General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those taking a strict "no Dem must be primaried" position may have a point... [View all]Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)She then came out for single-payer and the dynamic changed. Personally, I think she'd be a great candidate.
Not sure why it bothers you that people raised questions about Cory Booker. He'd be qualified, but why should we treat it as unimportant that he is allied with a lot of big corporations and
As to Oprah(remember, a lot of "pragmatic" Dems made posts this week simply asking if she was prepared for the job, which is a fair question to ask of anybody who would run-it was asked a lot about Sanders in '16, and people had a right to ask it as they have the right to ask it of anybody else), it's been a week. The response Sanders Dems had that was quoted in that article was that they'd be open to her candidacy if she came out for single-payer, and they raised the point that she has enough personal wealth to run a totally uncompromised progressive campaign if she chooses to do so. They weren't demonizing her, they were just asking the sort of questions that get asked about anybody pondering a presidential race.
Are you saying we shouldn't ask anything of the people who seek our presidential nomination? That all of them should be given nothing but unqualified, unquestioning praise? How, exactly, would that help? How would it be a healthy form of politics?
If you're saying that we should never have the toxicity of the Carter-Kennedy primaries in '80, I agree with you. But it sounds like(and if I've got your take on this wrong, please clarify, because I would like to understand where you are coming from on this) as if you are saying that no Democratic public figure should ever be questioned, ever be challenged on problematic points, ever be pushed to change. Is that what you are arguing for her? If now, what are the bounds you would like to see observed?