2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPrediction: Gen Colin Powell will endorse Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention.
I also suspect a few other big name "Republican" Sec of Defense Generals will do the same.. including Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel and William Cohen.
Hillary has alot of connections in the military from her years as Senator and of course as SOS and has developed great respect from them.
I am sure these Generals fear the damage a "Commander in Chief Trump" would do.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)She such a fucking bridge builder.
doc03
(35,442 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)so no.
ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)But that would be an unbeatable ticket IMO
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)dinkytron
(568 posts)Fuck the old guard.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Jeb!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)brooklynite
(94,950 posts)...what with all the Democrats who'll be supporting her.
Maybe Senator Sanders won't be there for his slot.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)They would see him almost as risky as Trump.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)Check the video, he hemmed and stuttered and this from a man who was always so smooth and self assured. Wonder what they had on him. He would be a poor choice for endorsement!
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...who may have opted to sit out the election with Trump (or Cruz) as their only Republican option. I am pretty sure that once they realize they are not the only ones making the vote switch, it becomes an easier decision.
Renew Deal
(81,897 posts)But I also don't think they'd matter much.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Sort of give them "permission" to go "off the reservation".
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Not to brag or anything (okay, I'm bragging!) but ... except for the uniform, this man looks a lot like my husband.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)He's one of my favorites!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)He was interviewed about whether he thinks Hillary's private server did damage to National Security. He was ultra emphatic that he has no doubt her system was hacked by at least 4 other countries. There are some others of similar stature I could name of the same opinion.
Marr
(20,317 posts)ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)Tha everyone, except for Bush, Cheney, and Rice.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)He has something like 70-20 approval rating.
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)His bullshit to the UN is something he should be killed or at least imprisoned for life over. Piece of shit he is.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I have forgiven him for that.
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)He knew that he was lying and lied anyway. Hell I knew that was lies and I am just a hippie with a computer.
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)all over the world weren't fooled. We smelled bullshit a mile away. But the insiders couldn't see the forest from the trees? Doubtful.
frylock
(34,825 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Does this mean Bernie has suddenly become pro-death penalty while I was hidden away?
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)For treason. The second we string one of the traitors up, then the traitors will stop selling this country out like Powell did. He's a ducking traitor.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... because the death penalty is one of the few places I strongly disagree with Hillary on. I don't ever believe in it. I get war is one thing. When we're at war, bullets fly and people die, but the death penalty is something else to me. It really boils down to Increase Mather's statement in 1692 that essentially ended the Witch trials of Salem...
"It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned."
Well, at least you stand by your views. That's commendable. If I see one more person suddenly become all pro-gun just because they're a Bernie supporter, I think I'm going to scream.
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)I am against the ,,DP except for acts of treason, which is what Powell did
And I disagree with Bernies stance on guns.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... heck, I worry especially about treason, since it would seem that would be one of the most likely crimes to be falsified for political purposes.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)having another Very Important Person Who Now Claims They Were Fooled by those idiots and charlatans in the Bush administration helps legitimize Clinton's excuse. And that is very important if we are going to keep our perpetual war going.
Just consider me another sensible centrist for Clinton.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)He is a very popular and respected on both sides.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)THAT guy is 'respected and popular on both sides'... of what? Hell?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)That's quite "popular" on any side.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)knowledge of history would welcome any endorsement from a War Criminal just because it was 'popular'...
One of the many reasons I'm not, nor ever could be... a Hillary 'supporter'.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)That was an integral part of war crimes will be doing this? I guess Kissenger will be there supporting her too...
This should not be acceptable to any true Democrats!!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It would be more transparent, I'll give it that.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Except when it's inconvenient
White House Fellow under Nixon
Helped to delay the investigation into the My Lai massacre.
He'd be perfect!
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)This would be a poor choice for her campaign.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)aren't you?
Powell who pushed 'yellow cake' at the UN.
Gates who was intimately involved with the Iran-Contra scandal.
Hagel who voted for the Patriot Act, both Bush tax cuts, against Campaign Finance Reform, and another cheerleader like Clinton for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
And Cohen who whose Cohen Group is a huge MIC advisor in the Middle East and China.
Jesus, y'all are moderate Republicans and after this primary, the masks will complete come off won't they!?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)If Powell brings us a chunk of the Republican vote then I say give him the stage.
TM99
(8,352 posts)we don't care if we compromise our principles, ethics, positions, etc. as long as we got a chance to win.
Yes, we know, that's why Clinton hired the Brock machine.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)You would refuse his endorsement?? If that is Bernie's thinking as well then that is just another reason we cant afford to have him as our nominee... just another example of "perfect is the enemy of the good".
