Elect a Woman in 2020

[Abraham Entin]

From the Press Democrat , June 8, 2019


Elect a Woman in 2020

There are currently 22 candidates for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. They range from a former vice-president to an activist/writer who has never held public office.

There are sixteen men and six women in the field. Among the women are four sitting United States Senators, a member of the House of Representatives and Marianne Williamson, the aforementioned activist/writer.

My suggestion is that, for the good of the country, all the male candidates withdraw from the race. Given the assault on women's health, rights and freedom, this would be a clear signal that the Democratic Party stands with and for women and for the future of the planet.

There is plenty of diversity by age, race and political perspective among the female candidates. All of these women would drive Trump crazy--and none of them will be bullied.

What do you say, guys? Do the right thing, and put the good of the country and the planet ahead of your personal political ambitions. We need a woman in 2020.

Abraham Entin

[Rustie]

Because Abraham, you don't think that these six women candidates are running for their personal ambitions but all the male candidates unequivocally are? Do you believe that women are somehow above personal ambition as a driving force in their decisions, actions and behaviors? Certainly women should have an equal opportunity as any male counterpart but just as any male counterpart, shouldn't women be judged by their merit rather than simply their gender?

Now, if you are serious about the good of the country, I suggest we talk about actual policies and achievements of the candidates, not packaging. I personally try to not “profile” when making decisions about friends, employees, contractors, instructors, mentors and certainly not political representatives. If you are in the “future is female” camp I can only say in response: Do the names Sarah Palin and Condoleeza Rice mean anything to you?

From the Press Democrat , June 8, 2019


Elect a Woman in 2020

There are currently 22 candidates for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. They range from a former vice-president to an activist/writer who has never held public office.

There are sixteen men and six women in the field. Among the women are four sitting United States Senators, a member of the House of Representatives and Marianne Williamson, the aforementioned activist/writer.

My suggestion is that, for the good of the country, all the male candidates withdraw from the race. Given the assault on women's health, rights and freedom, this would be a clear signal that the Democratic Party stands with and for women and for the future of the planet.

There is plenty of diversity by age, race and political perspective among the female candidates. All of these women would drive Trump crazy--and none of them will be bullied.

What do you say, guys? Do the right thing, and put the good of the country and the planet ahead of your personal political ambitions. We need a woman in 2020.

Abraham Entin

[rossmen]

I think Abraham has a point. If a woman is elected prez, maybe we can begin to stop blaming men for the state of the world. We can include misandry in addition to misogyny when naming blinding prejudice. Personally, I'm most attracted to the cute, smart, gay guy.

[Shepherd]

I would love to see the first woman president of the U.S. But it would be worse to have the current president re-elected. Another option would be to have a good man, such as Bernie Sanders, commit himself to having a woman vice-president, of whom there are many good candidates in the running. That woman could be our next president.

[Barry]

All else being equal, I'd like to see a woman be the next president. However, all else is NOT equal. Each candidate offers a unique blend of talents and identities.

I am also "most attracted to the cute, smart, gay guy", Pete Buttigieg! You can tune into Pete by watching one of his longer interviews, or town halls. Aside from being a talented polyglot, he has an exceptional talent for seeing the bigger picture and framing issues within their larger context and based on the values of Freedom, Security and Democracy. He appears to have taken George Lakoff's lessons regarding framing when it comes to messaging. It's a skill that so many on the left lack.

He also comes off as just plain reasonable, rather that combative, or as a fighter, who invites others to share his vision in a compelling way. I think he would be very helpful in healing our divided country. While he is very liberal, he makes compelling arguments, to those on the center and even the right, including reaching out to the faith communities by encouraging them to embrace the values (and thus policies) they profess to believe.

He is also exceptionally real, present, and authentic. Many interviewers have commented on what a genuine presence he brings. At the same time he has made some cutting indictments against Trump, while deftly sidestepping and returning jabs thrown his way. Being that he is such a unique character, and Pete refuses interact with Trump on his low level, I think he will be our best contender to defeat Trump!

I often forget he is gay. Oddly, in the current backlash against old straight white males, it may help him, in at least the Democratic primary. He also uses it to embrace and include all the other subgroups that experience "othering", be it by race, or gender or....

He has also all but declared he would select a woman as a running mate. I think there is no doubt that there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket in 2020!

[Rustie]

A good sense of humor is a wonderful attribute to have – thanks for that Rossmen.

In regards to the cute smart gay guy – smart as a fox, or sly, as I believe the saying goes. Donning progressive garb in his cute gay guy manner, Mayor Pete is frequently referred to as the centrist left darling of the DNC. Giving lip service to progressive talking points while planning with establishment insiders on how to stop Sanders puts Buttigieg, in my book, at the top of the page with Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke, slippery centrists. But maybe that cute gay guy comment was more humor and I missed it.... so sorry.

By the way, I would add to that mainstream centrist Dem list a few of those women that we are suppose to be happy with just because they are women; Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar, who at least don't pretend to be what they are not. And let's not forget Kamala Harris, who is the epitome of personal ambition, playing the progressive card, though likely would be the DNC choice behind Biden should he explode before the convention.

