eGhazi: Why Democrats and Hillary Clinton Need A Contested Primary

As Laura Clawson deftly describes, the Media is turrible on its best days, but when the Clintons are involved, they reach seemingly impossible nadirs, and stay down there.

There's a lot to question about Hillary Clinton's policy positions, especially, in my view, on foreign policy. But those questions will never get asked by the Media on its own.

The Media doesn't actually care about policy. Partly because it's hard to report on policy. Partly because they don't really care about policy. The only way they do is if a political opponent raises the issue.

More on the flip.

Do you want to hear about income inequality and how Clinton would try to attack the problem? Don't hold your breath waiting for the Media to cover that. It will require a primary challenger to do this.

Want to hear about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy views? Want her hawkish ideas challenged? Don't count on the Media for that. It will take a primary challenger.

I don't think any fair person can challenge Clinton's commitment to women's rights. But just yesterday she gave a speech at the UN on the 20th Anniversary of her famous "women's rights are human rights speech," the chances of prominent coverage would have been nil but for the chance to ask about eGhazi.

Without a contested primary, no important issues will be covered.

Democrats need a contested primary.

Hillary Clinton needs a contested primary.

Because our Media is simply terrible.

< TalkLeft Appreciation Days | The Fight Against ISIS' "Shock and Gore" Media Campaign >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:01:31 AM EST
      but I'm not supremely confident a "contest" would generate  much more than the punditry on the "horse race" aspects and "inside baseball" analysis of campaign strategy and tactics from the media.

      Issues of government and  policy will still be "hard" to report (and, to be fair, the candidates often contribute to the difficulty by focusing on branding, message and superficial talking points, etc.)


    Maybe Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    He would raise issues of importance.   But the media would just cover him to say he has no chance of winning...

    Webb could raise income inequality.  O'Malley appears to be running for VP.

    But, wow, the press and even a lot of Democratic commentators are very, very tough on Hillary.  Tweety and Lawrence O'Donnell apparently just can't help themselves tearing into her.  

    While I strongly support someone (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    challenging Hillary from the left,  Webb's votes in the Senate are not those of a champion to combat income inequality, let alone someone who would move Hillary to the left.

    Senate votes.

    In May 2007, Webb joined with other conservative Dems to prevent cloture on Reed/Feingold which would have put a time frame on funding the Iraq invasion. Obama and Clinton voted for cloture.

    In September, 2007, Webb joined with other conservative Dems to prevent cloture on another  Reed/Feingold bill which also attempted to put a time frame ending the Iraq invasion. Obama and Clinton voted for cloture.

    Thanks to a post by Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees at the Orange for additional information on Webb some highlights:

       The DW Nominate system scores members of Congress from -1.00 (most liberal) to 1.00 (most conservative). For the 112th Congress, Jim Webb clocked in at -0.193, between Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Tom Carper (D-DE). He is listed to the right of Max Baucus (D-MT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)....
        Jim Webb voted with Republicans and Joe Lieberman to oppose the Democrats' plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for only the first $250,000 in income. Webb wanted millionaires to get their full tax cuts, too.
        In 2012, Jim Webb was the only Democrat to vote against extending reduced interest rates for student loans. He was a staunch student loan reform in general. Link

    Read the whole post. It outlines his votes on the environment, closing tax loopholes for big oil and his stand on affirmative action.

    Also, The American Conservative Union rated Webb's time in the Senate as far more conservative than Clinton's time in the Senate.


    The last thing we need is for (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    Hillary to get a primary challenger who will allow her to move to the right, and in my opinion, if Webb is that challenger, that's exactly what will happen.

    No, she needs a challenge from the real left, not the right.


    I am having a hard time understanding why (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    anyone is promoting Webb as a progressive alternative to anyone even HRC.

    As far as income inequity is concerned, he takes the position that the white working class is the segment that is being discriminated against (sounds a whole lot like the Republicans I know) and Webb also said that "Obama's executive amnesty" divides the country  and would be an unprecedented overreach of presidential authority.

    He does get positive write ups from breitbart.com as well as some Democratic media and

    Robert Patterson noted that Webb even offers lessons that establishment Republican politicians can learn to appeal to working-class voters. link

    If I wanted to vote for a conservative, i would vote for a Republican that actually runs with a R after his name.


    Slim pickins (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    both sides need to grow better people . . .

    Are the pickins so slim that (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    So called Dems have to promote a conservative as a progressive hero?

    I agree that both sides need to grow better people but exactly what planet are these people from:

    "On the FiveThirtyEight blog, Harry Enten concluded that Webb could be "the ideal Clinton challenger." Al Hunt of Bloomberg News said Webb could be Clinton's "worst nightmare," while William Greider wrote in The Nation that Webb might become "a pivotal messenger" for the left.""

    For gawd's sake have they ever looked at his record? He ranked right behind Bill Nelson (D-FL) and  was listed to the right of Max Baucus. How would anyone in their right mind view him as a messenger for the left?


    No one would, really (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by sj on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    How would anyone in their right mind view [Webb]as a messenger for the left?
    But if they keep saying that they can try to pull the wool over the eyes of the average busy-trying-make-a-living voter. Bonus: that way they can ensure that no one with a true liberal position is ever given a microphone.

    This is (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    how the left wing of the party hurts itself. Apparently they don't look at actual records but must know someone is left by "osmosis" or something.

    You, right of center, so called moderates (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:30:53 PM EST
    have done so much damage to the party that it would be very hard for the left to come close, let alone surpass your achievements.

    It seems (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    to me that your beef should be with people like the Nation not me. Or Moveon or any number of people and organizations doing the same thing. They're the ones that are defining the left wing of the party by self identification.

    Nope, I have a real beef with you (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    and the way you define the left. Move On does not define the left. It self identifies as progressive and it is not promoting Webb, a conservative. It is promoting Warren, one of the more liberal members of the Senate.

     I also have a real beef about the way the so called moderates (aka right of center) Dems have rehabilitated the GOP by validating and adopting their policies and moving the party and the country ever rightward.


    You can't (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    blame everything on everybody else. There's a whole bunch of stuff that has gone on. When you have the nation saying that Webb is a great liberal candidate you've got a problem and perhaps you need to push back against that. Blaming me for what people like the Nation and Move On has done helps nothing. Moveon also supported Obama.

    Why not? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    Your standard operating procedure is to blame the left just as you have done in your last couple of comments.

    Let me repeat this for you one more time. Move On is a progressive organization. It self identifies as progressive. It in no way defines the entire left wing of the party any more than Jim Webb represents every white southern Dem. If in fact, rather than in your imagination, Move On did represent the left, my beef would not be with Move On since they are not promoting Jim Webb, a conservative but are promoting Sen. E. Warren, a liberal.

    So we are back with the erroneous way you choose to define the left.


    I don't (3.50 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    blame the left. What I am pointing out is that the left keeps discrediting itself with attaching to people instead of sticking to issues, organizing around issues etc. And this does nothing to help define what the left wing of the party stands for. I mean if you believe Obama is the right and then Warren is the left but you still have organizations that attach themselves to each of them? Do you think Obama is the same as Warren? I certainly would not say so. I just happen to think  this is being gone about the wrong way if you want people to listen to you. People need to address your issues before you hand out endorsements. It's almost like Moveon and the Nation endorse candidates by osmosis or something. Do tell how this osmosis endorsement is helpful?

    this is fascinating (none / 0) (#47)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:30:20 PM EST
    how do you define the left, MO Blue?

    i'm asking because Ga6th has never seemed to me like someone who "blames the left," so i'm wondering where you are coming from

    not challenging your perception, just want to understand your perspective, or maybe it's a question of semantics


    Addams Family: Your thoughts? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:49:23 PM EST
    It seems to me that an inevitable dilemma that any political party or organization finds itself confronting is the fundamental "Who are we?"  The rock-&-hard-place challenge also tends to result in various groups defining themselves as the True X or the Real Y.  The process of definition may be all the harder because of the reality of time passing ... are the different decades the same or, if not, how do they differ? is the golden age of one decade/era the golden age we seek? How do we adjust approaches to fit the era or should the era adjust to fit the party (only slightly facetious?) Why have definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" in this country shifted so dramatically in the past 100 years? 70 years? 30 years?  

    Your question, Addams Family, is a key to other basic questions about any party's identification.


    You realize of course (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:10:44 PM EST
    The reason the left has discredited itself according to GA is because we all supported Obama. You have been around since the 2008 primaries. Definitely long enough to identify the more left leaning commentators here. Do you agree with the premise that the left all supported Obama and that we, the left, were unaware of the issues then and now?

    The high profile (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    organizations sure did. Who in congress would you define as a the left wing of the party? And did they ever stand up to Obama?

    When did your (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    corporate centric right of center Dem politician ever stand up to Obama on anything worthwhile.

    Oh, their lastest and greatest rebellion against Obama's position is that they voted to approve the Keystone Pipeline and are considering forming a veto proof majority with the Republicans to hamper a peace treaty with Iran.


    My point is (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:55:10 PM EST
    who is left wing in congress and did they ever stand up to Obama? I sure remember them standing up to Bill Clinton back in the day. What happened?

    see my comment #72 to MO Blue (none / 0) (#74)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:42:07 PM EST
    i wanted to respond to her, but your question got me thinking . . .

