we'll make a note of this in the meeting minutes

I think she is a super star.

It's the same deal as Bill de Blasio has: New York City Liberal!

They would be accused of "not understanding our values" pushed by the RW.

I thought maybe we could advance a good female Dem by pushing for Klobuchar but learned here at DU some progressives have problems with her.

and Kirsten Gillibrand is a New York senator...

(sigh) I want a good progressive woman on our ballot. But the more that comes out about how voters in 2016 were secretly voting for Trump but lying in the polls, the more I get despondent. (sigh)

They can't play that card any longer. How long are we going to let "values" be a cloak for assholiness?

She might not pass the "purity test."

but otherwise -- with I's, many Ds, and others.

At any rate, if she's out of favor within the DNC for having a correct view, then one has to question the DNCs priorities/fidelity to values really.

I know people were upset with her comments re: Bill Clinton. But.....

Out with the old and in with the new.

I'm all on board with another female running for president of our party.

be someone who stands a good chance and has the right purpose/philosophy/priorities, etc.

Hillary supporters told y'all that for two years!

Shoulda listened!

improvement over Drumpf. I'm not even fond of dogs, but it would be too difficult to locate a cat in emergencies.

The fictional character with a cast of writers. We would do far better than we are doing now.

They are not calling some men "dogs" for nothing.

A male or female dog? (This could determine if we win or lose!)

to have papers? Or possibly a shelter dog, that is paper-trained?

I think you are on to something we should explore fully.

but if it could be trained to piss and shit upon Trump's papers, it would be ideal.

Too easy to tag with the "B" label, and there would be no denying it.

Even better because it's asexual.

toast might be best.

Can a moderate be widely viewed as dynamic?

Certainly. We need to attract centrist and moderate redumbliCON votes to secure our Democratic Congress and WH.

without alienating our own base. To wit: We nominated Hillary in part because her strong national defense views (interventionism) would attract people concerned about Trump's isolationism.

Instead, we drove off a substantial number of anti-war voters

regardless of their political position; left, right or center. We need to appeal to the largest collective majority of people.

Wish Obama could return for a third term. The quest continues on........

we have not grown up enough to join the rest of world to have a woman leader when other countries in the world have no problem of having a woman leader. Just saying

Preferably women of color.

Like, Hillary was a woman and she was never accused of anything, ever. And it turned out so well because she was elected over the guy accused by multiple women of harassment. Oh, wait...

I would say we need to balance out the fact that the first 44 US Presidents were all men (and all but one was white).

I think we should have 44 women in a row.

Unlike what Republicans do.

Which presumably means that even qualified men shouldn't be nominated.

There are countless qualified women to choose from.

Absolutely not.

Millions of years of evolution seem to have made us males sort of jerks. I will understand when in the future women decide we are more bother than we are worth and start having only daughters.

Or maybe crsprcas9 will allow us to fix our genetic defects.

"Too risky to nominate a man in 2020"

Lets make a change!!!!!

at all but I'll never vote for one in a primary simply because she's female, she's got to be IMO the best candidate.

When an unforeseen problem is discovered. Fortunately I find Klobuchar the best candidate anyway.

Obama's behavior was above reproach when it come to treating all persons (including women) respectfully.

Perhaps the potential candidates from all genders needs to look at their own background and history before deciding to put their names forward.

No?

and that crap generally more easily debunked than attempts at covering up than a true transgression.

A man may seem great, may be great, but then we learn something disappointing. Al Franken is a perfect example. I love him, would be ecstatic were he President, but in a race against Trump charges about Trump being a sexual assaulted would be muted. We need someone who can scream at him full throated and we can not be sure that we men will not have some hidden problem in our past.

hence the need for a candidate to know what is potentially problematic in their own history and run for public office accordingly. I cannot and will not vote for a candidate based on the "possibility" of a risk.

Vote for the most competent person.

Discrimination has two flavors. Regular discrimination and invidious discrimination. As a man I am not worried that I will suffer in any serious way from anti male discrimination. Because we men have so many advantages I have little risk. Discrimination against those in power has little chance of causing much harm. Discrimination against minorities however who are not in power is scary as hell. The majority might really pass laws forbidding minorities from voting, from owning properties. So a white person calling a black person nigger is way way worse than a black person calling me a soda cracker.

So discrimination against a male Democrat in favor of a less powerful person, a woman, does not really bother me. The potential for harm to males in general is not high so this discrimination to achieve a good goal is ok with me.

Well we all draw our lines in the sand but you dont fight sexism with sexism .imo.

We oppose them because they do harm. Last I heard, admittedly years ago, 98% of dollars spent by California for contracting went to white men (counting share ownership of corporations etc). So I favored a program which gave minority owned contractors extra points in contract awarding decisions for five years. Then that advantage for that contractor expired. That is racism or at least an advantage based on race. That is a form of racism I support because it does good. I understand that there is a slippery slope but I support the distinction between discrimination, which in some cases is ok with me, and “invidious” discrimination which does harm.

We must think about WHY we oppose discrimination and tailor our actions to eliminate the harm some, most discrimination causes.

Otherwise you agree with those who oppose affirmative action, possibly. At the least you play into their hands.

One is a disabled woman (which will bring out disabled voters). The other is staunchly antiwar.

Pro-war Dems can't beat Rethugs in a Presidential contest

too divisive

winning...and vote for whoever wins.

I think the traditional while male elder statesman is the most likely to win.

Although he's probably registered in Westeros.

Sounds kind of sexist to me that each and every natural born male US citizen over the age of 35 is equally guilty in your mind of sexual misbehavior. That kind of generalization has a name and it's called sexism, no matter who it is about or who says it.

I have no doubt they will go after any woman that runs with equal zeal.