I think Abraham has a point. If a woman is elected prez, maybe we can begin to stop blaming men for the state of the world. We can include misandry in addition to misogyny when naming blinding prejudice. Personally, I'm most attracted to the cute, smart, gay guy.

[Abraham Entin]

I guess it's time for me to step back in here.

First of all, I DID NOT suggest that "we should be happy with any of the candidates... just because they are women." I just said that they are a diverse group. Please, everyone, stop putting words in my mouth or making me a straw person for your ideas.

Rustie--if it were me, I would have used Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi or Hilary ("Henry Kissinger is a friend and a mentor to me") Clinton as examples rather than Condee and Sarah. But there are certainly plenty to choose from. Actually, I just said that the female candidates are a diverse group (so if you want to nominate a corrupt centrist or corporate democrat) you can find a woman among these just as easily as among the men. I never said or suggested that I supported any of them.

As far as the "future is female" is concerned, I would say this: In a time of "gender fluidity" I do think that the capacities and characteristics that have historically been labelled "feminine" (empathy, unselfishness, etc) must come to the fore in public as well as private life if we are going to have a chance for a humane future. Whether these are embodied in a "male" or "female" body is certainly less relevant than that they are present and active in the candidate.

I do enjoy the progression of these threads. I just don't like becoming straw, although I did once play the scarecrow in a production of the "Purim Wizard of Oz". Probably my biggest audience as an actor.

I will end with a commercial message: My memoir, Living on the Fringe (Steinerbooks, 2018) is available at Copperfields, Amazon and the Sonoma County Library. Please check it out.

Abraham

A good sense of humor is a wonderful attribute to have – thanks for that Rossmen.

In regards to the cute smart gay guy – ....

[Rustie]

Nice to see there are some Sanders supporters in Wacco world. If we're looking for serious systemic change, in my opinion, he is the only candidate, who from the Oval, will fight with and for us to seize the moment of this amazing populist progressive movement. And seize it we must. If we dilly dally around like it's a delicious buffet trying a little bit of everything on our plates no one will get 50% on the first ballot at the nominating convention. End result, the DNC will decide for us who the nominee will be via the super-delegates...... just saying...

And by the way, Bernie has indicted in numerous interviews that he will likely name a woman as his running mate. I personally think it's a safe bet that he will.

I would love to see the first woman president of the U.S. But it would be worse to have the current president re-elected. Another option would be to have a good man, such as Bernie Sanders, commit himself to having a woman vice-president, of whom there are many good candidates in the running. That woman could be our next president.

[EmeraldMatra]

Dear Abraham;
I too misunderstood your intention in your original post. Thank you for your clarification, which I do agree with.
As a lesbian, a long-time feminist, and a priestess of the Goddess who remembers the matriarchy, of course I would love to have a female president, but not at the expense of any better candidate.

My name for Hillary Clinton is "Patriarchy In A Skirt". I do not support any of the current female DNC candidates - but also do not support the DNC. I do not subscribe to "lesser evil" voting and voted for Jill Stein in the last election.

That said, I would not have a problem voting for Bernie as my "lesser evil" in this election if he gets the DNC nomination. Why not have "The First Jewish President"? He wouldn't even be the first socialist president. There are a lot of things I don't like about him, but I would have a lot less to complain about if he were president.

I lost friends in the last election because so many of my lesbian friends supported Hillary Clinton and some of them were really nasty with me about that. I was accused of supporting Trump because I was so against Clinton. My replies about Margaret Thatcher were disregarded. People in the UK voted for her, knowing how conservative she was, because they wanted their First Woman Prime Minister. That thinking is just stupid, in my opinion.

Who is going to steer the ship in the direction we want to go? That is not going to be determined by anything other than the person's morals, if anyone has any of those left by the time they get to that level of power, who they owe favors to, which is more realistic, and what are their values. If we are going to choose a criteria for eliminating most of the candidates, let's eliminate anyone who is primarily motivated by personal financial gain, anyone who has a limited scope for problem-solving, and anyone who does not understand social justice and cultural diversity. Who is left? I think it's Bernie.

Love,
Emerald

I guess it's time for me to step back in here.

First of all, I DID NOT suggest that "we should be happy with any of the candidates... just because they are women."...

[rossmen]

It's interesting that this time we calies might have a vote in the bearer of the demo standard. While I vote, as an anarchist I really believe we would be better off without monopolistic violence. So my consideration in adding a grain of sand to the primary is the omnipresent opponent. Who can beat our orange demon of a leader? I appreciate the crowd sourcing scrum of the current democratic feild and will wait to decide, the problem for me is they all believe in democracy!

[Rustie]

While I respect your opinion that Pete might be the right person for the job, and I appreciate your thoughtful summation of all his valuable qualities, I'm not reading anything from this that indicates what his actual policies are. No argument from me that Buttigieg is a very intelligent person that speaks multiple languages, has a big picture perspective, an appealing style of discourse and is a liberal, gay, religious guy which might enable him to bridge the gap between a variety of social subgroups – but..... what are his politics?

The summation of what I know about his politics is that he is a centrist left party player Democrat. That might be exactly the standard bearer you would like to see in the Oval, me personally, not so much. I'm hoping we can seat a champion of and for the working class people. Someone who will get in the trenches and fight the health insurance industry, the fossil fuel industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, giant agribusiness and Wall Street. I've heard nothing about Buttigieg, or from him, to indicate he is that person.