    Semantics (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:57:11 PM EST
    Of course she is not blaming the left. They, according to GA, are just discredited by their actions. What actions? The actions that she has assigned to them.

    I happen to define the left as good old fashion liberals. I am of the left. Move On does not define me or the segment of left that I adhere to. No liberal I know belongs to Move On or uses The Nation as a go to site for information. She chooses to define the left (at times all of us on the far left) based on her own criteria which for the most part has little relationship to reality. (See GA's Comment 50) Us stupid lefties don't do issues. All of us stupid lefties supported Obama. That is the reason we have no creditibility. We, the left, all supported Obama. Once again that is not supported by fact. Some of the left supported HRC, some supported Obama and some did not support either one of them.

    What a bunch of crap. The liberals on this site brought facts, with supportive links about the issues under discussion throughout the primaries and both general elections. I, a person from the left,  brought voting records to discuss Jim Webb on the issues. What did GA bring? Her old standard refrain, accusations against the left.

    GA is as much into personality politics with her devotion to everything Hillary than the people she criticizes on a regular basis.


    Sometimes we trip over "labels" (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:30:20 PM EST
    Actually, more often than not, labels as tools for jabbing about who is more this or less that only raise blood pressure.  It might be worthwhile to take a handful of specific issues in a handful of important areas and assess ourselves on where we fall ... that would not be a force-fit into a label, but a genuine do-you-support-or-oppose (and why) a stated matter. Maybe I am myopic in ideas, but I think that we would agree more than disagree--a number of us--on this blog. A guess: The differences may be highlighted more in degree and tactical levels, rather than strategic levels.

    And then ... what is "true" or "pure" and how much tolerance do we have for each other? How big a tent should the Democratic Party be?


    I guess you haven't been paying (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:09:05 PM EST
    attention. I discuss issues on a fairly regular basis. I actually even provide links to source material.  I was discussing actual votes made by Jim Webb on various issues when GA decided to go into her normal rant on how the left has discredited themselves. I've pretty much lost my tolerance of members of the Democratic Party talking about how the left has no creditability or discussions of the horrors of the far left or my very own favorite, the looney left.

    Let's discuss this particular issue. Did the left 1) all support Obama and 2) did they discredit themselves by supporting him?


    You are taking (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:18:23 PM EST
    this personally. I am talking about these organizations. I don't know any other way to explain it.

    I was addressing Christine's (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:35:11 PM EST
    comment which dealt with issues and tolerance.

    I have already addressed your point.  BTW, as a point of fact, you chose not to limit your discussion to just these organization but to members of Congress as well. Your point is that by supporting Obama these organization have proven that the left has no creditability. Liberal members of Congress also have proven unsatisfactory because according to you they have never stood up to Obama.


    Discussion of issues, not labels (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:49:12 PM EST
    is my starting point.  Eventually, MOBlue the two intersect ... but, I am not at all clear where in 2015 that labels and issues intersect.  

    Some background: My Dad believed pretty much that FDR walked on water (or close to it) ... his whole life changed for the better because of the CCC. I grew up thinking the same thing--that FDR represented liberalism at its best--and, for the most part, I hold to that tenet today.  When I say for the most part, the meaning is: In matters economic, what FDR arrived at in his Administration regarding the essential role of government for the betterment of its citizens, I believe.  Where the situation has other layers, tho: (1) Civil Rights and what are now termed "the social issues."  FDR made strides in a limited way within the context of his time.  But, I look more to LBJ and Obama for the real legal furtherance of certain rights.  And, that is as it should be, because we are not living in the 1930s or 40s.  (2) FDR was never a pacifist, with or without Pearl Harbor.  The most extensive (and necessary war) in the last 100 years, at least, was pursued under his direction. He did not shirk ... will we ever know if he was a hawk or dove.  May I suggest that Vietnam et al changed perspective about America & military engagements for a long time to come...and, of course, Iraq reinforced that perception.  So ... foreign policy and war ... the 1930s and 1940s template doesn't really work.

    The reason, MO, that I refer to areas outside the economy above is to argue that the old templates clearly need recalibration.  The passing years have brought new circumstances not easily resolved by saying the answer is the liberalism of the 1930s and 1940s.  Yes, on the role of government and the economy. Sometimes maybe in foreign policy. But, what about the information age, computers, government snoops, & privacy?

    I know that Repubs fear new ground, new ways.  But, we shouldn't.  My honest concern is, however, that we risk a modern identity by tying everything to the past ... how do we keep what is the best of 1930s, 1940s, etc. liberalism and stake our future together in liberalism for the 21st century.  How we get there, I don't know ... because it is a collaborative effort with a degree of trust in each other so we don't calibrate everything based upon labels or who supported whom in 2008.  It has got to be bigger than that.  (Here ends my diatribe....)


    Wow a really very long post (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:13:37 PM EST
    That did not answer the direct question. Ga6th claims that the left discredited itself when it supported Obama. Let's make it real short and simple.

    Did the left discredit itself by supporting Obama?


    About forcing "yes-no" arguments (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:59:50 AM EST
    MOBlue: I'm not into slogans nor fruitlessly pitting people against each other. I'm also not into defining individuals solely by their reaction to other individuals ... particularly when the key words are taking on different meanings to different individuals.  For Democrats to pursue the 'who is the most pure" of anything  is a loser that condemns us to being stuck.  Certainly, if you want, you can understand what I wrote ....

    This isn't about purity, christine. (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    But I would take issue with your assertion that you don't define individuals on the basis of their reaction to other individuals.  I can't be the only one who remembers how relentlessly you bullied jb because she dared to play devil's advocate, backed her into a corner and kept insisting she was something and someone she denied being.

    Time and again, you require others to declare whom they support so you can project what you want to believe about them and their ulterior motives instead of accepting what they say about themselves.

    The issue wasn't purity, it was about one person stating where she fell on the political spectrum being told by another person that that place wasn't what she thought it was.  And it was about being lumped in with organizations that commenters were clear they did not support.

    As for key words meaning different things to different people, when one person tells you what something means to him or her, it might be better to acknowledge the truth of that meaning to that person than to tell them, no, sorry, that's not what it means.


    And, a good day to you as well, Anne (3.00 / 3) (#130)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:26:48 PM EST
    As usual, we find little agreement in matters such as these.  Whether it is "purity" or who knows what precisely defines a "liberal" is best left for a day when political terms & designations can be discussed openly.

    In the meantime, your characterization of my differences with JB as an instance where I've bullied is inaccurate, over-the-top ... and laughable.  Rein in your own tendency to shove, belittle, & besmirch; and, take a measure of your own attitude.

    Let's give it a breather....


    It was bullying (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by sj on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    from the beginning to the end. I can understand why you wouldn't want to look at it that way, but unless you can understand that you are likely to do it again.

    It was far from laughable. It was ugly and deliberately hurtful.


    To: Saint sj (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    Come on.  I am far from the only one who has noted the "look like a duck, walk like a duck, & quack like a duck" syndrome in the particular instance.  BTW, take a gander at some of the terms, phrases, descriptors that you have deployed against a number of us.  

    (Apologies to the Saints.)


    So you go from denying to (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by sj on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 06:37:18 PM EST
    using the "Tu Quoque" fallacy as a defense? That's fine. Quack away.

    Thanks for the laugh... (none / 0) (#142)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 08:05:10 PM EST
    Labels (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 06:52:34 AM EST
    Lack of tolerance for those who do not confirm to your standards. With your duck analogy, you are still pursuing your meme that an individual's ideology is not "pure" enough to fit your mold of a Democrat.

    This comment alone clearly illustrates that you fail to practice what you preach.  


    Baloney (2.00 / 1) (#149)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 11:54:46 AM EST
    In the particular instance, I call bullroar when it is obvious to many that there is more than major contradiction between the claim of one thing and the advocating of another in characterizing as an advocate one whose arguments are contrary to that.

     Trans: I have friends who are conservatives and even Republicans--not too many, but some :)--and these people are forthright and honest enough to own their beliefs.  I own mine; you own yours.  Most people here are fairly upfront about their own positions and beliefs ... for me, that is to be applauded, commended, and definitely accepted.  OTOH, occasionally there is the face of contradiction.  That is something entirely different ... that looks more like a disingenuous, unsupportable pretense to me.  (And: MO, I do not think it is appropriate now for me to be more blunt.  Instead, I ask that you accept my evaluation in this particular instance as one that comes from the heart.)


    Get real, Christine (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    Not baloney but truth. You are judging people, determining that they lack the purity that you demand and assign them labels.

    When people on this blog don't meet your standards for what a Democrat should be, you are quite aggressive in denouncing them as Republicans (and that is when you are being polite). You have judged them not pure enough because they don't share your POV. Doesn't matter that they self identify as members of the Democratic Party. Doesn't matter, if they were active in campaigning for Democratic candidates or not. They don't meet your purity standards, so you claim they are Republicans.

    Your lectures to others do not contain exceptions or qualifiers that say a person can judge others as not pure enough or can be completely intolerant of their ideology to the point of verbally kicking them out of the Big Tent if they excuse their behavior with a statement that their judgments are heart felt.

