Skip to main content

View Diary: Added thoughts on Armando's Front Page Post (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree. (16+ / 0-)

    And in our role, at this point we should be advocating for the best possible candidate.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:13:28 PM PST

    •  And in my view that would be (11+ / 0-)

      the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:43:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who is, unfortunately, not running (12+ / 0-)

        The first requirement for a candidate is they have to want the office enough to run.  I've pretty much loved Warren since I saw her at netroot nation in Vegas.  But I am pretty sure she is not just being coy.  She isn't running.  And neither is anyone else who is both viable and genuinely progressive.

        "Wouldn't you rather vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want - and get it?" Eugene Debs. "Le courage, c'est de chercher la verité et de la dire" Jean Jaures

        by Chico David RN on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:53:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Name the last Presidential Candidate who (6+ / 0-)

          never said 'I will not run.'

          I can see she doesn't want to now, but that's not the question. The question is who is capable of actually representing the interests of the people. You think someone from the Dem establishment is going to do that? Pick the people over the banks? The people over globalization and free trade? The people over the multinationals? The people over the Stalker State?

          Please, let's not be naive. There's a handful who would actually represent the people in our Party, and Sen Warren is the one who isn't a career politician, who is willing to speak plainly, and therefore has high regard from the public.

          It's about insisting she run, not pretending that 'i will not run' means shit, especially given the very real, and widespread, lunacy running all through our political classes.

          Give me a better option. Lead Sen Warren to consider whether there even is a better option. Then let's see where she is.

          Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

          by Jim P on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:20:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How exactly do you insist that someone runs (6+ / 0-)

            for president?

            •  It's called 'drafting' by popular pressure (7+ / 0-)

              It's been done before.

              Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

              by Jim P on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:35:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know it has been done (8+ / 0-)

                I was part of the draft Clark group in 2003.  Again (I feel like a broken record here) Elizabeth Warren had to be coaxed into running for as seat in a relatively small state.  I don't feel she has the desire to undertake the relentless grind of a presidential campaign; she seems to like where she is.  And if Hillary Clinton declares, Warren will not run.  I say that categorically.  Warren will simply not want to run against Hillary.

                    I'm a Warren fan, btw.

              •  Elizabeth Warren signed a letter that (5+ / 0-)

                specifically asks (basically begs) Hillary Clinton to run for President.  As soon as Hillary Clinton decides to run Elizabeth Warren will issue her strong endorsement for Hillary Clinton.  There is no other reading of the letter that was signed by Elizabeth Warren to coax Hillary Clinton into running for President that is possible.

                Also, where would that popular pressure be coming from?  A huge majority of Progressives have decided that Hillary Clinton is their chosen candidate (as per all polls we have seen) more so than the support HRC gets from centrist or moderate Democrats.   That makes it more likely that someone from HRCs right tries to challenge her, bowing to popular pressure from the centrists (i.e. Mark Warner or Andrew Cuomo,) but even that is far fetched.  

              •  It is funny - or not - because of the pros (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jim P, elwior, Maverick80229

                and cons of Obama Vs. Clinton in 2008 on my list one of the BIGGEST cons was the uber belief and investment in Obama's mythology.  I liked Clinton better on that front because I knew that liberals would not defer challenges to her policies while I got the distinct impression that they would with Obama.

                Which as it turns out, turned out to be true - and not only true - but even worse than I could have possibly imagined - especially on the Stimulus.  Hillary Clinton will never feel that she is in that comfortable space where she could say, "The American people will be 'patient" about the economic recovery," that the Obama team did.  That is NOT a bad thing - in fact - in a democracy that is a very GOOD thing.  Making statements like Obama did about patience and not addressing Main Street needs like Obama did is a practice much more in line with Monarchical rule than with the realities of Democratic rule where you can and will get your ass kicked when people are displeased with a political party or president's performance.

                I think that Warren might have potential and I might even work my ass for her, but if her potential means that every liberal group would just roll over and defer to everything she wanted to do even when those things were antithetical to their causes, I will choose Hillary Clinton now after my theories of human and political behavior were so incredibly on the mark with respect to Obama.

                I will disagree with the diarist on one front which is that he/she claims that our politicians are supposed to compromise at all times.  That's a crock of shit.  If something makes NO sense they should NOT compromise.  I am not talking ideology here - I am talking rational sense in practical governing of the United States.  We live in an era where the Republican party and their offshoots insist on debating issues as basic and uncompromising as long-held and understood scientific realities.  You cannot compromise on those subjects and still be a "pragmatic" steward of governance.  You just CAN'T.  It is impossible.  Done.  No compromise to be found.  At that point, the elected official's job is to lobby the voting public and to change their view so that they will elect people who will act responsibly and within the realm of reality.