Though it appears that you've attempted to make a case for him as a viable prospect for president I'm still waiting to hear something of substance about him rather than the package. Certainly I acknowledge that some of the qualities you point to are more substantive than merely gender, ethnicity or religion but at the end of the conversation there's no information about his politics, where he stands on issues and what, if any, concrete plans he has to implement his positions.

I'm repeatedly dismayed at the ongoing discourse around the packaging and personalities of these candidates rather than the issues, policies, alliances and track records that they bring to the table. I suspect that a Buttigieg administration, as well as a Warren or Harris administration, would look like business as usual with a continuation of unfettered capitalism, economic and racial injustice and more market based reactions to social and environmental problems.

That having been said, if that's the vision one has for our nation then those are probably wise choices. Which brings me to the salient question, what is our long view? Have we thought about what comes after the election or are we so distracted with beating Trump that we no longer consider the big picture?

All else being equal, I'd like to see a woman be the next president. However, all else is NOT equal. Each candidate offers a unique blend of talents and identities.

I am also "most attracted to the cute, smart, gay guy", Pete Buttigieg! You can tune into Pete by watching one of his longer interviews, or town halls. Aside from being a talented polyglot, he has an exceptional talent for seeing the bigger picture and framing issues within their larger context and based on the values of Freedom, Security and Democracy. He appears to have taken George Lakoff's lessons regarding framing when it comes to messaging. It's a skill that so many on the left lack.

He also comes off as just plain reasonable, rather that combative, or as a fighter, who invites others to share his vision in a compelling way. I think he would be very helpful in healing our divided country. While he is very liberal, he makes compelling arguments, to those on the center and even the right, including reaching out to the faith communities by encouraging them to embrace the values (and thus policies) they profess to believe.

He is also exceptionally real, present, and authentic. Many interviewers have commented on what a genuine presence he brings. At the same time he has made some cutting indictments against Trump, while deftly sidestepping and returning jabs thrown his way. Being that he is such a unique character, and Pete refuses interact with Trump on his low level, I think he will be our best contender to defeat Trump!

I often forget he is gay. Oddly, in the current backlash against old straight white males, it may help him, in at least the Democratic primary. He also uses it to embrace and include all the other subgroups that experience "othering", be it by race, or gender or....

He has also all but declared he would select a woman as a running mate. I think there is no doubt that there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket in 2020!

[Barry]

While I respect your opinion that Pete might be the right person for the job, and I appreciate your thoughtful summation of all his valuable qualities, I'm not reading anything from this that indicates what his actual policies are. ...

There's quite a bit at the link below. I'll elaborate when I get a chance....

https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

[Glia]

It seems to me that you hit the proverbial nail on the head with respect to a Devi-Harris administration, which thankfully has virtually zero chance of happening. You probably got it right with Buttigieg's administration, which has slightly more chance of happening than Devi-Harris.

However, with respect to Warren, either you have not been paying attention ("she has a plan for that!") or consider her to be something she is not.

... I'm repeatedly dismayed at the ongoing discourse around the packaging and personalities of these candidates rather than the issues, policies, alliances and track records that they bring to the table. I suspect that a Buttigieg administration, as well as a Warren or Harris administration, would look like business as usual with a continuation of unfettered capitalism, economic and racial injustice and more market based reactions to social and environmental problems.

[Rustie]

So here's the deal, I don't think Warren is the worst of the bunch but her positions on our economic structure, in my opinion, don't go far enough to effectively change the paradigm. While she has written great legislation toward finance reform, at the end of the day she clearly states, “I am a capitalist. I believe in markets. They are what make us rich”. My first question is, makes who rich? Certainly not the working class.

Creating a new paradigm where there is equity, equality and opportunity for all people will take a deep systemic change in how we function as a society. Capitalism and market economy, by their nature, function only in a class divide environment.

Unfettered capitalism and markets with rules are really not going to bring the bottom up nor will they adequately address the climate crisis. Further, continuing to perpetuate the ideology that “getting rich” is a worthy goal seems counter to a progressive movement rooted in values of equality and personal dignity. I think it fair to say that our wealth driven ethics are a major contributor to our current political, economic and environmental crisis.

Plans attempting to correct the problems in our system are not something Warren is short on. She has a plan for everything. It's the details of many of her plans that concern me.

For instance, Warren's version of Medicare for All does not include removing health insurance companies from the equation. Her plan is to get drug prices lowered and to make Obama-care more affordable and more accessible and to protect consumers from insurance policy changes and premium increases. The not-so-obvious indirect problem with that plan, (insurance companies being the direct problem), is Obama-care, period, full stop.

Obama-care is and will continue to be corporate welfare. While for many, out-of-pocket premiums dramatically decreased with ACA, the actual premiums collected by the insurance industry did not. Who pays the difference? We do. Government subsidies pick up the tab to the insurance industry. Mind you, not our health care providers, but the insurance industry, a cadre of non-medically qualified personnel determining what medical care they will allow us to have. Additionally on top of our premiums we pay out-of-pocket co-pays and deductibles. Warren's plan to keep the health insurance industry in place is like leaving the fox in the hen house. I call this business as usual.