TM99
(8,352 posts)No, endorsements from four men involved with some of the worst GOP wars and illegal actions in the last 40 years are not something most leftists would want.
But as I said, you are just a moderate Republican from a different era.
Response to DCBob (Reply #42)
Marr This message was self-deleted by its author.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)It amazes me how the Sanders supporters are the ones who have to keep fending off accusations that they're delusional.
frylock
(34,825 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)This is about winning in case you weren't aware.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Enjoy your victory in battle while you can.
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)[link:|
TM99
(8,352 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Wtf happened to the Democratic Party...
Meldread
(4,213 posts)On the one hand, Sanders supporters are saying that he will bring Independents and Republicans into the party, and that is why we should have open primaries. On the other hand, Hillary is condemned for potentially having some Republicans cross over to support her in the general election. It's a really hypocritical double standard.
Bringing in rank and file Republicans is one thing but you want to bring in the Republican leadership. You don't see a difference?
Meldread
(4,213 posts)You are making the assumption that rank and file Republicans are somehow misinformed and mistaken about their party identity. They are Republicans for a reason.
Sanders and Clinton appeal to two separate groups of Republicans.
Clinton appeals to the Republican intellectuals, who tend to be more liberal on social issues, but favorable to pro-business policies and hawkish foreign policy. They would support Hillary because they would hope she would embrace a more pro-business and pro-hawk foreign policy.
Sanders appeals to less educated Republicans, who tend to be socially conservative, but more economically progressive. They would support Sanders because they would hope he would embrace a more economically progressive domestic policy, while ignoring the rights of minorities (blacks, immigrants, and LGBTQ people).
I don't consider the coalition big enough to include either group, and would prefer that they stick with their own kind. I would not want either group to have a seat at the table, because I am a liberal, and I am not willing to compromise on either issue.
However, that is not the message that Sanders supporters have sent. They have opened the tent door, and they are welcoming them in--then they are complaining over the fact that Hillary may do the same.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)there is no difference between rank and file Republicans and their leadership?
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Here is what I said:
Clinton appeals to the Republican intellectuals, who tend to be more liberal on social issues, but favorable to pro-business policies and hawkish foreign policy. They would support Hillary because they would hope she would embrace a more pro-business and pro-hawk foreign policy.
Sanders appeals to less educated Republicans, who tend to be socially conservative, but more economically progressive. They would support Sanders because they would hope he would embrace a more economically progressive domestic policy, while ignoring the rights of minorities (blacks, immigrants, and LGBTQ people).
Republican intellectuals tend to be part of the Republican leadership, or at least highly influential over it. That is why so many Republican rank and file are angry, because they care about different issues. The Republican leadership is more focused on hawkish foreign policy and pro-business policies, while the rank and file are more focused on xenophobia, bigotry, and discrimination. Occasionally the leadership throws them a bone, but now they want more and their economic desires are also bubbling up to the top. This is what Donald Trump is harnessing.
So, is there a difference? Yes. However, both should be an anathema to us, and shouldn't be welcomed into the party.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)do you think the Clinton supporters should try to convince Sanders supporters to join them?
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Sanders supporters are liberal. The Democratic Party is a coalition party much like the Republican Party--when you only have two parties in the system, that is inevitable--but it is the political party that best supports the liberal agenda. Sanders understands that which is why he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, and it is why he has constantly said that he will support Hillary if she is the nominee.
I understand the anger and frustration directed toward Hillary. Sanders supporters are not saying anything I didn't say back in 2008, when I supported Obama over Clinton. All of the criticisms offered then are still valid now.
Primaries are always contentious. In 2004 we had the PUMA threatening to bolt from the party as well. They eventually came around and voted for Obama, when they saw the alternative. I trust that the Bernie or Bust folks will do the same once they see the alternative.
The truth of the matter is the political parties are more polarized than they have been in generations, and it is not by accident--it is because there are real and substantive differences between them. That is why I do not want to open the door to Republicans.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)Meldread
(4,213 posts)I am rather hopeful for the future for the liberal movement in this country. Simply look at the demographic trends and the future voting blocks. I am hopeful that Clinton will be the last centrist Democrat that we run as President.
Our efforts should be turned toward state, local, and congressional elections. We need to begin running and electing true liberals in the Democratic Party. That way when it comes time to run someone for President again, we'll have someone everyone in the party can easily rally behind.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Bernie is seeking the support from every day people.
Bernie, in a New York second, would reject any endorsement from a war criminal. Hillary embraces their support.
