembered nearly so highly.

He was gaining momentum, but was murdered immediately after winning the California primary in early June. He was catching up to McCarthy.

"In primaries where Kennedy and McCarthy campaigned directly against one another, Kennedy won three state primaries—Indiana, Nebraska, and California—and McCarthy one—Oregon." Kennedy also convincingly won the South Dakota primary on the same day as the California primary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_presidential_campaign,_1968

and there was also a strong feeling on the part of a fair number that Kennedy had not had the courage to enter the race until Eugene McCarthy demonstrated by his second place in the New Hampshire primary, that President Johnson was vulnerable. The McCarthy supporters were especially unhappy about this.

Yes, RFK's support was growing, but he was by no means the clear-cut probably nominee, and we can only speculate what might have happened had he not been killed. His chance to be nominated was slim at best.

Hillary Clinton supporters or Bernie Sanders supporters?

If we want to compare from the heart speeches, the one that's been posted here on occasion is Joe Biden talking to families of soldiers killed in Iraq and talking about his own loss.

That one that starts "I recall 1968 quite well myself..."

Last edited Sun Jun 14, 2015, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

In his last public statement, from the podium at the Ambassador Hotel, he closed by saying: “Now it's on to Chicago, and let's win there.”

Shot in the back of the head from very close range (per LA coroner Dr. Thomas Noguchi, MD) a few minutes later, Bobby asked, "Is everyone all right?"

Not many people, still, give a damn about others less fortunate more than Bobby Kennedy. It showed in his actions, too, not just his talk. Going from memory of the time, I believe he would have won in Illinois and a whole bunch more states. And he would have won the general election.

Oddly, it's hard to tell if RFK would have won the nom in Chicago; I at least gave it no thought once he was murdered, because I could tell in an instant that all our hopes had been dashed.

The thing we felt about RFK waiting to get in was that he let someone else test the waters first, and we rather resented that. He was a fine man, and the loss to the nation was incalculable, but as to "everybody" being on board in the campaign season...no.

I was in SoCal in 1968, and this was to be my first vote. I remember.

by the time RFK started to gain traction, the race was between Humphrey and RFK. Both left McCarthy far behind . . .

"At the time, Kennedy was fighting in a close three-way race for the party’s presidential nomination. In a nationwide Gallup poll the week before Kennedy’s assassination, Vice President Hubert Humphrey narrowly led Kennedy, 34% to 28%, with Sen. Eugene McCarthy receiving 26%. Among Democrats, the split was mostly between Humphrey (40%) and Kennedy (37%) with McCarthy further behind at 16%."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/05/polling-flashback-remembering-rfk/

the same people who are anti-Obama and anti-Democratic party.

But I don't think you actually read the heartfelt posts of Bernie supporters. They (and I will include myself here) want someone who speaks from the heart-- not a teleprompter-- about issues that are near and dear to us. Most of us hate war, hate the TPP, hate the growing income disparity, and lots of other rotten things that are plaguing our society. Bernie is addressing those things, from his heart, and based on his 30+ year track record we can see that he is sincere. How hard is it to accept the fact that a lot of us want REAL change, and we see Bernie is our best chance to effect it?

I've seen several declarations of not voting at all if Hillary is the nominee.

You are seeking the common ground and trying to make peace without showing favoritism. As one who grew up in a family of four, I thank you for your balance and fairness. Your children are I'm sure very lucky to have you as their mother. Thanks.

All i did was tell you had an op on the front page of DU..

personal choice as strongly as one can.

One should also be able to discuss or point out issues or stands of other candidates with which one does or does not agree. But that can be done reasonably, logically, respectfully and without ad hominem invective. We certainly can agree to disagree.

But I too have seen too much hyperbolic, unacceptable, and ad hominem rhetoric here on DU - which is the last place we should see it, IMO, because this is specifically a DEMOCRATIC website. Such language deliberately tries to tear down one or another Dem candidate and, in so doing, to divide us. This has all too often been a successful GOP tactic. I have personally seen it work - WAY too many times.

While I believe that such rhetoric is confined to a minority of posters, it is a very strident minority. For shame!

Anyone on DU who states that s/he will NOT vote for the Dem nominee, if that person is not the one they currently support, does not belong at DU.

I can assure you that whoever wins the Dem nomination in 2016 will be strongly supported by every one of those currently running against that person! Each one understands exactly what is at issue for the nation. For. Us. All.