                On the climate front, the advocacy groups concerned about climate change have totally FAILED the world.  TOTALLY FAILED.  They bought into a strategy that could never possibly work and fell victim to fanboy bullshit that totally disempowered them.  "But Obama did do…"  Okay, yeah, sure, but what he did NOT do is the problem.  What the Democrats did NOT do is the problem.  What all of those people dealt away by NOT being adversarial and immediately trying to compromise with insane people who lack any relationship to reality is screw us all.  We trusted them all and they fucked up big time.

                "But Obama is such a smart guy and he is nice…"  Yeah, well, okay, maybe, but that's useless to us and maybe even a HUGE liability if we really need to act on critical threats to our world, democracy and country.

                •  Thing is, Hillary's just as invested in the (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WisePiper, Subterranean, elwior

                  current order of things as is Obama. Neither will bow to the will of the people, even simply vigorously push the concerns of their base, if they would hurt the globalization / multinational / banker / fossil fuel / military-intelligence crowd.

                  Outside of rhetoric and some bones thrown, everything that's been happening in Economics and War under both parties since Reagan for the last 30-plus years will continue on the current path.

                  Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                  by Jim P on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:51:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  you know (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cpresley, Maverick80229, BMScott

                There actually are people who really are not intesrested in making the time committment, the financial committment for running for president. Look at all the governors senators etc who have never run for president

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:09:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  When was the last time this worked? (0+ / 0-)

                Most of them fail.

          •  Might be true if she were typical politician (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Smoh, nirbama, VClib, cpresley

            who is driven by ambition and whose only calculation on whether or not to run is "can I win?"  I think when she says she's not running, she means it and I don't think there is any real leverage any of us have to change her mind.  I've believed for a long time that, in my fantasy world, we would pick a president who didn't want the office.  Anyone who wants it is clearly nuts and should be disqualified on the grounds of insanity.  But that's not the system we have - we have one where you have to want it a whole bunch.  And I don't think she does.

            "Wouldn't you rather vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want - and get it?" Eugene Debs. "Le courage, c'est de chercher la verité et de la dire" Jean Jaures

            by Chico David RN on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:27:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whether she wants it or not, she clearly has (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc, praenomen, WisePiper, elwior

              a conscience, and clearly understands that we're being fucked over. If the case is made that she's the option to, frankly, a heap of shit, nobody knows what a person of conscience might do.

              That's why I advocate for Warren. Why surrender now? Damn, the nation and its people are dying from lesser evils.

              Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

              by Jim P on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:38:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  For you to be right Elizabeth Warren would have (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nirbama, cpresley, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                to be against Hillary Clinton.  However, that is not at all the case.  The letter she signed asking Hillary Clinton to run is one indicator, there are others.

                   Same with Dean, who not only stated that he supports Hillary Clinton for President, but also claimed that she would satisfy most Progressives, and those who would oppose her would have "not a lot of votes" (basically echoing Kos' assessment of her opposers as the "deep minority".)

                Why in the world would anyone want to coax her, and why would she even want anyone to do so, if her first reaction to a Hillary Clinton run would be an enthusiastic endorsement of her?

                •  Because in her mind she said "i'm not running, (4+ / 0-)

                  therefore, Hillary."

                  But you do know that nothing going wrong in the country today is going to be stopped by Hillary, right? If anything the Eternal War, the Bankster racket, the Multinational's and their economic and environmental depredations, the Stalker State, all these things are going to go on.

                  What happens if it's made clear to Warren that she has to run for the sake of the nation? We don't know.

                  I'm certainly not prepared to surrender to the corporatists based on accepting the conventional wisdom that's been killing us for a good long time. And that will continue the ruination from the usual run of professional politicians.

                  Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                  by Jim P on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:26:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why would it be "therefore Hillary"? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cpresley, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                    That just does not make any sense at all.  If Hillary Clinton were so terrible than the dream candidate Elizabeth Warren would NEVER, EVER endorse her.  What are you thinking?  "I am not running, therefore Hillary"?  Given what Warren stands for how would that even be possible, if indeed Hillary Clinton were such a bad, bad EternalWar-BanksterRacket-Multinational-depredator monster?    

                    The truth is obviously different.  I am sure you are aware of that yourself.  

                  •  No, I don’t know (0+ / 0-)

                    that all these things will go on.  The fact that HRC apparently has Warren’s support allows at least a modicum of doubt. But quite apart from that, I object to the moral blackmail of ‘she has to run for the sake of the nation’.

          •  Running for POTUS is a long grind (3+ / 0-)

            and takes an amazing amount of energy and a nearly evangelical desire for the job. It's a gruesome 18 month marathon with extensive travel, fund raising ($100 million needed by the end of 2015), and a lot of bad chicken dinners just to win the nomination. After that the general election. We know that Hillary is a marathon runner in the Democratic primaries, and starts with more than a 50 point lead in the polls over Senator Warren. This would be a real uphill fight. Is that what Senator Warren really wants to do in the next two years?  