Addressing our climate crisis is another area where I have problems with Warren. She is on-board with stopping all drilling on public lands and banning fracking, and that's great. Of course so is Sanders and several others. But some of her long-term goals, in my opinion, are way off-track.

Huge investments in research, manufacturing and exporting of green technology seems to be the underpinning of her climate policy. Creating institutes and markets and making America the leading supplier of green energy products worldwide are Warren's primary climate action goals. Her Marshall Plan will subsidize foreign governments and companies so they can purchase and deploy American made clean renewable energy technologies. In a Warren administration we will corner the market on energy efficiency and turn the climate crisis into to a huge industrial profit machine.

Not necessarily all bad but it's counter-intuitive to one of the fundamental rules of deep green solutions – decentralization of everything we do to the greatest extent possible.

To begin with there's a lot of embedded energy in green technology. Resources needed to build much of that technology is usually not renewable. To centralize the manufacturing of green technology in the U.S., by way of “cornering the market”, and then exporting that technology all over the world, is the antithesis of an environmentally sound policy that is designed to address our climate crisis first. It is clear to me that Senator Warren's climate plan is focused first and foremost on creating markets and profits.

Certainly with Warren's plan millions of jobs will be created and for many the quality of life will improve. However, in the end, as it was with the Industrial Revolution, the rich will get richer and the poor will remain poor and the small few, already in a position to reap the benefits, will remain in power.

Meanwhile there's little to no talk in her climate crisis proposals about creating millions of jobs with large scale investment in America's infrastructure, food security and climate impact protections. Working in concert with our international communities to further renewable technological innovations and reduce our worldwide carbon footprint would better be accomplished in an inclusive environment rather than in a competitive one. I see Warren's approach to our climate crisis as the epitome of a market based reaction to a social and environmental problem.

Further, her idea to “green the military” seems to be the long way around. Per Warren's website, “the Pentagon spends $4 billion a year to power its bases at fixed locations and consumes tens of billions of barrels of fuel per year.” “Nibbling around the edges of the problem is no longer enough”... etc. Her Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act begins with greening the Pentagon to reach net-zero carbon emissions for non-combat bases and infrastructure by 2030. The broad-brushstroke plan she has to achieve this goal is to throw billions of dollars into researching green technology and adapting our over 700 bases worldwide.

I'm no expert here but it seems to me that a far more expedient path to dramatically reduce the Pentagon's carbon emissions would be to immediately begin reducing our military bases, personnel, operations and budget. There may still be more to address if the goal is net-zero but reducing the size of the beast automatically reduces the emissions which in turn would automatically reduce the steps, dollars and likely the time line necessary to attain a net-zero goal.

Warren is quick to tell us that we don't need to choose between a green military and an effective one but she doesn't speak to the bloated size of our military. She does address the bloated budget by way of cutting out the fat to defense contractors but in the end, leaving our oversized operations in place.

This of course makes sense if you're a capitalist driven market based economy. The defense industry is huge and even after cutting out some of the money fat you still have an organization that is grotesquely oversized for the purpose of American National Security. However, it's business as usual to keep our military bloated in size, to keep money flowing to the defense industry and to keep us engaged in military conflicts all around the world.

These are just a few of the most egregious examples of why I consider Warren to be in the “business are usual” category. While I suspect that her heart's in the right place I think her ideology limits her ability to think beyond the restrictions of contemporary capitalism and market based economies. It is my opinion that we need someone with a broader perspective and a more creative imagination to successfully deal with our problems of economic and social injustice and environmental crisis.

Thanks to take the time to read this, sorry it's so long, some things just can't be expressed succinctly.

It seems to me that you hit the proverbial nail on the head with respect to a Devi-Harris administration, which thankfully has virtually zero chance of happening. You probably got it right with Buttigieg's administration, which has slightly more chance of happening than Devi-Harris.

However, with respect to Warren, either you have not been paying attention ("she has a plan for that!") or consider her to be something she is not.

[Jude Iam]

Rustie,
While I favor Warren more than the others, I totally agree with your points.
I've sent your paragraphs on to her (hopefully) via her website and will post what comes back.
Onwards, Jude

So here's the deal, I don't think Warren is the worst of the bunch but her positions on our economic structure, in my opinion, don't go far enough to effectively change the paradigm. While she has written great legislation toward finance reform, at the end of the day she clearly states, “I am a capitalist. I believe in markets. They are what make us rich”. My first question is, makes who rich? Certainly not the working class....

[Janice Gendreau]

Rustie,
While I favor Warren more than the others, I totally agree with your points.
I've sent your paragraphs on to her (hopefully) via her website and will post what comes back.
Onwards, Jude

Warren is proposing some pretty radical plans for what you'd call a European-style social democracy that would rein in corporate malfeasance, heavily tax the wealthiest, provide for a new green deal, increase social benefits, etc. She knows how to do it too.

On the matter of capitalism, small business has always been the most innovative and creative aspect of our economy. While there is a need for large business to produce some items such as automobiles, they generally lend themselves to monopolizing, slicing and dicing labor costs and benefits, environmental pollution, mechanization to cut jobs, and quality reduction. All because their shareholders are greedy for profits and cutting costs is the way to boost their coffers. Approximately 20% of Americans own stock. Unless it is invested in socially and environmentally conscious companies, they are part of the problem along with the 1%.