If they can unite - as they will - so can we! Unless we are not who we say we are ....

Any "Dem" who will NOT ultimately support the Dem nominee has been in a coma since 2000. At least.

left and right. Don't bother to argue anymore.

in a very dark place, methinks.

it is about letting the worst candidate win.

But that is because I and my family are dependent on many of the programs that the worst candidates have been trying to destroy for the last 30+ years. I was raised to protect the New Deal programs like it were a life or death issue. And it is. And that is my guideline.

In fact, I challenge those who are so passionate about not voting for "the lesser of two evils" to think - instead of willfully to disrespect the choice they have. Because there is always a choice between better and worse.

After all, of the past several Presidential elections, I challenge those individuals to tell me - with impeccable and irrefutable logic (and a straight face) - which Dem candidate - even if not perfect (and believe me, not one of them was "perfect&quot - would NOT have been a MUCH better choice than the GOPer we got.

1980: Dem - Jimmy Carter; GOPer - Ronald Reagan
1984: Dem - Walter Mondale; GOPer - Ronald Reagan
1988: Dem - Michael Dukakis; GOPer - George Bush I
1992: Dem - Bill Clinton; GOPer - George Bush I (at LONG last, sanity, largely because Ross Perot split off a lot of GOPer votes that would otherwise have gone to Bush, not because all Dem voters showed sense)
1996: Dem - Bill Clinton; GOPer - Bob Dole (sanity again, this time with most Dems voting for Clinton)
2000: Dem - Al Gore; GOPer - George Bush II (this shouldn't count because Gore actually won, in spite of all)
2004: Dem - John Kerry; GOPer - George Bush II (I am STILL pissed off at Kerry for not challenging the vote in OH, among others)
2008: Dem - Barack Obama; GOPer - John McCain (and the truly awful Sarah Palin) (any Dem who would have voted for McCain and not Obama literally needs their head examined; sanity again and hope)
2012: Dem - Barack Obama; GOPer - Mitt Romney (sanity again, if a bit less hope)

I won't hold my breath waiting for that irrefutable logic.

But in 2016: Dem - ANYONE; GOPer - ANYONE (if any GOPer wins in 2016, I truly do not believe the US will survive; certainly New Deal programs will not)

have made life rough for President Obama. I have not read a person who is a Bernie supporter right now imply they wouldn't vote for Hillary
Trust me when I say some of the Hillary supporters here ain't gonna' vote for Bernie and if they do it'll be grudgingly. With all the implications that come with that.

This Bernie supporter is voting for whoever is our candidate in the general and not only that I won't be posting shit about them once they get elected either. I've put up with a lot of shit from Hillary supporters which indicates that won't be the case if it is reversed. It'll be another rerun of President Obama
This based on what I've seen these last 6 and 1/2 years.

and I've been spending a lot of time on here these last few days cause I'm too sick to do anything else. If any of those were posted they sure slipped by me, sorry

that can be found in just about every pro-HRC thread (outside of the HRC Group) and in just about every anti-HRC thread.

I don't go to the HRC group so I have no idea about that. I pretty much stay on GD, LB and EE

I've yet to see that anywhere

slides some links my way if you would be so kind

links would not be calling anyone out. Not having any links means what you've said is bunk

"won't vote for Clinton" into the DU search function?

But that would get us back to seeing, or not seeing, what we want/don't want to see ... Huh?

I got hell around here from the hill supporters yesterday
I used to wonder why the powers to be didn't put a stop to a lot of the obama bashing around here these last 6 and 1/2 years but now realize maybe why that is so

I honestly don't think Hillary can win the general. she was turned out to pasture before it ever got to that the last time around so why would this time be any different. If she can't then supporting her at this point will be shooting myself in the foot so to say

My better sense tells me that Bernie Sanders is our bestest hope. I actually hear republiCONs say that they like what they're hearing from him, this is republiCONs saying this, I'm also hearing democrats who say that Hillary scares the shit out of them and not one republiCON say they'll vote for Hillary, not a single one. Same as was the case the last time. We can't just wish someone into office, it doesn't work that way

nothing wrong with having an opinion what is wrong is when one can't or won't accept that their opinion is wrong and they're not willing to change with that knowledge.
This is all MY opinion of course. I know opinions are like aholes we all have one and all of that.

