Skip to main content

View Diary: Is It Time For OWS II? (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  why without (0+ / 0-)

    I said we should primary to push them

    Show me the diary that shows that Bill Clinton won due to his right-wing positions

    by GideonAB on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 09:06:34 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you re: primarying (4+ / 0-)

      but the fact is, there's a point where you have to stop and understand that "not being defeatist" simply does not bring anything to bear in the situation we find ourselves.

      There is so much corruption that we can no longer hope to depend on every scrap of the "system" to rescue us. And so it is with "primaries". Have you or have you not noticed that Hillary is already the presumed nominee for '16, despite the fact that a LOT of Dems are not supportive of it? We're having her shoved down our throats already. Where is her primary opponent?

      And that is only one example--this is becoming the norm at all levels of government. Time after time, district after district, Dems and GOPers "run unopposed", from dogcatcher to presidential primaries.

      Ask yourself: with the approval ratings of Congress, for example, WHY aren't more of its denizens being challenged where it matters the most--in a primary?

      What other alternatives to the system could you come up with, whether or not you, personally, find alternatives to the system to be defeatist? My mama used to always say "Have a Plan B". It's time to get serious. Another OWS is a good direction to go in, because it was a threat once.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:18:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary was also the presumed nominee for 2008 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, radmul

        She lost.  If the demand is there, a primary opponent will emerge.

        •  She didn't lose, she stepped aside. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          martini

          Seriously? There's plenty of demand.

           What an interesting comment--doesn't that rather infer that we should just sit back and wait for an opponent to emerge? How soothing. Oh, I feel so much better now!
             

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:24:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary voted for a credit card bill that makes (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie, martini, radmul

            slaves of all of us to the credit card companies.
            You bet their will be a demand: for a better candidate.

            •  There's already plenty of demand (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              martini, AoT

              where are the candidates? I like Elizabeth Warren too, but we can't depend on her throwing her hat in at the last minute. That's the only name I've seen other than Hillary.

              Time's a'wastin', folks....

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 07:58:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  No, she lost (0+ / 0-)

            Obama beat her on the ground. She didn't chose to lose.

            If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

            by AoT on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 08:58:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, yeah, she did exactly that! (0+ / 0-)

              They were coming down to the wire and there was talk about things like "a brokered convention". Hillary folded willingly because she would probably have lost in the end, but the fact is, it was a choice she made.  She didn't stick around until the end, she conceded to Mr. Obama.

               

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 10:46:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  She conceded because she knew she would lose (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GideonAB

                That's a far cry from choosing to lose. Obama had already secured a majority of delegates on the 4th and she conceded three days later. Technically she still could have won if she flipped a majority of the superdelegates and had Michigan and Florida seated despite the rules against it. She was in debt and had no reasonable path to win. She got beat, she didn't chose to lose. The press was talking about all the arcane ways she could theoretically win, but those weren't any real path to victory.

                If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

                by AoT on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 11:35:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  exactly right (0+ / 0-)

                  Hillary was beaten by Obama and this was down to her policy positions.

                  we can be realistic and still recognise the options we have

                  Show me the diary that shows that Bill Clinton won due to his right-wing positions

                  by GideonAB on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 05:58:55 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  She stepped aside (0+ / 0-)

                  that is what I claimed initially, and I was told that was incorrect. And it clearly wasn't.  

                  Meanwhile, there's PLENTY of demand for another candidate, which was the whole point of this initially. Yes, it is very much time for OWS II. And running the likes of Hillary Clinton to lead this party going forward will make that even more critical.

                   

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:19:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  she was defeated (0+ / 0-)

                    by Obama.

                    unless you want to say that Santorum was not beaten by Romney.

                    Santorum lost and Clinton lost

                    Show me the diary that shows that Bill Clinton won due to his right-wing positions

                    by GideonAB on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:52:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And she stepped aside to "unify the party". (0+ / 0-)

                      She could have stayed in. She might even have won. We'll never know, because she bowed out.

                      And the GOP has nothing to do with this.

                      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                      by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 08:30:51 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  I do not disagree (0+ / 0-)

        with most of what you say.

        I think OWS did make a difference to the national conversation and that is no small feat.

        I just think we should use all the options: petitions, primaries and OWS

        It is not a case of just picking one

        Show me the diary that shows that Bill Clinton won due to his right-wing positions

        by GideonAB on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 05:56:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, of course not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          but we have to understand that it's time to stop caring so much about things like "defeatism".

          The state of things in this government and this party--and those who want to take away our standard of living and shove millions aside, so much so that it literally has become life-or-death for so many--is a fight that is no longer for the faint of heart.

           

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:27:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie, AoT

            you are not defeatist since you are in agreement with OWS.

            I used defeatist purely in the context of someone saying that elected Dems are only interested in the serving the money.  And judging by what you have written, we are actually in agreement here.

            Show me the diary that shows that Bill Clinton won due to his right-wing positions

            by GideonAB on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:50:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well yeah (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT

              but those who would say Dems are only interested in serving the money isn't exactly telling a lie, either. There's plenty of that to go around.

              It's hard to admit that when you're in it yourself, but there it is. Not all Dems are our friends.

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 08:28:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site