General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why do HRC opponents think that baiting pro-HRC Dems will HELP their non existent candidate? [View all]frazzled
(18,402 posts)I ask this as someone who is more than neutral in this primary season--largely because I can't expend the energy at the moment and have more pressing things to think about at the moment. But who is the "real" Democrat you claim we should fall in behind, once Clinton is "vanquished," who is a sure win against the eventual Republican? (Knowing full well that is is historically very difficult for any party to win a third consecutive term in the presidency in modern times.) Who is a "real" Democrat anyway? Someone you think is a true Democrat? (I saw someone above cite Harry Truman. Would we have approved of everything he did? Using nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Proposing legislation to draft striking workers into the Army? Sending troops into Korea? Escalating the Cold War? He did many good things, and just as many we would disagree with. Like any Democratic president.)
Your notion of vanquishing a candidate would appear to come out of both fear and malice: it's authoritarian and undemocratic as well. Are you afraid to let the people decide?
I have to say, it's attitudes like this that are making me consider falling into the Hillary camp (something I opposed back in 2004). Your malice and hyperbole are, quite frankly, counterproductive. They scare me. Besides, the collective wisdom of DU has been universally misguided over the past decade plus: none of its darlings were either progressive nor electable, starting with Howard Dean, continuing through John Edwards (really? he was one of the most conservative Democrats in his brief tenure in Congress), and ending now with Senator Warren (who only converted to Democratic politics very recently and who doesn't have much history on any subject aside from banking and finance, on which she has been vocal and good; but that is not representative of the broad range of issues we expect of a Democratic candidate.)
The idea of "vanquishing" one of the candidates is the most non-democratic, non-progressive thing I can think of.