SOME Democrat will hopefully win the general. It's difficult to get 3 terms of one party post-FDR with the term limits imposed in the Constitution by amendment (although Reagan/Bush) achieved it. But it's something that needs to be fought for.

What Bernie has going for him is not unlike what Elizabeth Warren had going for her - he addresses the populace from the perspective of pocketbook issues and income fairness. Particularly in an era when the federal minimum wage hasn't been successfully addressed since 2007 and notably where the last increase of it went into effect in 2009... and the disparity between income brackets that has reached and even exceeded levels not seen since the late-'20s. He has experience in both chambers of Congress, which is important when attempting to move legislation through. He was also born and raised in an urban area and has lived in a mostly rural state.

What Hillary has going for her is the women's vote, which is very strong and will be moreso this time around because of the dynamics of the 2008 primary. She also has a wide-ranging knowledge of both the Executive and Legislative branches through election or appointment (and having been a First Lady in the White House), and has very extensive foreign policy experience. She is a Midwesterner with a long history in the deep south as a First Lady to then-Governor Clinton, but also in the Northeast as a Senator and through family ties. She has a law background (that people forget about) and although not practicing, I expect like Michelle Obama, one does not forget all that knowledge.

What O'Malley has going for him is the "outsider" perspective as a former mayor and governor. But then he also has an "insider" perspective coming from a state that has a large federal population and part of the "beltway" running through his state. MD is also a state that is (theoretically) both "the south" (below the Mason-Dixon Line) and "borderline north" (with a large transplant population from above that line). And because of the federal presence, he has also dealt with a large immigrant population. He was born and raised in an urban area (Washington, D.C.) and is from the "Obama generation" (which is mine too - tail-end boomers). Like Hillary, he is also a lawyer by education, which does help navigate legalese in legislation.

But all 3 will need to look at this nation's diversity as well as it's "regional issues", and then find a platform that covers "all of America" but also builds speeches tailored at specific regions that address their concerns when visiting that region. E.g., the water issue in the west, the environmental issues caused by coal ash or rail tanker spills in the south, the road and bridge infrastructure in the Midwest and Northeast, and the land rights and pipelines in the mountain west.

There are issues that impact Native Americans that don't impact me but are real issues to them. There are issues that impact Hispanics or Asians that often overlap with issues that my demographic has, but they have language and citizenship-discrimination issues that do not impact me but do impact them. There are issues of equality when it comes to gender, gender-identity, and even religion or choice of no religion (and I don't mean the RW nut interpretations of such). There are issues impacting those with disabilities where despite the passage of the ADA and amendments to it, many facilities are still not accessible - and this is critical for many of our Vets who are coming back into the population with missing limbs and prosthetics.

Each of these is a subset of the Democratic "base" and although the loudest push would be those issues that impact "everyone", these other issues cannot be shunted aside and marginalized. That will only guarantee a win for the GOP due to lack of Democratic turnout if they feel marginalized.

A number of users on here have said that over and over. And now, i didnt bookmark the pages for you. Just open your eyes, you'll see the, quite easily.

Simply look into any of the anti-Hillary threads.

Or for that matter, the pro-Hillary ones where her opposers go in to crap on.

....since HRC was such a strong front runner before she even announced and Sanders was adorably saying all the right things all along (yes, he was and he does), there are people who claim to be Sanders supporters who have used this opportunity to dredge up a whole bunch of anti-Clinton hysteria from the past, both distant and recent.

If you have missed out on this show, I congratulate you. Nonetheless, it is virulent enough that supporters (not "worshippers," not "blind followers," and certainly not PUMAs) end up hiding out in the HRC Group. Gee, way to create a unified Democratic base for the General Election, DU.

Personally, madokie, I think "PUMA" has become another one of those all-purpose insults, because I haven't seen anyone here claim to be one. It was a fleeting phenomenon in 2008, in the heat of the moment, and some of the people who used it then were not Democrats in the first place.

Likewise, I get a strong feeling that some of the "Bernie supporters" currently here were never Democrats either, as they seem a bit opportunistic, and not at all the kind of person the kindly Sanders would ask to endorse him. He has said he is "not running against Hillary," but they certainly are.

Get well soon, and all the best with your chosen candidate, whom I will support in the General if he gets the nomination.