    The face of contradiction is what you preach vs how you personally behave. Why don't you just acknowledge the truth that you apply your rules of acceptable conduct only to some other people and not to you or to those who share your ideology.  


    I'll try again, MO to say again (3.50 / 2) (#155)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 04:08:58 PM EST
    that I am not labeling the persona raised by the group (sj, Anne, and yourself) ... when someone consistently uses Repub talking points, promotes Repub candidates during two general election cycles, etc. the one so doing defines himself/herself.  As you well know, a number of others have pointed out the same. (BTW, there are other unnamed individuals who have been referred to as carrying Repub water by many others.)

    If it is a boring time for you, sj, and Anne--and you want to tag-team, have at it.  But, know this, I do not foresee myself changing my opinion in this particular matter ... and, as stated, I use what life teaches us that "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are that is what it is."  Further: imo, the group is engaging in a very understandable practice of representing a friend/someone liked and associated with you all ... and, that is fine.  But, that a natural go-on-offense-to-defend is fine & understandable & quite normal does not mean it is ok to call my writing bullying (or anything near)... especially without such practitioners of attack put-down & stereotyping as sj and side-kick Anne.  (Heck, I'd have to take lessons to catch up :))

    Enough already.  I stand by my position; you threesome disagree.  What else is there to say ... I don't seek a pound of flesh and, surely, that applies to you as well.  Life happens; and, so does disagreement.  And, since we all seem to be women-of-a-certain-age, I'm guessing we know also that there will be times and occasions when we will agree.  Thank you.


    More than a few members of the Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 05:47:10 PM EST
    use what many people would consider Republican talking points. And it is your unfounded opinion, not an actual fact, that jb promoted or supported any Republican candidate during any election cycle. She has plainly stated that her references were data points for discussion rather than support but you chose not to believe her. She has clearly stated on numerous occasions that she is a member of the Democratic Party and has supported and worked to elect Democratic candidates including Hillary Clinton but you chose not to believe her and continue to label her a Republican. She is also not the only person you have challenged on their beliefs when they have not acted in accordance with your idea of how a good Democrat should behave.

    Contrary to what you may believe, jb and I do not have any personal relationship. I tend to disagree with her on issues on a regular basis but while she does not share my political opinions on a whole lot of issues, I believe she is as stated a Democrat.

    I understand why you would want to sidetrack this discussion by chalking it up to boredom or cronyism, but it really is about  the double standards you employ. You in no way practice what you preach.

    You lecture against assigning labels. Yet, you assign labels to others. You lecture against intolerance. Yet, you show intolerantance against those who question the policies of the Democratic Party (people should restrict their critisim to Republicans). You lecture in support of a Big Tent Democratic Party. Yet, you verbally kick people out of the tent after you judge them unworthy. You lecture against Democrats pursuing 'who is the most pure." Yet, based on your own criteria, you judge others on how pure they are and denounce them as Republicans if they fail to adhere to your definition of a good Democrat.

    This comment of yours and a couple before it, clearly illustrate that you judge others on whether or not they fit your preconceived notion of who can or cannot be considered a Democrat. Your actions belie the rhetoric contained in your lectures.


    I strongly disagree; tho, (none / 0) (#158)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 06:07:17 PM EST
    I'll consider your word here to be the closure.  All we are doing now is repeating a claim(s) that the other disagrees with...and so it goes.  Peace.

    Zorba: Hey there, you have really been (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 08:33:39 PM EST
    doing a number this time around on the whole series of comments.  Fascinating ....

    Christine, although you do (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Zorba on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    make comments that I agree with, you also have a very unfortunate tendency to label commenters who do not agree with you as "carrying Republican water."
    This is not only untrue, this is out and out offensive.
    There are many of us who define ourselves as, may I say, "old line" Democrats.  That is, Democrats who are in line with previous Democrats such as George McGovern and Paul Wellstone.
    We do not have Democrats like them any more, sadly.
    And I resent like he!! being disparaged as not being a "real" Democrat.  I really do.
    If we totally accept the current Democrats and their agenda, and do not criticize them or try to hold them to a higher standard, then we are complicit with the neo-liberal (look it up, it has nothing to do with real "liberal"), DNC, old DLC "party line."  
    We cannot reform the Democratic Party by looking the other way and accepting their current actions and agenda.
    This current Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party that I used to support.
    I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.
    And if you are happy with the current party, then that's on you.  I have a much different idea about what Democrats should be.
    And that is all I have to say to you about this.  Sorry if your feelings are hurt.

    Zorba: If that were accurate (none / 0) (#167)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    I could see your POV here.  Insofar as I know, there have been very few others that I have challenged as essentially using charade to camouflage positions.  For example: Early on, I pushed back on Slado and, recently, on Reconstructionist -- openly & honestly -- and, their responses are open & honest as to the political background and predisposition from which they start.  In the case of jbindc, I and a number of others, have challenged her in consideration of predictable statements employing Republican talking points.  Please note: I firmly believe that every one is not only free to hold whatever view the individual wants, but also that it should be encouraged.

    This is about all I can say: A strong pushback from me in the area in the jb instance is quite between her and me, really.  I don't care if a person is x, y, or z party (or no party) ... that is an individual right & privilege. I may disagree on a number of issues; but, the extremely important right to hold that belief should be respected. Something else is involved when one claims/suggests the posture of adhering to a party, organization, group, etc.; yet, in issue after issue recites or publishes the talking points of a party, organization representing exactly the opposite.  

    Finally, we are all aware that different groupings of individuals align more or less with each other--some not so much, some quite strongly.  That is human nature.  We all have favorite friend at home, commenters on line ... and some not so favorite.  In this case, I truly believe that the matter has been blown out of proportion, partly for the reasons of association. The heretofore demonstrated differences between myself & jbindc--absent the crossing of lines respecting civil behavior--should primarily involve the two adults who disagree with each other.  

    And, Zorba: I do appreciate your comments, including this one (even tho, for the reasons stated, I disagree with your conclusions there.) Your comments tend toward the mediator, the resolution-builder. In a spirit of peace, Zorba, thank you for taking the time.


    Funniest comment (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    Even though I had to slog through yet another arduous tome to get there:

    In the case of jbindc, I and a number of others, have challenged her in consideration of predictable statements employing Republican talking points.

    Considering you are the Queen of Regurgitated Talking Points Without Question, it's no wonder you can't differentiate between someone who has no blind loyalty and is questioning (and expecting better of the Democrats), and talking heads on TV with whom you disagree.  Sorry if some if us have better BS meters - yours apparently only applies to Republicans and is shut off completely for Democrats whom you favor. Kind of like Pavlov's dogs, where no critical thinking is necessary.

    No worries, my BS meter works quite well with you and the "number of others" (we know who they are) who talk out of your butts.


    Yes, I make the Democratic argument (none / 0) (#171)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    and, yes, I use Democratic Party talking points ... I have never been or pretended to be any party other than a Democrat.

    I'm quite adept at seeing & cutting through someone else's BS ... and, at calling out what the evidence suggests.  We all have our thing, jbindc.  I do want to acknowledge tho your skill with words and turns of phrase ... you are a good writer and a good debater.

    On a Democratic party note, because the Republican
    party--unfortunately--has placed its political bet against legislation on health care: It truly is getting hard for the deniers to continue to deny the human and humane worth of the Affordable Care Act.  New report from the Administration (and in line with Gallup's numbers also) shows that approximately 16.4 million people have obtained health care coverage because of the ACA.  How beautiful for those real people now able to have health coverage and live without the fear of not having it.


    Yes, the WH report does say that (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 02:09:00 PM EST
    But since the CBO stopped scoring the law, we won't actually really know what the total impact of the bill is. 16 million is great - how many of those is the administration counting who actually had plans before hand and has to get "new ones"?  (Answer:  anywhere from 4-7 million).

    Let's talk again after tax day (when a good percentage of those who received subsidies will be paying back some or all) and then again when the law is actually  fully implemented - includng the employer mandate.

    But thank you for finally admitting you are a shill who parrots talking points and who never wants to be confused with facts that don't adhere to those talking points.


    Not a "shill," dear (none / 0) (#174)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    I'm a strong Democrat.
    And, yes, the ACA/Obamacare is working well!

    You're loyal, but I'm not sure that's (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    the same thing as "strong."  Lemmings are loyal.

    I mean, is there anything Clinton could do, any policy she could endorse that you would actually push back against?  That you couldn't polish to a fare-the-well and hope we didn't notice the smell?

    Because no matter when and where and on what issues the Dems abandon us, no matter how they compromise away the best parts of things, or accept the worst in an effort to "come together," you're always at the ready to tell us why it either (1) doesn't matter, (2) is not being explained properly, (3) is a new dimensional chess strategy and/or (4) would work if only we would all just clap our hands until they bleed!

    La-la-la-la/eyes closed.


    Oh, sweetie (none / 0) (#175)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    To be so clouded by talking points.... What a shame.  Can't see the first fir b the trees.

    Yep, as you must discover from habit (none / 0) (#177)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    name-calling is so much fun.  (But, thanks for the expected riposte.)

    If you say so (none / 0) (#179)
    by sj on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:46:52 PM EST
    I'm quite adept at seeing & cutting through someone else's BS
    Now if you could just apply that lens to your own BS.