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:07:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I have a real problem with this: (4+ / 0-)
          Compromise is part of the role of the office holder - it's integral to what they do.  And, in the modern world, anyone who aspires to high office will be a triangulating centrist at best.
          This, in essence, is the reason the Democratic Party has lost its soul. When Obama compromises with the republicans, he loses, we all lose. His approval numbers go down, and the morale of the Democratic Party tanks. The one time the president stood up to the republicans and said, "No!" in no uncertain terms, was good for the dems; his numbers and our numbers went up, but it was amazing how many of his followers suddenly forgot how they had tried to shout us down for urging him to stand up to the republicans. Suddenly, he was brilliant.

          The fastest way to lose your identity is to stand for nothing, to fight for nothing, to allow the other party to constantly knock you down. That has happened so many times during Obama's presidency that many longtime Democrats have left the party.

          The republicans are not interested in meeting us halfway. If we make attempts to compromise with them they see it as a weakness and then they jam their agendas down our collective throats. We have never won anything substantial by compromising with the republicans.

          When you ask me to support Obama's policies, basically what you are asking me to do is to support republican policies, and I will never do that. Drones, NSA spying, the sequester, the bank bailouts, aiding and abetting Wall Street criminals, cutting social safety net programs, HAMP, an administration that is made up of too many republicans and not enough progressives...those are just a few of the republican policies of this administration that I will never accept.

          The same goes for Hillary. Trying to remake her into anything but the corporatist that she is is insulting.

    •  Even If That Candidate Doesn't Have A Prayer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lying eyes, Smoh

      of actually being elected?

      Tell me what gain we get from that?

      Collect Different Days

      by Homers24 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:44:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Marketing. (14+ / 0-)

        Where would bottled water be if coca cola had simply accepted the popular preferences 30 + years ago that almost nobody would pay for what came out of their own tap for free?

        Nobody knows there's a different possibility if nobody is putting one out.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:55:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You Lost It On 30 Years Ago (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lying eyes

          You bet I'm all for implementing a truly progressive America. But just like Coca Cola and bottled water that's going to take 30 years of constant winning not less than the year we have to try and save the Senate and make gains in the House.

          And don't even talk to me about marketing because marketing takes lots and lots of money which is the one thing we don't have compared to the amount of money on the right.

          Different possibilities don't make political realities.

          Collect Different Days

          by Homers24 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:41:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There will be people running in the primary (0+ / 0-)

          but many will choose to sit out, even if they might contemplate running otherwise.  Partly because they endorse her candidacy, partly because they don't want to go through the rigors of campaigning if they don't feel they have a real shot at it.  

          There will be some running to make a point (i.e. Kucinich) and a few might enter the primaries to perhaps audition for a VP slot.  But a serious challenger?  

      •  You imply a false premise. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley, Subterranean

        That "more progressive" is always or usually equal to "less electable"  I think in a lot of cases, the opposite is true.  Obama has taken a great many "moderate" positions.  But there is not one single conservative voter anywhere in America who likes him any better for that.  And a great many liberals who like him less.  Had he taken on the increase in the minimum wage as an issue back in 2009, both the economy and his own popularity would be in far better shape.  
        We do need to be strategic.  In W. Virginia, a Joe Manchin is likely the best we can hope for.  But we ought not settle for moderates in districts with 60% Democratic registration.  And consider Arkansas and Blanche Lincoln a few years ago.  All the polls showed her utterly doomed long before the election.  No possible chance she could win.  Bill Holder had progressive support and would have been at least as strong in the general.  But the whole Democratic party establishment from the President down rallied around re-nominating her - which guaranteed the loss of the seat.  Holder might not have won, but he likely would have done better than Lincoln.  Kos is right that Dems win, not be attracting conservative votes but by energizing and turning out our base - which we do with the most progressive candidate who fits that district.  

        "Wouldn't you rather vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want - and get it?" Eugene Debs. "Le courage, c'est de chercher la verité et de la dire" Jean Jaures

        by Chico David RN on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:00:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I very much agree with your diary (7+ / 0-)

          It is remarkably naive of many individuals, including in this community, to think that we must all individually support Democratic officeholders in their actions and pursuits, lest the Republicans win.  Criticism of Democratic officeholders is, in fact, part of our duty as citizens and as Democratic voters.  We must never accept the standards they would have us accept.  We must always hold them to standards they find deeply inconvenient to meet.  Sure, work for them and vote for them.  But then hold their feet to the fire relentlessly, never letting them take our support for granted when they deal with the opposition.  That's how we move the party in our direction.

          The more progressive candidate is likely the most electable nationally.  Progressive issues are almost uniformly deeply popular in the country.  Strong progressive candidates, unapologetic in their advocacy of economic and social justice, should be able to carry national elections easily.  Triangulating corporatists may win narrow victories:  this does not mean that more progressive candidates will lose.  The biggest Democratic victories in the past century -- 1936 and 1964 -- were also the most unambiguously economic populist campaigns any modern party has every waged.  You'd think Democrats would remember their own history, but the big fat checks of the donor class seem to induce amnesia.

          We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

          by Dallasdoc on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:54:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site