Getting caught up a bit over a second cup of coffee; am I correct to gather from the previous thread that someone is slamming Kamala Harris as some sort of far-lefty? Kamala Harris?! She's definitely a Clintonista. I hadn't planned on voting for her, but her (Democratic) opponent was just too obnoxious. As DA and Attorney General Harris did some things I didn't approve of, but she had a probably well deserved reputation for effective under-the-radar action and coalition building.
Just the opposite: The article is defending Harris from people identified as "alt-Left Bernie supporters" who claim that she is not progressive enough. It is largely devoted to talking about all the ways in which she IS progressive. With an interesting mention of her possible 2020 presidential bid.
I read that Kamala already has 712 super delegates in her pocket. Too damn much like Clinton to suit me. She should have prosecuted Mnuchin but dropped the idea a few days after she got a great big check from him. I also read that she defended prisons using prisoners as virtually free labor. She is as pro-corporate as they come, but the Dem Establishment is trying to shove her down our throats anyway because they like the way things are just fine.
From that article: "Their marriage to Big Money did institutional Democratic Party no favors — as a party. But it kept its pro-corporate leaders in power within the Party, which I strongly suspect was the primary goal. After all, how many of the Chuck Schumers and, yes, Nancy Pelosis of the world would ever back a person as much an enemy of their donors and the donor class as Bernie Sanders is? How many of them would prefer instead to “roll the dice with Clinton” ten times out of ten … starting once more even tomorrow … and risk losing electoral power once more even tomorrow … just to maintain party power?
In other words, how many Democratic leaders wish they had run the general election with Sanders in the lead? Not one. Just listen; you won’t hear a single regret. There’s no point in controlling the country, as they see it, if they don’t control the party as well. Without control of the party, which of their donors would back them? With Sanders jailing Wall Street bankers, where who would pay Chuck Schumer to stay in office? With Sanders in the White House, the current class of Democratic leadership would have to find new donors — actual humans perhaps, as Sanders did — or retire from public life on their previous gains and lobby for a living.'
That article just explained to me what I have long felt about the Dem Party. There truly is no will to change, no real regrets about their decision making in the last election. They have more than lost my vote. If they ever get it back, they will have to do something huge to earn it.
From the article: "The DNC and Democratic leadership have repeatedly ignored their voters and the harsh realities facing the party. After Hillary Clinton lost the election, a DNC staffer reportedly let loose on DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile for allowing Donald Trump to win.
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this? You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself,” the staffer said, according to the Huffington Post. “You are part of the problem. You and your friends will die of old age, and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.” This staffer’s sentiments are a reflection of Democratic voters’. The Democratic Party has lost the trust of its supporters, and their actions since the 2016 election have conveyed that they don’t care."
Part of it did come from just after it happened, but the main thrust of the article is that the Democratic Party is still in the same place it was in Jan. 2017. They haven't learned anything and they haven't changed which is why they're having so much trouble with raising grassroots money. Too many of us no longer trust them.
Trump Breaks a Taboo--and [starts to] Pay the Price. [Click]
ReplyDelete--Alan
Getting caught up a bit over a second cup of coffee; am I correct to gather from the previous thread that someone is slamming Kamala Harris as some sort of far-lefty? Kamala Harris?! She's definitely a Clintonista. I hadn't planned on voting for her, but her (Democratic) opponent was just too obnoxious. As DA and Attorney General Harris did some things I didn't approve of, but she had a probably well deserved reputation for effective under-the-radar action and coalition building.
ReplyDeleteAlan
Just the opposite: The article is defending Harris from people identified as "alt-Left Bernie supporters" who claim that she is not progressive enough. It is largely devoted to talking about all the ways in which she IS progressive. With an interesting mention of her possible 2020 presidential bid.
DeleteI read that Kamala already has 712 super delegates in her pocket. Too damn much like Clinton to suit me. She should have prosecuted Mnuchin but dropped the idea a few days after she got a great big check from him. I also read that she defended prisons using prisoners as virtually free labor. She is as pro-corporate as they come, but the Dem Establishment is trying to shove her down our throats anyway because they like the way things are just fine.
ReplyDeleteHere's an article from Jan. 2017 about her:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/gauis-publius-elephant-room-donkey-reflections-kamala-harris.html
From that article: "Their marriage to Big Money did institutional Democratic Party no favors — as a party. But it kept its pro-corporate leaders in power within the Party, which I strongly suspect was the primary goal. After all, how many of the Chuck Schumers and, yes, Nancy Pelosis of the world would ever back a person as much an enemy of their donors and the donor class as Bernie Sanders is? How many of them would prefer instead to “roll the dice with Clinton” ten times out of ten … starting once more even tomorrow … and risk losing electoral power once more even tomorrow … just to maintain party power?
In other words, how many Democratic leaders wish they had run the general election with Sanders in the lead? Not one. Just listen; you won’t hear a single regret. There’s no point in controlling the country, as they see it, if they don’t control the party as well. Without control of the party, which of their donors would back them? With Sanders jailing Wall Street bankers, where who would pay Chuck Schumer to stay in office? With Sanders in the White House, the current class of Democratic leadership would have to find new donors — actual humans perhaps, as Sanders did — or retire from public life on their previous gains and lobby for a living.'
That article just explained to me what I have long felt about the Dem Party. There truly is no will to change, no real regrets about their decision making in the last election. They have more than lost my vote. If they ever get it back, they will have to do something huge to earn it.
DeleteYes, while they're digging in their heels to maintain their own power and privilege they're giving ours away with both hands, and they don't care.
Deletehttp://observer.com/2017/08/dnc-democratic-party-fundraising/amp/
ReplyDeleteFrom the article: "The DNC and Democratic leadership have repeatedly ignored their voters and the harsh realities facing the party. After Hillary Clinton lost the election, a DNC staffer reportedly let loose on DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile for allowing Donald Trump to win.
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this? You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself,” the staffer said, according to the Huffington Post. “You are part of the problem. You and your friends will die of old age, and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.” This staffer’s sentiments are a reflection of Democratic voters’. The Democratic Party has lost the trust of its supporters, and their actions since the 2016 election have conveyed that they don’t care."
They're talking as if this just happened...
DeleteAlan
Part of it did come from just after it happened, but the main thrust of the article is that the Democratic Party is still in the same place it was in Jan. 2017. They haven't learned anything and they haven't changed which is why they're having so much trouble with raising grassroots money. Too many of us no longer trust them.
Delete