    Good Lord, christine, (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    not only have you managed to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but there may be other orifices involved.

    I'd call your comment a total "charade," but that's too genteel for what you've done here.  Regardless of whether you're tossing cow-pies or word salad, neither will disguise the fact that your high-flying words about respect and deeply-held beliefs are betrayed by your actions.

    The reality is that you're still missing the point.  I'm not even sure it's worth explaining to you again what that point is, given how many times and by how many other people it has been attempted, but what the heck?  Here goes.

    You say it is important to respect people's beliefs, but you don't accept that jb's beliefs are as she has represented them; how is that respect?  How is it respectful to insist, time and again, and with increasing venom, that someone must be lying about her party affiliation and the candidate she supports because she offers up too many links and excerpts that challenge whatever the Democratic choir is singing at any given moment?

    I guess the question is, why are you so threatened by challenge?  Why do you not like to consider that there are other ways to look at and think about things, and failure to consider what's out there is just foolish?  

    Do you think that lawyers preparing for trial don't examine and game-plan and play devil's advocate so they can be ready for whatever's coming their way?  Do you think candidates preparing for debates don't look at their opponent's positions and policies and actions 6 ways from Sunday so they can be prepared to challenge and answer anything?  How is what jb does different?  Answer: it's not.

    Say, are you sure you're really a lawyer?  Because I've been working with them for years and have never met one who not only couldn't argue all sides of an issue, but who wouldn't feel right if he or she didn't.

    The other thing you never do is offer any links or point to any articles, op-eds, studies, research or anything of substance to bolster your relentless cheerleading or counter the materials highlighted by others.  You will talk about polls, but never link to them.  I suppose that's one way to never be accused of providing opposition talking points, huh?  

    It's also lazy and a tad cowardly.  Maybe that's what unquestioning loyalty and fealty will do to someone.  Might make people think there's no one you wouldn't support as long as there was the all-important (D) behind the name.  

    Only other question I have is, behind your name, does it say "(D)-Stepford" or "(D)-Lake Wobegon (where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average)?


    Ah, Anne ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    Your latest comment is almost weirdly funny in a weird way ... with all that you spew.  Keep on spewing if you must speechify. Yoiks ....

    Wanted to add (none / 0) (#168)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:08:07 PM EST
    Zorba: If you have read any of my comments to you to mean that I doubt your sincerity or that I question whether you are a Democrat, then my writing skills need to be improved ... because there is no way that I would ever assert that about you or most of the people here.  We may differ on tactics or matters of grist, but I don't think there is any real difference in values and goals. Thank you.

    Zorba demonstrates a rare discernment (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    when it comes to her ratings, especially those she sometimes applies to mine. 😇

    Are you deliberately missing the point, (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    or do you really not get it?  

    If anyone is using the "when did you stop beating your wife" tactic, it's you, Christine.  How many times did jb state her Democratic party affiliation, and her support for Hillary Clinton, only to have you more or less call her a liar?  And on what basis?  That she posted links to and excerpts from articles and such that offered some sort of counter to other media reporting.  You pushed and bullied and hectored and went at her from any direction you could.  You even tried to rally others to take up that cause, for what purpose, I have no idea.  Maybe the weather wasn't nice enough to go walk Mitzi or Muffy or Twinkletoes - or whatever your dog's name is, and you had some time on your hands.

    It wasn't jb - and it isn't me or sj or Blue -  who only want to talk with people who agree with us: it's YOU who wants to do that.  It's you who doesn't want anyone futzing with the lovely Democratic portrait you always paint.  It's you who seems threatened by anything negative about the Dems or Saint Hillary.

    And before you go reminding everyone of what a bee-yotch I am, try to understand that constantly being told that I can't define my own place on the political spectrum will do that to me.  That and being told that identifying as a liberal saddles me with blame for whatever role organizations like MoveOn have played doesn't sit well with me, either.  


    I do get the point all too well, Anne (2.00 / 2) (#156)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 04:14:59 PM EST
    I am not missing the point; nor has my position changed.  No need then for you to do the name-calling, emotive words and apoplectic stance.  Yes, you disagree ... as you & I have a history of doing.

    See my response immediately above to MOBlue for more.  'Hope that your weekend is a nice one.


    Hello there, sj (2.00 / 1) (#159)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 06:09:02 PM EST
    You did drop by to do your usual thing. My goodness....

    Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by sj on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 07:52:14 PM EST
    Hello there, sj (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 05:09:02 PM MDT

    You did drop by to do your usual thing. My goodness....

    My usual thing is to

    a) ignore you and your butter-wouldn't-melt-in-your-mouth sanctimony, or
    b) say specifically what I find so unattractive about your comments, or
    c) on rare occasions concur with at least part of what you have to say

    But your few sentences here had so much dishonesty and hypocrisy in such a small space that it would have taken paragraphs to address it all. A true masterwork: as true to reality as a Picasso. Given your proclivities, you should be proud.

    This much I'll do: back off a "1" to the more appropriate "2" rating.


    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    It was your choice to interject your lecture into the mix. It is par for the course where you chose to focus one of your lectures. The premise of "The LEFT (label) supported Obama therefore they have no creditability." really did seem like a Dem applying a label to others in the party and also a definite purity test. Yet, that and similar comments marginalizing the left wing of the party or accusing them of being Republicans never inspires you to one of your lectures.  You restrict your lectures about assigning labels and on tolerance to people on the left.

    Not a lecture, MOBlue (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    Rather a statement of my firm belief ... we all have are beliefs.  When we differ, it doesn't make our statements lectures.  (But then, it ain't nice to phrase questions in the "are you beating your wife" yes or no dichotomy either.)

    Look I'm not into who is the purest of the pure or best of the best or most Democrat of Democrats ... that is all there is to it.  That, again, has to do with belief, and not lectures.


    Oh, come on, christine...now you're (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    just fking with us.

    You have some very specific ideas about what a "good" Democrat is, and never fail to lecture us about how and where we're going wrong and need to get with the program - your program.

    Hey, one question: what's the name of the pony buried under the mound of garden gold you've shoveled into this discussion?


    Sure it was a lecture (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:44:44 PM EST
    One you reserve for those on the left.

    Your past comments belie your statement that you are not into labels or who is the purest of the pure or the best of the Democrats. You demand purity (using your phrase) of others on the blog and assign them negative labels when their POV does not adhere to your standards of what is correct. You assign labels such as Republican to people who self identify as Democrats because they do not agree with you on how the Dems are pursuing issues.

    Yes, we all have beliefs but if you are going to preach tolerance and acceptance, it would great if you would start with yourself. Also, if you are going to preach tolerance and acceptance, it would be great if you would start preaching it to everyone who uses labels to discount the opinions and beliefs of others, not just to people on the left.  

    BTW, the question asked was not a "Are you beating your wife question." It was a very simple question.

    Did the left discredit itself by supporting Obama?



    If you want to talk with those only (2.00 / 1) (#139)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 06:04:52 PM EST
    with whom you agree, please proceed.  You, and I, and Anne (with kibitzer sj) know that this latest go-round is now going nowhere other than round & round.

    As to labels, my concern is that those who are Democrats have a tendency to beat up on each other rather than debate those with whom we would primarily disagree (aka Republicans) on vision, policy, and legislation. We do that when we fall into the trap of losing ourselves in internal definitions of "liberal" "progressive" or "blue-dog" or whatever-catchphrase we all devise; far better, imo, to take issue with harmful Republican propositions and talking-points (and those who employ them) rather than form our own circular firing squad.

    Meanwhile, if any of you need to have the final word, please do so ... and, then,  I'll kindly take my leave.


    I seriously doubt you recongnize (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:11:42 PM EST
    how ironic your comment actually is.

    First admonishing me that if I want to talk to only those who agree with me, to proceed and then implying that we should limit our debate to Republicans with whom we disagree with on vision, policy and legislation.

    Sorry that is not going to happen. I will continue to debate any policy or piece of legislation that I feel is either bad policy or harmful to myself and others no matter which person or party is proposing it. It is not my job as a citizen to advocate against Republican policies and then advocate for them when they are adopted by the Democratic Party.  


    About who "discredited" whom (none / 0) (#140)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 06:09:52 PM EST
    The question is not relevant because it assumes more than it asks. In that sense, it is the classic "Are you still beating your wife" question.  MO: That question & answer, if any, lies with you and Ga6th.  (As for me--no one "discredited" anyone.)

    As compared to... (none / 0) (#144)
    by unitron on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 02:04:12 AM EST
    ...supporting McCain/Palin?

    Awesome post (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:01:43 PM EST
    Strong application of equal protection (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:04:22 PM EST
    And corporations cannot be people.  That must be changed

    Thank you for putting into words my thoughts (none / 0) (#100)
    by vicndabx on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:11:53 PM EST
    We are all on the left, where we differ is tactics and priorities (including life's, hard to get marches and activisim of the 60's going w/o some galvanizing event that leads people to take days off from kids & work).

    In short some flexibility is needed because the times have changed. Progress comes slowly. We also have the reality of a different Congress and voters with entrenched views who cannot see past R vs. D.


    Response to christinep #96 (none / 0) (#163)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 04:56:06 AM EST
    What an excellent post.  Glad I spent a restless night to come back and read it.