Gotta ask, Meldread, did you protest the Iraq war? Powell was instrumental in selling it to the UN with a pack of lies.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)I did protest the Iraq War. I joined DU around that time. I remember well how we were treated, and how we were referred to as traitors. In 2008 I even used images of corpses of Iraqi Children and U.S. Soldiers against Hillary Clinton. Clinton and a entire slew of other Democrats bare just as much responsibility for the Iraq War as Powell.
However, that was not my point. My point was that Sanders is also reaching out to Republicans, and his supporters are bragging about it. It is just from a different wing of the Republican party. Here is what I said to another poster just above you:
Clinton appeals to the Republican intellectuals, who tend to be more liberal on social issues, but favorable to pro-business policies and hawkish foreign policy. They would support Hillary because they would hope she would embrace a more pro-business and pro-hawk foreign policy.
Sanders appeals to less educated Republicans, who tend to be socially conservative, but more economically progressive. They would support Sanders because they would hope he would embrace a more economically progressive domestic policy, while ignoring the rights of minorities (blacks, immigrants, and LGBTQ people).
My preference is that we keep all of these people out of the party. I am a liberal, and I want to push for a liberal agenda. Not welcome people to the table who would seek to compromise it away.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And do it wholesale. And they supply weapons and money to those who continue, as a policy of state, to hunt and imprison and execute women and gays and those who agitate for democracy.
More hawkish and more pro-business go hand in hand. After all, as Hillary points out, Iraq is now a business opportunity on the backs of millions of dead, dying, displaced, ill, underfed and ill housed human beings.
What? Socially liberal only applies to those who reside in the U.S.? Black and brown lives are irrelevant when we want to open up business opportunities?
I have worked and taught and led social justice classes and seminars and have changed the mindset of those less educated socially conservative republicans and I didn't have to lie and kill millions of people while doing so.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)As my post clearly states:
I did protest the Iraq War. I joined DU around that time. I remember well how we were treated, and how we were referred to as traitors. In 2008 I even used images of corpses of Iraqi Children and U.S. Soldiers against Hillary Clinton. Clinton and a entire slew of other Democrats bare just as much responsibility for the Iraq War as Powell.
...
My preference is that we keep all of these people out of the party. I am a liberal, and I want to push for a liberal agenda. Not welcome people to the table who would seek to compromise it away.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)people around the world. Who have the power to reign misery to black and brown people around the world.
On a massive scale.
But, you've a problem with powerless individual republicans. K.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)...that you are openly admitting that you are more than happy to throw the entire LGBTQ community, the African American community, the Immigrant community, and those who care passionately about gender equality and a woman's right to choose under the bus. Why? Because you'd prefer a small handful of Republican votes who might agree with an economically populist agenda.
Don't try and play the 'you must hate black and brown people' card with me. I'm the one rejecting ALL Republicans and Conservatives. You are the one opening the gates and laying down the welcome mat.
It must be nice to be white, American, and cis-gender, and heterosexual. All that privilege must be a heavy burden for you to carry around on your shoulders.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)fits the party realignment taking place
It will give more signals to those who's vote you do not want to stay home.
Hey, I freely admit that the Ds will get a new influx of republicans. This shocks me in the least.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Learn the difference please.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)I spent my entire life watching Democrats pander to the religious right, hoping to poach some votes from the Republicans. They try and throw those bigoted and racist fucks a bit of economic populism, and then they sell all of the minorities THAT ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY down the river. We watched Bernie Sanders do the same within the very heart of one of the most evil institutions in the United States: Liberty University.
It is not just a matter of voters vs leaders. It is a matter of allowing people who are dangerous to the economic and social ambitions of the liberal agenda into the coalition.
It is wrong when Hillary opens that door. It is wrong when Bernie opens that door. The problem is that liberals refuse to unite and condemn the action, but instead follow stupidly and blindly behind their chosen candidate, creating excuses as to why it is acceptable. That is why this hypocrisy is a problem--it's not the criticism of Clinton, it's the acceptance of Sanders when he does it.
As a consequence, because so many (though thankfully not all) Sanders supporters support his out reach to Republicans, they cannot stand on the ethical high ground and condemn Hillary without being hypocrites.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)sure
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)All lousy.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its garbage.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Sanders only trails Trump by a small margin.
Facts you don't like ? "garbage"
DCBob
(24,689 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The Democratic convention to Republicans now.
And you cheer...
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)Powell should be under a jail from his Vietnam treachery much less his lying us into Iraq.
Who would have guessed that "pragmatic" just means amoral and without conscience?
By the time you folks are done the party will support virtually everything it was once opposed to. Just the secular/inclusive wing of the Republican party but just as horrid on all other fronts.