[Rustie]

.... If we are going to choose a criteria for eliminating most of the candidates, let's eliminate anyone who is primarily motivated by personal financial gain, anyone who has a limited scope for problem-solving, and anyone who does not understand social justice and cultural diversity. Who is left? I think it's Bernie.

Nice short list of criteria for eliminating candidates. Thank you for that Emerald. I would add to that anyone who doesn't come to the table with a past history of actions and a proven record of accomplishments in the specific areas of our desired objectives. Anyone can say anything but what have they actually done and how hard will you fight once they get their day in the sun...

In this overcrowded field of contenders it would behoove us to figure out how to cut through the chaff asap. I guess at the end of the day it ultimately depends on what principles and policies we each want to see enacted in our country. I for one am fighting for environmental, social and economic justice. A nation of social equity, equality and opportunity rather than wealth-driven capitalism.

That having been said, I also absolutely agree with you regarding the “lesser evil” voting strategy. I too could not vote for Hillary. If, as a country, we had the courage to vote “for” someone rather than voting “against” someone else, we possibly by now could have actually established some viable alternative political parties, not to mention taking our power back.

Having voted for Nader, both times, I'm well aware of the mental gyrations people go through when faced with fear... And now, in 2020 there are those who have the audacity to once again refer to Bernie as “the spoiler”. How does that work? He's the one running second behind Biden in the polls. Further, when Biden supporters are asked who their second choice would be, 48% of those polled said Sanders. Fear is a powerful tool in the hands of those who know how to wield it.

Personally I refuse to participate. Full disclosure, I will not make a fear vote in November 2020. Eventually we will have a revolution. I hope it can be at the ballot box and not in the streets.

[robert777]

This post by Entin must be a joke, a little tongue-in-cheek humor?

I value extensive experience and deep knowledge, empathy and understanding. Certainly, Elizabeth Warren qualifies under this criteria. Other candidates have not been around the block.

During the 1970's, I was an enthusiastic supporter of the early women's movement. Though I still hold these beliefs, my starry-eyed views have since been badly damaged by the election of many women to high office, ones that have totally failed to meet my hopes and ideals.

I still highly value women for their sensitivity, intuition, caring, heartfulness, but to vote for someone based on their body-type is absurd.

Elect a Woman in 2020...

[rossmen]

Revolution does not happen at the ballot box. Why not celebrate all the brave contenders? There is still plenty of time to make a decision, which of course matters little in rep dem. I appreciate the op, why not sort by gender? What do you think of tulsi?

[Rustie]

Thanks for the link Barry. I went to Mayor Pete's site and it struck me very much like his interviews. He's a polished speaker but he doesn't actually say much of anything, it's a lot of platitudes. My opinion of him after I did more research is less than it was when I started.

There are two primary issues that for me are the make or break in all current political considerations. Health care and climate crisis. If people cannot get out from under the fear of being financially ruined, homeless and hungry from an unexpected family illness we will never achieve a just society where all people can live to their full potential, free of oppression, with dignity and self-respect. And of course if we don't effectively address the climate crisis none of this will matter.

On both of those issues, in my opinion, Buttigieg falls way short of the mark.

His position on health care is troubling to say the least. First and foremost, like Warren, Mayor Pete's plan is to keep health insurance companies in place. I would ask why? They do nothing but take exorbitant sums of money and provide zero medical services.

On the other hand the health insurance industry has a huge lobbying front that funnels excessive sums of money into the hands of our politicians buying themselves a powerful seat at our legislative table. Therefore it is wise and lucrative for any self-serving politician to continue to perpetuate the myth that we need these fine folks meddling with our health care.

It seems obvious to me that any Medicare for All legislation that does not include the removal of the health insurance industry is a waste of time. To make matters worse Pete's version of Medicare for All is the public option concept. This sits squarely in the DNC establishment's preferred response to health care. Of course we all know that it doesn't work. First of all Obama tried to float that and it failed. More importantly the two biggest problems with the public option strategy is it leaves the health insurance industry in place and sets up a class divide in our health care. Those who have the ability, via economic means, will have superior health care and those who can not afford private insurance will have the public option which will be limited in its ability to compete with the private sector for quality care.

Medicare for All, as in Sanders' version, that removes the insurance industry and covers everyone equally works, because it is an all in system. Buttigieg's plan is just another way to keep the status quo in place, the fat cats on top and the 99% oppressed.

And in my opinion he's not doing much better on climate. Buttigieg's primary talking point is a carbon tax. Another industry friendly fix. While a carbon tax will definitely produce funding that can be directed toward green energy programs it does little to actually curb, let alone stop the pollution and carbon output coming from the mega-corporate manufacturing, timber and ag industries. It is far more cost effective to pay a carbon tax and keep spewing and dumping toxins into our environment than it would be to retool, enforce regulations and overhaul and adapt operations to function in a net-zero carbon footprint requirement.