    It is critical that we as individuals use our ideals or beliefs to inform our decisions on policy and issues rather then referring back to our party labels and for me more importantly the preconceived labels we have about the other side.

    As I watched the excellent documentary about the Roosevelts I had my republican/libertarian views challenged by the views of FDR but particularly Teddy.   Can one even imagine the reception he'd receive at CPAC today?  

    As for FDR his policies helped to pull the country from the brink and restored pride in being an American again.   We can quibble based on our ideology if in the long run those policies were sustainable but all that becomes a theoretical discussion because WWII happened and reset the world.  History has judged both these men as great presidents because for time and place they were what the country needed.

    However each party is guilty of holding on to the policies  of better days (FDR, Reagan) and trying to apply them to today's problems.  Then when someone steps out of line or heaven forbid the other side offers a good solution the partisan battle lines are drawn and we get nowhere.  

    Both parties are due for some fresh ideas and less reliance on what worked before because both the country and now more importantly the world have changed and those policies won't work anymore.


    Yes (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    I did include members of congress. They have seemed to do nothing but rubber stamp whatever Obama sends them for the most part. In a lot of ways this is a repeat of what went on during the Bush Administration with the GOP. Even though congress would swear that they didn't like the policy Bush was sending them or whatever they would vote for it. To me it's nonsense on both accounts. I remember Dems voting against stuff even if it came from a Dem president and same for he GOP but that was a long time ago it seems.

    Let's be precise, shall we (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:56:05 PM EST
    You did include members of congress. You specifically chose only the left wing members of congress to criticize for not standing up to Obama.

    Who in congress would you define as a the left wing of the party? And did they ever stand up to Obama?

    My point is (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:55:10 PM CDT
    who is left wing in congress and did they ever stand up to Obama?

    To me (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:37:50 PM EST
    these organizations like Moveon have caused more problems for everybody. They are high profile yet they are pretty much promoting the idea that Obama and Warren are the same which there could be almost nothing further from the truth. If tomorrow they attach themselves to Hillary does that mean all of a sudden she's become some anti-war candidate? To me it seems that they are doing everything backwards. They should have a set of values and then align themselves with someone who fits those and should definitely wait until campaigning starts. I just don't think that being all over the place helps anyone.

    thanks for responding, Blue (none / 0) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    you said:

    I happen to define the left as good old fashion liberals

    i'm not sure what the phrase "good old fashion liberals" means to you - to me that phrase means someone in the mold of an FDR Democrat - is that what you mean?

    to me, FDR Democrats are not "the left" (to the extent that we have a "left" in the US) but rather the leftmost portion of the center

    a Gallup Poll from several years ago reported that 40 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, & 21 percent as liberal (apparently 4 percent are undecided) - those figures seem intuitively right to me

    of the alleged 21 percent who are liberal, i tend to identify one portion (about 12 percent) as left-of-center types who evolved out of the antiwar New Left of the 1960s or who are younger but were influenced by that movement & its traditions - i identify another portion (about 9 percent) as the self-styled "progressives" & though i often admire this group's activism i am also critical of what i perceive as its sometimes authoritarian (& thus illiberal) attitudes & behavior

    one weakness of the progressives, as i define them, is a tendency to overestimate their numbers in the general population, an error that can lead to a rigidly purist stance that is ultimately apolitical, since that stance leaves them incapable of perceiving & valuing others' concerns & therefore unable to engage in one of the fundamental activities of politics: compromise

    just my opinions - YMMV


    I am not a progressive (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    I am a liberal. I do not in anyway overestimate the number of liberals and  often laugh or grit my teeth when Dems decide to admonish the far left of the party. What far left?

    When discussing whether or not members are incapable of perceiving and valuing others you are focusing solely on progressives. Somehow I find it hard to see where stating that the left is discredited because they supported Obama is exhibiting a capacity for perceiving or valuing others concerns or opinions. If you or your organization supported Obama, you have no value. Taking or supporting that position comes across as an extremely rigid purity test.  But somehow that is not how it is being depicted in your comment. Rather it is the progressives or the left who is being rigid. Does the premise of a purity test only apply to those who do not agree with your POV?


    do you realize (none / 0) (#102)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    that i did not say anything at all about the left having discredited itself by voting for Obama? or anything at all about Obama, for that matter? i wonder if you meant to direct your comment to someone else

    In my opinion, our interaction was an offshoot (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:42:47 PM EST
    of the discussion that began with Ga6th stating that the left lacked creditability since it supported Obama.

    You joined  the conversation in progress as follows:

    i'm asking because Ga6th has never seemed to me like someone who "blames the left," so i'm wondering where you are coming from

    You read and responded positively to GA's comments that stated the left discredited itself by supporting Obama. Yet somehow that comment did not generate a concern that GA was not exhibiting a capacity for perceiving or valuing the opinions of others. You evidently did not view the premise that if the left supported Obama, it lost creditability as a type of purity test.  You reserved those judgements for progressives.

    As you stated, I'm a liberal and not a progressive but I fail to understand what I perceive as double standards.


    ok (none / 0) (#120)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:28:34 PM EST

    i think there's more history between you & Ga6th than i am qualified to weigh in on

    it was not my intention to validate Ga6th's statement about the left's having discredited itself by supporting Obama (if in fact i did that)

    for the record, however, & strictly regarding electoral politics, i think that the last two midterms & the shallowness of the Democratic bench demonstrate just how bad Obama has been for the Democratic Party - & obviously he could not have been elected twice by "the left" alone


    For the record I am not an (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    Obama supporter. I disagree with him on most domestic issues, his expanding Bush's 4th Amendment abuses and think he gave away the store in his negotiations with the Republicans and often adopted or validated Republican positions. I do approve of his "evolving" on LGBT issues, his veto of the Keystone Pipeline, his current executive order on immigration, his rhetoric on problems in the M.E. and his opening up negotiations with Iran and Cuba.

    I also strongly disagree with the rhetoric used by members of the Democratic Party when referring to the left wing of the party and the double standards employed when discussing labels, tolerance, compromise and "purity tests."

    The lectures by moderate Dems about refraining from applying labels, about the big tent, tolerance, valuing the opinions of others and about purity are never handed out when a moderate or partisan Dem commenter applies them to the left. Labels such as the left are as loony as the Tea Party, you are a Republican, the left has no creditability and you on the left are nothing but haters is pretty standard fare but these remarks go by without comment. No lectures unless one of the liberals object to the definitions. Then and only then, are the objections met with lectures on how labels are bad, the Dems have a big tent and the need for tolerance, and the need to stop applying purity test etc.

    As you pointed out, liberals or the left are a relatively small segment of the population. Not only would it be impossible for them to elect Obama on their own, they do not vote as a block for any one candidate nor while few vote for the R, not all pull the lever for the D in elections.



    also, maybe it's not clear, but (none / 0) (#103)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:34:53 PM EST
    i take you for a liberal, not a progressive - i take you for what you said you are

    i wonder if you thought i was talking about you when i commented on progressives - i was not


    The GOP has moved... (none / 0) (#145)
    by unitron on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 02:19:51 AM EST
    ...so far to the right that FDR Democrats are practically bomb throwing anarchists by comparison these days ,and labels are pretty much useless anymore except for name calling and "guilt by association" attacks.

    If I can jump into this, Addams Family, (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:42:56 PM EST
    maybe I can, if not help, then maybe shed some light on the dynamic you're seeing here.

    Where to start...

    Ga6th never misses an opportunity to marginalize "the left."  She "points out" that the left discredits itself, because she insists that organizations like MoveOn and media outlets like The Nation are representative of the left, and they stepped in it by identifying with Obama and that's why they aren't taken seriously.

    Well, to begin, that sounds a whole lot like blame to me.  Further, she refuses to accept that MoveOn and The Nation are not standard-bearers for people who define themselves as liberals.  I know this because I am one - MOBlue is also one - and no matter how many times and in how many ways we have attempted to explain this basic truth to her, she continues to insist that the left is something that isn't anything close.  I mean, this is the same person who said there are only two kinds of Democrats, Obamacrats and Hillarycrats.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't much like it when someone tells me, essentially, that the Democratic Party gets to define what "the left" is - as opposed to me being able to define that for myself.

    Do you have any idea how many comments it took just to get her to acknowledge that we were entitled to define ourselves, as opposed to having to assume the definition of the party?

    That's where the frustration is coming from. It's clear to me that by referring always to "the left," and never to "we" or "us" that GA doesn't identify with "the left," or with liberals.  Which is fine - she doesn't have to - but if she wants to know what liberals really think and want, she'd be better off to listen to what the liberals are telling her, because she sure as hell doesn't have a clue.


    Thanks Anne (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sj on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    That immobility of GA's mind and inability to understand what was clearly being spelled out was driving me crazy. I was tempted to jump in but wouldn't have done nearly so good a job as you and MO Blue.

    It's not (2.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:48:53 PM EST
    about marginalizing the left. I keep telling you these organizations are the ones that I have a beef with and they are defining themselves as "the left" And if they don't have the same values as you do then organizing against them needs to be done.