All the best to her, but I just can't vote for her. I have never like the Clintons, and they will never get my vote. I live in CT, the DEM will win my state with or without my vote, so it's kind of a win-win. The party will get what they want, and I will get what I want.

no matter who I vote for the 'CON will win Oklahoma
After watching the video of Hillary support of the TPP that was posted here earlier this morning has me convinced she is NOT the person we want or need in the white house

I would like add to one thing you said: "If anyone...were able to be swayed by just a few well placed words..." No one on DU is going to sway me by expressing their opinion, however there are many threads that impart useful information about a candidate that I might not know or that I might consider worth discussing further. When some supporters of that candidate are engaging in nasty, snarky remarks about another candidate, I am turned off and don't read the thread at all. Any possibility of imparting that information is gone; meaningful discussion and debate are completely lost. That is not beneficial to the candidate or the party.

Thanks, MoF.

Because even if I didn't type them myself they sure sum up where I'm coming from.

I have no doubt that THIS election in particular will bring out a base of Democratic voters in the primary. I've personally never "gotten into it" in past primary arguments, and was a HARD Deaniac right around the time I joined DU. I saw how we ate our young then, and I'm not wasting one comment now.

Having said that, and never being wishy-washy, I am one of the un-hurded cats (what other kind are there?) in the crowd here. I'm sure what I say about the issues more than the candidate is part and parcel to the snark I occasionally put out there.

I think we're not enemies in the end. I'm sure I've gained a few "ignores" from yesterday… but tomorrow is what is important, and SO IS YOUR COMMENT.

I salute your great attitude. We are Democrats, whatever that means these days. Maybe a better definition will ensue by the end of the primary race. Jeebus, I sure hope it will!

MMM

The Republicans have always been the real enemy not the Democrats. I am going to support whoever wins this primary. Because, once again, the repugs are the enemy. I am proud that we have such great candidates.

Same as we were in 2008, in precisely the same way that the Republican Party is never blessed with such choices because none of them, voters or candidates, have enough empathy.

I've been around here long enough to know that some of us will back their primary candidate forever and only grudgingly surrender to the inevitable.

I swear the President's appointment of Hillary Clinton as SoS was just so that he could read the General Discussion forum here again.

We need to recognize and listen to and politically reward those people who endorse other candidates at this stage and help to inform and enrich the debate, as President Obama did for the Clinton team.

And I'm not just saying that because I am a cynical old Scandinavian-socialist-admiring tea leaf reader. I don't know that Bernie Sanders is going to handily lose to Mrs. Clinton, who in turn will easily defeat any Republican opponent (in a fair fight, which we won't have). But I do feel that Sanders is a wonderful counterbalance to America's Other Right Wing Party, which is where I feel we are today.

Political fanaticism kinda bugs me. Remember when Bush was President and we all used to wonder "What does he have to do to get some people to stop supporting him?"

And it was sad too that some people seemed to look like liars. They would say (in theory) "I hate Bush because he supports the TPP" but then would flip when Obama supported the TPP. (Although part of that is perception, because when Bush was President a thread attacking him for say, drones, might get 40 recs, but that did not mean that ALL of us were all that upset about drones. It only seemed that way.)

As for being enemies. Well, I would say that the DLC IS an enemy of the working class. Thus when it comes to "which side are you on?" supporters of the DLC or DLC candidates, are on the wrong side.

Too many people seem to forget though. Our goal is NOT to defeat our enemies, our job is much harder - trying to get them to switch sides.

Could we disallow the question that goes along the lines of "if your candidate looses, and my candidate wins, will you vote for my candidate in the general election?" I think that question is bs and is nearly always asked with ill intent - similar to calling someone out which is disallowed. The effect would that asking that question would be grounds for a hide.

It's been a little busy for me last night and tonight- I didn't post and run I promise.

I'll check out the groups and I feel much better knowing there's a goodly amount of people on here that don't like the bickering too

to smear Hillary that bothers me.

Some people are willing to post links or opinions. That's fine.

Some DUers continue to post thread after thread using RW material, old rumors, and Tea Party repeats. In some cases, I've argued with the same disproven story over and over with the same poster. We all know that the source for some of the crazy stuff is usually some repub operative, so it's disappointing to see them repeated on DU.

but strong, dedicated, persistent when it comes to issues.

I'll take politics if the topic comes up, give opinions on issues or politicians say why I like whoever I like but won't sell anything. I find common ground better that way but I prefer it that way honesty-wise. I'll vote at election time.

...with passionate voters engaging on issues of substance.

Don't be fooled by Republican lock-step. We're not supposed to just shut up and obey the money.