Additionally Pete talks about a dividend for Americans, increasing energy efficiency in homes and investing in building retrofits. Those are great ideas but they're not going to get the job done. I don't see where he talks about a ban on fracking &/or banning new fossil fuel infrastructure or fossil fuel leases on public lands. He makes no mention of keeping oil, gas and coal in the ground. But then again why would he – Buttigieg is a straight up mainstream party player. In my opinion he's addressing our climate crisis with half measures at best.

He talks a good talk, caring about the environment, social justice, equality, dignity, etc, but as the old saying goes, talk is cheap. His stated policies, the few that he actually spells out, tend to lean heavily to the right – corporate friendly, not so much for working class people.

This perspective is reinforced with Mayor Pete's accomplishments in his home town. It's reported that South Bend's downtown got it's promised facelift with new hotels, storefronts and restaurants but unfortunately the poor black neighborhoods, that he also promised to uplift, have remained unchanged. He did attempt to follow through with one of his initiatives for aiding low-income communities. However due to his poor planning and lack of comprehensive understanding of the project, it's implementation caused more problems than it solved. In the end, little to zero has improved. Economic opportunity remains slim and crime rates are up from pre Mayor Pete days in 2012.

In the spirit of mainstream establishment politicians Buttigieg likes to credit himself with the reduction in South Bend's unemployment rates since he became Mayor. While it is true that South Bend saw unemployment cut in half during his tenure it's fair to note that the city's drop in unemployment follows the same trajectory as the entire state of Indiana as well as the country. I don't believe that this salient point was missed by Pete, it's just a fact that he chooses to not mention when boasting about his accomplishments.

These examples of his past performances as a political representative, his lack of transparency, his pro industry policies and his participation in meetings held with major DNC players about how to stop Sanders, all add up to another status quo politician who, in my opinion, has little integrity and even less of a moral compass.

In conclusion the most recent news about the DNC centrist left darling Buttigieg is that he is one of Wall Street's 3 top choices, in the company of Biden and Harris. Rumor has it that his current campaign funding is over $20 mil in the second FEC quarter, sourced from giant tech, Wall Street and elites who rub elbows with federal lobbyists. I personally don't think there is much more needed to make the case. I imagine a Buttigieg administration would be pro-corporate, elite ruling class, business as usual, but with the outer appearances of being progressive.

However, that all having been said, perhaps that's exactly what you're looking for and why Pete appeals to you. Then again, maybe you really do want to see deep systemic change in our political system and society. Possibly, like me, you're excited and hopeful with the results of our mid-terms and the truly progressive new wing of our government. If so I would suggest considering a proven progressive with an actual track record of fighting in the trenches with and for the people, not campaign rhetoric in a cute package.

There's quite a bit at the link below. I'll elaborate when I get a chance....

https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

[wisewomn]

My sympathies are with you, Rustie, but I think the reality is that change is not going to happen as quickly or dramatically as we would like it to. There are still too many Republicans in government, and the President needs the cooperation of Congress to get things done. We're stuck with choosing a candidate who at least approaches our ideals and is attractive enough to draw voters. Same old, same old.
All my life I've voted against someone, never for someone. In this particular election any candidate would be better than what we've got.

Thanks for the link Barry. I went to Mayor Pete's site....

[Rustie]

I guess if gender is your criteria for president than that would be a good way to sort. I tend to start with background. What have they done, what do they stand for and what are their policies?

Tulsi – I can't say, she doesn't have much clear policy platform. She strikes me as a one trick pony. Everything seems to be viewed through the lens of her military experience.

Brave contenders....... What's so brave about these contenders? The majority of them are up there to get some name recognition in the hope that this will be beneficial to their future careers. I see it as opportunistic. Trump is an easy target and everybody's going to pile on to beat the bully, or at best get some valuable publicity. Buttigieg seems to have done well for himself on this bet. Some of the more notable contenders, Harris and Warren, in my opinion, are there because it's their next obvious career move. Sanders has stepped up again because he genuinely wants to bring the bottom up and redistribute the power to the people. Beto's joined because he's a narcissistic rich boy who gets to play with whatever toys he wants. And I can't imagine what Biden is thinking...

My thoughts on 23 candidates, and still counting, is that it further demonstrates how dysfunctional the system is. Not to mention the fact that the waters are so muddied it will be an easy touchdown for the DNC when the super-delegates hand us Biden. No questions asked.....

I disagree with your comment about revolution. I think the revolution has already begun at the ballot box. Small albeit, but it's happening. I'm in reference to those amazing, fearless women that are now leading the progressive charge in our House – Ocasio-Cortez, Ilan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. These women all came from the organization offshoot of Sanders' 2016 campaign, Our Revolution. And now there are more of these organizations, again offshoots from Sanders, who are actively recruiting, training and backing campaigns of progressives to run for elected seats across the country in local, state and federal elections.

This is a movement that is taking hold and in my view this 2020 primary election is the make or break as to whether or not it will survive. The DNC is spending a lot of time and resources trying to stop it. I consider that alone a significant sign that the revolution is taking place. The question is will it sustain and take power or will the GOP and DNC shut it down?

I think it's up to us. Do we buy into the same old manipulative talking points, fall in line and capitulate? Or do we take a chance and take a stand?