    MoveOn (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:04:23 PM EST
    Ga6th, i think i know what you mean about MoveOn & that crowd

    if anything, i have to try extra hard to be objective about them because i basically live next door to them

    while i can recognize their (usually) good intentions, i often find them politically naive, lacking in self-awareness, & dripping with self-righteousness, a dangerous combination when they happen to get their hands on any kind of power

    here in Oakland, dysfunctional though our little city may be, we've been successful so far at defeating their carpetbagging attempts to gain seats on our woebegone City Council

    nothing we can do, however, about the way they love to descend from lily-white Berkeley on our laid-back, casually diverse farmers' market & shriek about various recondite "issues" to a choir of working people who just want to squeeze the heirloom tomatoes on a Saturday morning


    No, you really don't (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sj on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:08:21 PM EST
    Ga6th, i think i know what you mean about MoveOn & that crowd
    You have a particular opinion about "MoveOn & that crowd" and articulated it well. GA, by contrast,  makes "MoveOn & that crowd" the manifestation of "the left". And then blamed the rank and file liberals for bad messaging.

    An old school liberal knows that's cr@p.


    Actually (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:55:10 PM EST
    I don't blame the rank and file for that kind of stuff.

    These people are high profile organizations who frankly people need to start pushing back against.  JIMO.


    Those are high profile organizations (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    that people like you need to stop thinking speak for people like me.

    Because everyone is entitled to an opinion  and a voice. Organizations and individuals. Where you pi$$ us off is conflating the voice of the organizations with the voice of "the left".

    Stop trying to define us. You are terrible at it. It's insulting and based on ignorance.



    Here's (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 04:51:04 PM EST
    the problem. It's a perception problem even if it doesn't represent you personally they need to be organized against because they are not helping. Just like the 47 idiots in the GOP hut the GOP these people do the same thing.

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by sj on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:19:03 PM EST
    It is a perception problem. But your lack of perception is your own problem and not mine.

    they need to be organized against because they are not helping.
    So go do that then. Your ignorance and your determination to hang on to it isn't my problem. Maybe by "organiz[ing] against them" you'll actually learn something.

    So you're (2.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:21:32 PM EST
    okay with these organizations I guess?

    What kind of stupid question is that? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by sj on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:27:49 PM EST
    So you're (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 04:21:32 PM MDT

    okay with these organizations I guess?

    They are entitled to exist while I am entitled to agree/disagree on some sort of spectrum. I'm entitled to my own point of view. I am not entitled to decide who they speak for -- at least unless and until someone uses the output of that organization as justification for their own opinion.

    Bottom line? Of course I'm okay with these organizations! I believe in free speech. Any organization is as free to spew their opinion and perspective as any individual is. No matter how ignorant or foolish.

    Just like you are.


    Well (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:53:53 PM EST
    your previous comment led me to believe otherwise. Sorry if I misunderstood.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    Thanks for saying that. :).

    lol!~ (none / 0) (#87)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:34:22 PM EST
    please keep them away from my farmer's market!!

    Are you the left, Ga? (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:39:21 PM EST
    Because you keep referring to "the left" and liberals in a way that suggests you're not a part of it and don't associate yourself with it.  

    Which is fine - as I said to Addams Family, you don't have to align yourself with the left - no one's asking you to.  But you just don't seem to get that neither I nor MOBlue align ourselves with MoveOn, nor do we consider them as representing what we believe as liberals.

    I honestly don't give MoveOn or The Nation a moment's thought.  I don't think much of America gives much of a hoot about them, either.  I'm not the one shaking my rhetorical fist at them every time the subject of what the left is comes up - that's you.  As much anger as you seem to have for them, I just find it kind of interesting that you then put it all in my lap by saying if they don't represent me, then "organizing against them needs to be done."  Total lack of agency there - I don't get that.

    Just because I self-identify as a liberal doesn't mean I have no capacity or tolerance for compromise; having an ideological home doesn't mean I have ideological agoraphobia and never leave the house.

    I think you think you're just being politically strategic, and objective, but you lose your way and your analysis falters because other than knowing you don't identify with crazy Republicans, you seem ideologically homeless.


    Anne (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:45:22 PM EST
    truly I really don't know where I fall but I have a huge beef with a lot of these organizations. I don't think they help anybody and actually hurt people. Perhaps I should say "so called left" or whatever if that makes it easier to understand. No one stands up for anything. Whatever Obama wants is what he gets even the people in congress who say they are "left" and that pretty much is my problem.

    Odd, I understand Ga6th's ideology perfectly (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    And I understand her frustration with some left organizations. Moveon is identified as Leftwing in the South.....or the Devils Work...same thing

    Yeah, blame the rank and file (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by sj on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    And if they don't have the same values as you do then organizing against them needs to be done.
    instead of the mouthpieces. Ugh..

    You need to stop doubling down and just withdraw.


    thanks for this comment, Anne (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:51:45 PM EST
    i never meant this to be a discussion about Ga6th - i was just curious about what MO Blue was perceiving in Ga6th's comments

    it looks like the conversation between them (& maybe with you too) has some history, but i don't expect anyone to take the time to explain it all to me

    anyway, i've just sketched out my own schema of how the political world works & maybe i've now stepped in it myself from some points of view!


    MoveOn (none / 0) (#85)
    by Politalkix on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:23:03 PM EST
    MoveOn was formed in 1998 to protect President Clinton from impeachment. The antipathy of Ga6th towards MoveOn is therefore quite amusing (in a way). It just shows people how clueless she is about both issues and politics in general. MoveOn, before the Iraq war campaigned for arms inspections rather than an invasion of Iraq. They also focused on campaign finance reforms. They supported BHO in 2008 but also criticized him later for not withdrawing from Afghanistan quickly.



    yes, MoveOn has done some good work (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:48:23 PM EST
    their hearts are fundamentally in the right place

    but they have also been responsible for some high-handedness & politically tone-deaf foolishness

    high-handedness: the organization had every right to endorse Barack Obama in early February 2008, rather than wait until the primaries were over & then endorse the eventual nominee, but it did not have the right to claim that it was doing so in the name of its "members" when the endorsement clearly reflected its' managers' desire to jump on the bandwagon of a personality cult

    foolishness: remember "General Betray Us"?

    ultimately i'm glad MoveOn exists, but they can be gauche


    You've got to kidding.. (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    MoveOn and the Nation and Z and Counterpunch are like pristine alpine air and mountain streams compared to the deeply compromised, fetid swamp of candidates in '08 or, for that matter, the Free Trade/NAFTA-fetishizing Democrats of the nineties..

    That those voices and ideas make some adore Saints Hillary and Barak that much less doesn't mean those same people won't cast a vote solely to keep the GOP lunatics away from the switch..

    This received wisdom that the Naderites and Obamabots kept a REAL Democrat out of office is so much self-massaging mythology that doesn't get any more accurate in the retelling.



    your comment (none / 0) (#153)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    has very little, if anything, to do with mine

    that "the Free Trade/NAFTA-fetishizing Democrats of the nineties" were & are flawed does not remove the warts from MoveOn (ironic, though, that MoveOn originated in the effort to protect & defend the Free Trade/NAFTA-fetishizing Democrat-in-Chief)

    if you, after 15 years, are still obsessed about Ralph Nader or "real Democrats" or . . . whatever, fine, but i am not - clearly you have not "MovedOn"


    If you think the ideas (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:21:06 PM EST
    that Nader and the more credible members of the progressive left stand for have only been around for 15 years, you need to go back and crack a few U.S history books or maybe consider taking an advanced political science class.

    Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    move on was created for that and I know that but i think Adams Family describes them best.

    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:03:33 PM EST
    Because MoveOn didn't go through several changes and evolutions and projects and policies and leadership after that. I'm certain no identified Liberal on here ever ever ever signed one of their petitions 10...12 years ago. And they don't ever somehow get your email from some LIBERAL donor list and cram your email full :).

    Said the spider to the fly (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:50:45 PM EST
    That's (1.50 / 2) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:50:28 PM EST
    kind of my point. If you don't define yourself then you are allowing yourself to be defined by someone else. And flipping around and attaching to candidates before they even are running or have fleshed out their stances on issues just confuses the situation.

    Last I heard (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:21:48 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has not announced her candidacy. She has not fleshed out her current positions on the issues yet there can be no doubt that you have firmly attached yourself to her candidacy.

    While heaping critisim on others, seems you are doing the very same thing.  Perfect example of personality politics at its finest.


    I'm not talking personal (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:24:25 PM EST
    I'm talking organizations and that should apply to all organizations if they care about issues. People wanna attach to candidates fine. I have no problem with that.

    You seem to take everything personally for some reason. My beef is with these organizations. I don't understand why you don't have one with them either.


    I have the same beef with them (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:41:39 PM EST
    As I have with the other Dem. organizations. They don't represent me.

    Sure you are talking personal. You have chosen to define the left. Your statement: "The left has discredited themselves." No qualifiers to that at all. I am proudly a member of the left. I don't like or agree with the way you have chosen to define my political position. On numerous other occasions, other commentators from the left have expressed their displeasure with the way you choose to define the left but you continue with the same refrain.  

    What is the basis for the left's lack of creditability? According to you, they choose to support Obama, who you do not support instead of supporting Hillary whom you do.


    Here's the (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:47:03 PM EST
    problem. The high profile organizations are doing you no favors because they are not organized around issues. The media only sees them. No one in congress stands up.

    Who else is running right now? Give me some candidate names and I will tell you whether I support them or not.


    Who looks at a record? :P (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:56:28 PM EST
    I have no clue what he has that Clinton needs to be afraid of, aside from male parts . . .

    Well he can go into the south and (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:33:35 PM EST
    Tell them how proud he is of their shared Confederate past. He can tell the white working class that they are victims of affirmative action and they are getting short changed and that Obama's "amnesty program" exceeds his executive powers.

    And yes, {wink, wink} he has male parts and can be trusted to lead men.


    you need to read (none / 0) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:00:30 PM EST
    the original article at The Nation by William Greider - Greider is misquoted or at least misrepresented by whatever block of text you cited (link?)

    Greider is in no way promoting Webb as a progressive hero - when he says that Webb could be "a pivotal messenger," he is elaborating on his earlier statement that "people on the anti-war left, if they listen carefully, can see how Webb's vision could give political traction to their ideas for shrinking the war-making engine"

    that's because Webb's cred as a military veteran gives him insulation from attacks on his patriotism as he cautions against "humanitarian wars" & other misadventures, says Greider


    Sorry about not posting the link (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:04:19 AM EST
    I was using my iPad and I often find it cumbersome to copy text and add the links. At times going back and forth between the scenes, I lose the entire comment and have to start over.

    Here is the link to Is Jim Webb for real? that contained the text.

    If "people on the anti-war left, focus only on Webb's vision for shrinking the war-making engine"s position and ignore his conservative positions and his votes while in Congress, they will be promoting someone who does not represent them in almost all other areas.

    I also think it is naive to think that Webb will be insulated from attacks because of his background.  


    I think (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 07:40:52 PM EST
    Greider is kind of off base on that. In theory he's right but in reality he's not if he thinks Webb's patriotism can't be questioned he must have been living in a cave for the past ten years. And besides that is being against wars the only thing that matters?

    Isn't Sanders planning on running as (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:48:29 PM EST
    an Independent?  I know he has talked about running.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    It's really hard to take the Beltway Kool Kids seriously when they repeatedly pose to Mrs. Clinton variations on the question, "What didn't we know, and when didn't we know it?" Vincent Foster was right. Ruining people is considered sport to them.

    Who will come forward? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:59:11 AM EST

    Lizzie (none / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 02:20:42 PM EST

    Running on the transparency issue.  Note that Hillary turned over 50,000 printed pages of emails to state, not electronic records. This will make searching for FOIA compliance very costly and at a glacial pace.

    hahahaha (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by CST on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:39:15 PM EST
    dream on.

    If Elizabeth Warren runs, and by all indications she's not going to - her "issue" will most definitely not be transparency.  It will be income inequality and healthcare and the flaws in our financial system.  Just like it has been for her entire tenure in the senate.


    Anybody (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    who thinks that transparency will be a major issue in the upcoming election is indeed dreaming. Sure there will be sniping and small arms skirmishes around the edges. But the heavy fighting will be the peace & prosperity issues, same as it ever was.  

    The important Democratic (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    primary will be between Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton.  The Mrs. Clinton of a wealth of experience, among the top most well-known and famous Americans and Mrs. Clinton, the presidential candidate whose experience forges a vision and plan for the future.  There is unlikely to be any other primary that will compare and contrast, and, in composite, showcase the candidate's strengths and weaknesses.  

    The best, in my view, that a contested primary could offer would be a honing of debate skills and a recalibration of presence from the protocols of Secretary of State. Not insignificant results, but few good prospects in the policy department.   Indeed, the moderators questions would predictably head for the lowest bar.  Emails or the frothy issue du jour.  After two weeks of media hysteria about her emails, overtaking the treachery of 47 Republican senators lead by a cotton-balled, angry newbie, no clear assertion is in the public eye  of what, if any, rule, guideline, suggestion, procedure, or law was offended.  

    Republicans want those emails--all of them, but really the private ones. Maybe, some gossip or embarrassment, therein, to run with. Gone un-commented upon by the media as well as critics, is the NYTimes own public editor's chastisement of the original article--even to disagree with the public editor.

    And, little time has been given to counter-arguments, for instance,  that even government officials who maintain separate email accounts decide, whenever they write an email, which account to use, private or governmental. This, essentially, amounts to  real-time editing versus post-time editing for purposes of satisfying any archiving requirements that may have existed.

    In the absence of Democratic primaries, the Clinton campaign has the opportunity to set its own message and present ideas and policies about the future.  And, the future is what needs the focus.  If the Republican candidate is Scott Walker (rather than Jeb), the challenge for Mrs. Clinton will be to capitalize on past achievements while demonstrating a political newness and freshness.

    For those who argue that both Mrs. Clinton and the Republican candidate amount to choosing between the lesser of two evils, my feeling is that if that is the case, the chasm between evils in 2016 is infinite.


    "wealth of experience" (none / 0) (#92)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 08:58:13 PM EST
    Eight years of questionable co president, signature achievement being the 1993 health care proposal.  Eight years in the senate with no leadership positions or major laws.  Four years as secretary of state basically doing whatever Obama instructed her to do since foreign policy was largely run out of the white house; her imprint was mainly on pushing on attacking Libya, for what it was worth.  Examine your premise.

    Thanks for the suggestion. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    However, it seems that you have done my work by setting forth and reiterating Mrs. Clinton's extensive experiences.    But, I have, as directed, re-examined my premise and continue to find a wealth of experiences.

    Moreover, examination was made within the context and contrast of the  experiences of some likely Republican contenders in 2016.  I would characterize their experiences as being "poverty stricken."  

    Tom Cotton brings to the fore his sterling academic credentials all put to the task of destructive and deconstructive government.  Although, I must admit he was able to accomplish his treachery within two-months of senatorial experience.  It will no doubt be amazing as to what damage he will do with a few more years of experience.

    Scott Walker lacks the academic background of Cotton, bereft of the discipline to complete a baccalaureate degree, leaving some 34 credits short of completion.  Never-the-less, Walker has accomplished the fete of winning three elections in four years, one of which was a recall after just a few years in office.  Not an indicia of being a uniter, more a divider. Just what the country needs.  Walker has seen unrest and will know how to deal with war. He has compared terrorism to protesting teachers and public employee union members.  His experience seems to see all problems as being alike.

    Marco Rubio does have experience.  His oratory is spellbinding, provided he has Poland Springs at the ready.  We do need to overlook a few items out of his past, however, such as his tale of coming from Cuba to escape Castro, his being called on use of  his RNC American Express Card for personal use, his "deferral" of mortgage payments on the house in Tallahassee (which went into foreclosure) shared with fellow legislator, the shady David Rivera-- who explained his income (beside his legislative salary) on financial forms as being from his job at USAID, when USAID never heard of him and the money really came from Miami dog track operators.

    Of course, that was then, this is now.  But, he does need to learn about foreign affairs being on the foreign affairs committee and all.  As recently proved to his embarrassment, he does not know the difference between Shia and Shinola.  Of course, we can expect retrograde experience for dealing with Cuba and war for Iran. Who needs diplomacy, seems to be his guidepost.

    I know all I want to know about Christie, Lindsey and Jeb, put I will read that best seller on guns and grits by Huckabee and try to understand Paul's latest position on foreign policy, although it is a bit like nailing jelly to a tree.  


    Marco Rubio (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 11:11:29 AM EST
    I can't imagine him running. Truly I can't. He may have to fight to even keep his senate seat or maybe that would be reason to run. he wouldn't have to defend it.

    You left out Rick Perry. LOL


    Yes, hard to believe, perhaps. (none / 0) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    But,  Rubio is doing well among primary/winger voters.  Oops is the operation word for forgetting poor Perry, but you must admit he is forgettable.

    That poll (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    exposes a lot of problems for the GOP. If none of their candidates have more than 55% open to even supporting them? Rubio has the most people "open" to supporting him but even that is not great. It means 45% are not even open to supporting him.

    Well (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:05:22 PM EST
    what does that say about Obama back in 2008? Was Hillary right back then about Obama? Remember he ducked hard votes in the senate. Boy, did that end up being telling.

    Examine yours (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 09:07:46 PM EST
    Because that was just funny.

    If the people ever want to hear (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 01:45:07 PM EST
    about issues, the first thing they should do is demand that the debates are once again moderated by the League of Women Voters.

    Great idea. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders is running I think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:46:31 PM EST
    Now there is a candidate on the left.  Let's hope he gets some air time.

    Bernie ain't gettin'... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:45:05 PM EST
    no media love...sh#t should be decide to have a go as an independent in the general, Hillary and the last loser standing on the other side of the coin will fight like hell to keep him and the Libertarian   & Green candidates out of the debates, and off the air.

    In a contested primary, the candidates will (4.80 / 5) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    be discussing and debating the issues and their various views on those issues, but I don't have much confidence the media will cover it in any substantive way.

    I mean, how much substance was reported by the media in the last Republican presidential primary?

    I would love for - presumably - Hillary to be challenged for the nomination, and if she is, it's going to be up to us, the voters, to see and hear as much as we can first-hand, and not depend on media reports to inform our opinions.

    The Media... (4.50 / 2) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:55:19 AM EST
    ...is the ugly reflection of us.  They don't care about policy because their viewers don't care about policy.  