Revolution does not happen at the ballot box. Why not celebrate all the brave contenders? There is still plenty of time to make a decision, which of course matters little in rep dem. I appreciate the op, why not sort by gender? What do you think of tulsi?

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

This post has been bothering me for days, but every time I try to reply it gets long winded...

I would *never* vote for someone because of their gender (or gender identity), their race, their religion, their sexual orientation... anymore then I would vote against them for such a thing.

If you take the post back a little over a decade ad subitute "woman" for "African-American" ... well, regardless of how you feel about Obama it is hard to deny that it woke a long simmering racism in America , and is largely responsible for everything from the widening divide in America, the increased partisanship in congress, ... our current "president". I have a bad feeling electing a woman, a gay man, a "socialist"... is just going to repeat the problem in new ways...

And,,,as to the two leading women - let's not be blinded by their current spiels. Harris has a LOT to answer for in regards to her time as a prosecutor, DA, and AG. And Warren has a LOT to answer for in regards to her years as a *very* high priced lawyer representing despicable companies in dis disgusting cases. Neither deserve the free pass Dems seem to be giving them.

Having been the only person I know in CA who predicted Trumps win... I'm going to say it now - with what the Dems are giving us Trump *will* win a second term. (Remember- CA does NOT represent the views or values of the majority of the democratic party in the US).

[Abraham Entin]

I think you missed my prior post (#7 in this thread) in which I (think) I spoke to many of the points you raised.

Abraham

[Rustie]

Thanks for the empathetic support. I suspect that you agree with me in theory though not in practice. Unfortunately, I also suspect that that position is consistent with mainstream talking points. This is why, in part, we are where we are today. When one feels stuck they lose the ability to move. Hanging close to the handrails gets us nowhere new.

I'm sorry for you that you've never voted for someone, always against. For me, win or lose, to vote for whom I genuinely want to elect is empowering. It is, in my opinion, the point of voting.

The antithesis of exercising our right to vote is to give our vote away by accepting the narrative that there is no other choice. There's always a choice. Voting is actually the easiest thing we can do to make our voices heard. But if we're not casting our ballots with our true voice, we are sending the wrong message.

The same old, as you called it, in my opinion, is actually a result of the vote against strategy. It keeps us locked into the two party system believing that we can only approach our ideals but never quite get close enough to realize them. In that complacent state we repeatedly convey our approval of the same old story and never find our way off the merry-go-round.

Since Truman (with a couple of exceptions) the two party establishment players keep trading places every eight years. The Democrats pass paltry legislation on environment, equality, economy, etc. We're delighted because it's better than what preceded them. Eight years later the Republicans get back in and reverse or diminish what little ground was gained, and the cycle repeats with zero accountability.

Stuck in our belief that we have no other options we continue to vote for the same old Democrats. Functionally this does little more than signal our approval of the DNC platform and the corporatist shills they keep foisting on us. And the beat goes on, the cycle continues, and we're responsible.

Our most recent history tells us that voting against rather than for someone may not actually be the best strategy. As per your comment, you, and I'm guessing the overwhelming majority of Democrats that voted, voted against Bush. Those were the times that the phrase “anybody but.....” was coined. Four years later after Clinton's team stole the nomination from Sanders the majority held their nose fell in line and voted against Trump. And in the end, each time, what did voting against get us? Four more years of Bush, and President Trump.

Now they're dragging the mantra out again and we can't wait to get in line and obediently vote for any Democrat. We don't care about their policies, ethics, past performance, or integrity. What will they actually do once/if seated in the Oval? It doesn't matter, it's all about beating Trump, because after all, anyone would be better.

In the meantime if we don't take some major steps and make some dramatic changes to address the climate crisis none of this will matter. Our DNC traditional Democrats are not likely to take on the fossil fuel industry in any meaningful fashion. Certainly, if given another 4 years, Trump will expedite the devastation of our environment. However, a Biden, Buttigieg, Harris or Warren administration will likely do too little too late. Either scenario will result in the continued destruction of our Eco-system leaving bleak prospects for future generations.

My expectation is not that anything will happen quickly or dramatically. Speed may or may not be the issue. I think that depends on what specific issue one is addressing. One thing is certain, if we continue to accept the mainstream fear driven talking points, and do nothing dramatic, nothing dramatic will happen.

My sympathies are with you, Rustie, but I think the reality is that change is not going to happen as quickly or dramatically as we would like it to. There are still too many Republicans in government, and the President needs the cooperation of Congress to get things done. We're stuck with choosing a candidate who at least approaches our ideals and is attractive enough to draw voters. Same old, same old.
All my life I've voted against someone, never for someone. In this particular election any candidate would be better than what we've got.

[wisewomn]

Still in agreement with you for the most part, Rustie, despite your patronizing remarks and way-off-base assumptions about me. I feel no obligation to defend myself against them.
As Utah Phillips famously said, "If God had wanted us to vote, She would have given us candidates."

Thanks for the empathetic support. ...

[Rustie]

So Jude I'm curious why you favor Warren particularly in light of your comment that you totally agree with my points. Maybe I've done a poor job in expressing my point which is that I think Warren is really not the progressive champion of the people she tries to sell herself as. What are your thoughts on this?

While I favor Warren more than the others, I totally agree with your points. ...