    But they love them sum email scandals....

    Write a policy post and another about Zimmerman getting speeding ticket, I think everyone here knows which one will hit 200 quicker.

    I would like to think this group is more informed on policy then your average citizen, but we still love the dirt.

    contested primaries (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:29:52 AM EST
    Are a good thing but again do you really think the press is going to talk about issues?

    Point (none / 0) (#4)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    well taken, but can we trust the media to become less "terrible" and let the issues take center stage? Would a Warren-Clinton race revolve around income inequality issues or will it be about authenticity? Will the media be talking about substance or will they be comparing their hairstyles and clothing choices? Will it be about visions for the future or some meaningless procedural vote taken on some obscure issue? I guess we could all hope, but color me skeptical.

    If Warren entered the primary (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:21:55 PM EST
    against Clinton I am confident that the press coverage would allot zero time to questions of policy. Instead, we would be treated to 24/7 breathless commentary and faux-reporting on what the press is sure to decide is a cat fight.

    Comments about claws coming out. Rightwing fantasies about knock-down hair pulling on TV.


    Cat fight was one of the first things that (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    came to mind, along with b!tch fights, but I'm not sure the media understands those as well as cats 😳

    Probably (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:28:40 PM EST
    Challengers are needed though.

    BTD! Run!


    100% (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 01:45:07 PM EST
    right on that.

    Absolutely correct (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    great post.  It boggles my mind that the actual possibility of no debates is even being discussed.   Any thoughts on who would best best positioned to bring the inequality issues to the table.

    Surprise (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    A challenge sufficient to show & define the issues would sure help. Even this strong Hillary supporter had wanted to see that.  But, if that doesn't happen in the next 6 months or less, it is a fair bet that there will be no honest challenge.  The reason: Especially in this century, it takes time, organization, & huge $$$$ sums.  

    BTD's quote from Boehlert is an eye-opener. Without the challenger--and until the Repub circus really gets going--the press will keep up its own version of a challenge.  It is measurably easier to face a human opponent, of course, then engage in a continual match with those who "buy barrels of ink" (as they used to say) and own the main means of reporting.  Yet, if anyone has learned agility in media matters, I do trust Hillary to prevail.

    Anyway, the real problem as we approach April '15 relates not only to finding a challenger but also to the credibility of the challenger.  Simply to round up a sparring partner doesn't do anyone in a contest any good ... because it isn't believable. There is still time for a genuine challenge; but, that challenge has to come from someone with the requisite "fire in the belly" or most people will see right through it and no one will benefit.

    IF no credible challenge appears .... What then? Well, since (for some reason I'm thinking here via sports metaphor) the solo run is not entirely unheard of for an incumbent seeking a second term or for a VP ranking at the top of his/her party, that maybe the question we should ask revolves around "How do top competitors in solo-oriented sports train for the biggest competition?" ... marathoners in running and a number of iron-man (woman) kind of categories?  Maybe there is something to be learned from that; and, maybe there is a derivative answer from looking at how one prepares for more typical debates?  What I'm guessing--especially after the lessons of 2008--is that Hillary Clinton and her team realize the need for staying relevant, interesting, showing ideas inventively throughout the lead-up to the general election.  Whether it is a combination of periodic appearances that are more than set speeches & rallies -- such as enlivening debates with leading, nationally known experts in different issue areas that would be telecast in half-hour blocs with the extensive campaign moolah already in hand--I'd speculate that we might see something along those lines.  


    The usual sniffing about (none / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:03:30 PM EST
    needing a "credible" challenger typically boils down to, in actuality, a challenger with a sufficient war chest to impress the money guys.

    In my view, all the cred a challenger needs is a point of view and the ability to articulate it coherently -- no word salad. I don't even care if the POV is diametrically opposed from mine as long as it provides a platform for true blue policy discussions.

    Having said that, I, naturally, would prefer that she face a challenge from the left.

    I take that back. I would prefer that she face multiple challenges from the left.


    I don't (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    think money is what is needed for a challenge. I think about debates past and there were many candidates in them with no money who got just as much air time as any other candidate.

    But more to your point mutilple challengers from teh left would have probably more effect I would think.


    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:40:53 PM EST
    I don't  (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 02:20:20 PM MDT

    think money is what is needed for a challenge.

    It's just what it boils down to when people start yammering about a "credible" challenger.

    UInless you're poli-geeks like us... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    policy is difficult, complex, and most apt in regards to media...boring.

    As long as most media outlets, and nearly all major media outlets, are in the business of selling soap...their primary function is to entertain, not inform or educate.  And nothing entertains like gossip and scandal.

    There was a boatload of primary challengers for the GOP in 2012...were their policy differences substantially addressed in the media?  No...what I remember is Romney didn't wanna release his tax returns and thinks we're 47% deadbeats,  Santorum wears ugly sweater vests and hates homosexuality,  Rick Perry cracks under the stagelights, Herman Cain should stick to selling sh*tty pizza, and Ron Paul can't get though a debate without boos raining down from the rafters.

    Good post. (none / 0) (#21)
    by TomP on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    I forgot you were still here.  You make a lot of sense.  Perhaps Webb will give her that primary.  I would support HRC over Webb.  Still, it would create a debate to some degree.

    Maybe they could debate (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 03:03:26 PM EST
    whether or not he would trust any woman to lead men in any capacity and if so in what types of roles.

    good one! (none / 0) (#43)
    by TomP on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:19:52 PM EST
    Nice to see you (none / 0) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 06:00:50 PM EST
    It has been a long time since I posted at the Big Orange.

    forgive me, but (none / 0) (#33)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 04:23:30 PM EST
    i have a real weakness for the magnificently cringeworthy

    Not helpful (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:07:01 PM EST
    for sure.

    Blecch, I need ear bleach (none / 0) (#42)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    to remove all traces of that audial assault.  

    i'm particularly taken (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    with the effect produced by the lyrics' clashes of verbal register

    A for effort? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:46:39 PM EST
    I have to admire that someone went to so much trouble.  I think I just heard some roots singing :)

    Biden and Kerry (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    are both making noises that lead me to believe that they are in the wings.

    A "contest" between the three of them - Kerry, Biden and Clinton would, in my opinion, offer us one big fat zero.

    "Hawkish ideas challenged"?  

    We need someone on the left if there is to be a contested primary in which important issues will be seriously debated.

    Oh man.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:51:44 PM EST
    Talk about the 3 (Wall St) Stooges!

    If that's the Brand D primary, I won't be upset about my state's closed primary policy next year!


    Biden (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:54:34 PM EST
    I always suspected would run but Kerry? Surely what he went through in 2004 would be enough for him to not give it another go. Hillary would roll over both of them and you're right there probably would not be much debate mostly nickpicking.

    If Biden runs he will I've (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    seriously close to Harold Stassen territory. It will be so sad.

    biden (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:01:13 PM EST
    almost has to run. He's the VP. But Kerry? What world does he live in that he's thinking about running again?

    The (none / 0) (#116)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    world I think he lives in is one in which he looks at himself in the mirror and sees awesome chiseled entitled greatness.

    Plus - what else is he gonna do?

    Sell ketchup?

    Actually, Dole wound up selling Viagra...

    Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men?


    only the Shadow knows... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 08:18:05 AM EST
    I use to love to listen (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 08:25:30 AM EST
    To that show on the radio as a child.

    And, herewith, we agree (none / 0) (#162)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 09:26:21 PM EST
    Lamont Cranston--on Sunday nights when the sun was going down.  My first memories of radio while sitting on the floor, with other family around the living room, listening and raptly watching even the big, curved wooden radio ... a few years later, I remember listening after we moved West & would be driving back from a Sunday afternoon in the mountains.  (And, the lead female ... was it Margo? Yet--the voices are unmistakable.)

    Yes, Sunday radio was quite a wonderful (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    source of family entertainment. I listened to those shows even after we got a TV (late adapters due to lack of funds). Your memory is better than mine. I had to use google. Her name was Margo Lane.

    I am trying to remember more of the Sunday shows. There were several that aired one right after the other. I'm fairly sure that Inner Sanctum of the "creeping door" fame was part of the Sunday lineup. The Fat Man, and maybe, Ellery Queen, Phillip Marlow and Charlie Chan are some of the possibilities. IMO they sure beat the reality shows of today.


    Redd Foxx's (none / 0) (#152)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    answer to that question was, "The Shadow do".

    I thought that was... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by unitron on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 08:32:07 PM EST
    ...Flip Wilson telling the story of how his father lost out on the announcer gig for The Shadow.

    (I know nothing about his father or whether he was ever a radio announcer, or whether the at least exaggerated story was made up from whole cloth just for the laugh)


    What about our young Dems? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:20:47 PM EST
    Some fresher blood on the stage.

    Do (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:29:32 PM EST
    you have anyone in mind?

    One of the Castro brothers? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    Good idea! (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 08:08:05 AM EST
    Fidel or Raul?

    Kamala Harris (none / 0) (#154)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 03:05:49 PM EST
    How do we get Wendy Davis and one of (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 05:54:57 PM EST
    The Castro brothers up there?  Gotta cut your teeth someday?  You don't have to win, just show up and let us get to know you better, bring it.....and you could win.