[Rustie]

I'm really not patronizing you nor do I make any assumptions about you. With all due respect my commentary has nothing to do with you personally. I'm responding to your comments on this thread.

In summary, on the topic of voting strategies you expressed the opinions that; change isn't going to happen quickly or dramatically because there are too many Republicans and we're stuck with only approaching our ideals when choosing a candidate. You also shared that you personally have never in your life voted for someone, only against and that in this particular election you feel that anyone would be better than what we have, thus, validating the vote against strategy.

I happen to disagree with both of the premises that you set forth as well as disagreeing with the wisdom of voting against rather than for an elected official. In the spirit of participating in a discussion I shared my opinions and thoughts in response to yours.

In brief the gist of my opinion on this subject is that we have been sold a bill of goods that tells us we can't possibly have/get what we want and we would be wise to settle for second best or else we will be stuck with something even worse than that which we don't really want in the first place.

Your comments, in my opinion, are the epitome of that narrative and I happen to believe that that perspective is at the root of why we find ourselves unable to harness the necessary energy to make any dramatic change.

Apparently there is a very fine line between opposing opinions and patronizing remarks. I understand that it is difficult to separate our opinions and beliefs from our self-identity. Often this overlap can leave us feeling personally attacked when our opinions are being challenged. I know nothing about you and have no desire to make assumptions or attack you. I'm having a conversation about the topic at hand. If I've misunderstood the meaning in the words you wrote, please correct me.

Still in agreement with you for the most part, Rustie, despite your patronizing remarks and way-off-base assumptions about me. I feel no obligation to defend myself against them.
As Utah Phillips famously said, "If God had wanted us to vote, She would have given us candidates."

[podfish]

I happen to disagree with both of the premises that you set forth as well as disagreeing with the wisdom of voting against rather than for an elected official. In the spirit of participating in a discussion I shared my opinions and thoughts in response to yours.

In brief the gist of my opinion on this subject is that we have been sold a bill of goods that tells us we can't possibly have/get what we want and we would be wise to settle for second best or else we will be stuck with something even worse than that which we don't really want in the first place.

I take issue with the phrasing 'sold a bill of goods'. Maybe it's nitpicking, but maybe not - the phrase implies a concerted effort by someone to mislead. In this case, I think the burden's on you to explain how hell yes, we can certainly have/get what we want. I don't think history supports that. Rather, it instead strongly supports the idea that you'll be stuck with something worse. Bush/Gore/Nader, anyone?

That's not to say it's not worth fighting for what you want - something's got to be done to move the Overton Window (to use a newly-popular jargon). Each vote is a question of tactics vs. strategy. Do you take a tactical defeat that's going to advance you toward your strategic goals? usually, yes. But a tactical defeat that turns into a strategic loss is also possible. If you believe that the trends are going in the right direction, which demographics and a lot of surveys tend to show is possible, then doing things that give McConnell and his gang four more years to entrench judges and attack the legal basis for regulating corporate malfeasance (which they are demonstrably doing) is a poor tactic and strategy both.

[RicoBoccia]

No one can guarantee anything in this realm, particularly when it's as vague as "certainly have/get what we want." That doesn't mean we accept "tactical defeats" and pray that somehow enough of them will add up to something good (maybe because of "demographic trends"?).

As for the phrase, a bill of goods, i.e. intentional deception, is EXACTLY what it is. Just to pick a few examples, when Obama said he'd advocate for single-payer and immediately dropped it once in office, was that because of a changed situation or did he simply make a promise he never intended to keep? (If something changed, what was that exactly?) When he said he'd close Gitmo and then dropped the issue once in office, how was that not also a promise he never intended to keep? When he said he'd keep special interests out of gov't and then put Goldmann Sachs in charge of the Treasury department, how was that not also a promise he never intended to keep? When Nancy Pelosi (a very wealthy, old white lady) said the four new progressives (Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib, & Pressley, all young women of color) were the only ones to vote against the border bill, a huge gift to Trump with no meaningful strings attached, when in the real world NINETY-FIVE democrats voted against it, i.e. she told a huge, obvious, bald-faced lie, did she not know she was lying? (Is she just too demented for the job at age 79? Is there some other explanation?) When Elizabeth Warren votes for every ever-increasing defense budget and then holds herself out as a progressive, she is telling a lie. The list of these things is endless. Grouping them together and calling them a "bill of goods" is very mild language, indeed.

In the same vein, bringing up Ralph Nader nineteen years after the fact is silly. Al Gore lost because he was a conservative who inspired no one. Obama inspired a lot of people in 2008, but by 2012 we had all seen how corporatist he actually was and most of the new voters disappeared in 2012 and the rest by 2016. I recently criticized Joe Biden to someone who said, "Electability is the only thing that matters." (Who decides who's "electable"? Wolf Blitzer? Chuck Todd? Ross Douthat?) I couldn't help but think of all the conversations I had with people in 2016 who kept telling me we just HAD to vote for a shitty candidate (HRC) because the alternative was so much worse. HOW DID THAT WORK OUT? It's really simple: If we keep voting for shitty candidates, that's all they'll ever give us. Living in fear of Even Worse is destroying this country. Please stop it.

I take issue with the phrasing 'sold a bill of goods'. ....