Kirsten Gillibrand for president

[oberliner]

She led the effort to repeal the “Don't Ask Don't Tell” policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military.

She wrote the STOCK Act, which made it illegal for members of Congress to financially benefit from inside information

She won the long fight to provide permanent health care and compensation to the 9/11 first responders and community survivors who are sick with diseases caused by the toxins at Ground Zero

She was a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton's bid for the U.S. presidency in 2016.

She has been fighting for universal pre-K; affordable, high-quality day care; equal pay for equal work; and a national paid family and medical leave program.

She has led the fight to lower student loan debt and supports free or low-cost college for all.

She is fighting for stronger unions, for workers to own a stake in the success of their business, and for a minimum wage that lifts all working families out of poverty.

She firmly opposes all efforts to privatize Social Security and believes in ensuring its solvency for the next generation without raising the retirement age.

She calls for aggressive action to stem the tide of global climate change.

She helped to pass the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and advocates for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure equal pay in America.

She supports working toward building a Medicare-For-All health care system in America.

She is committed to protecting and defending women's access to the full range of reproductive health care service. Her work has earned her a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

[Funtatlaguy]

1. Yea, ok, maybe make Al Franken her Veep. Geez.

[blue cat]

52. +1

[oberliner]

56. Somehow I don't see that happening

[trueblue2007]

257. I'd rather see Al Fraken as president

[Sherman A1]

2. We will see

I am currently looking at Andrew Yang.

[The Blue Flower]

3. She drove Al Franken out of the Senate

I'm hoping Washington State Governor Jay Inslee runs.

[oberliner]

54. I'll have to read up on Jay Inslee

I don't know a lot about him.

[Trumpocalypse]

60. She and 38 other Senators

And can you really say they drove him out when he agreed to resign a day before any of them said anything about him.

[Demit]

77. Just the fact that you use the word "agreed" shows that you know he was pressured.

It wasn't his idea. There was behind-the-scenes pressure that let him know his fellow senators wouldn't support him, and that for the good of the party he should resign. On some very flimsy accusations. Bah.

[Trumpocalypse]

89. Yes there was a lot of behind the scenes pressure

Mainly from several women's groups who were outraged. The real ringleader was Schumer who met with Franken the day before.

[DFW]

101. I happen to know you're correct

Al and I are not close, but his best friend and I are, and we have discussed the subject at length. The whole thing was a Republican scam, and one of the reasons he didn't react forcefully at first is that he knew better than anyone the "allegations" were total bullshit, and expected his fellow Democrats to be smart enough to see through them as well. It was as if some Republican website had accused him of being JFK's assassin. He knew better than anyone it was total fantasy.

He was totally blindsided by the lack of support, and more than a little depressed by the opportunism behind some of their statements. These were people he considered his staunch political allies, and here they were pretending that a James O'Keefe-style Republican scam actually had some teeth. The straw that broke the camel's back was when the Minnesota governor announced his intended replacement. He then said, to hell with it, if this is the kind of Democrats I was serving with, I don't need this.

It was everybody's loss, Al's, that of the Senate Democrats, and most of all, that of the rest of us Democrats, who were the victim of yet ANOTHER Republican scam that never should have gotten off the ground. Like with all well-spread-around scams, there will always be those who insist on believing them, or parts of them, for the sake of their own convenience. That is unfortunate, but predictable. The raw, cynical opportunism of some of his Democratic detractors, especially those who knew, or had ample opportunity to know, that there was no substance to the so-called allegations--THAT was outright disgusting. I made an exception for Heidi Heitkamp and sent her a substantial contribution because of the courage it must have required for her conscience to win out over electoral expedience to vote against Kavanaugh. But the other Democrats who urged Al to resign haven't gotten a cent from me (I doubt they'll miss it). If a little integrity is too much for me to ask of them, then money is too much for them to ask of me.

Please note, this is my personal view, and since I vote in Texas, I have the privilege of contributing four figures to Beto and Colin Allred, who had nothing to do with the Al Franken purging scandal. I neither ask nor encourage anyone else to follow my example. but I make no bones about how I felt/feel about what was done to him. Not by the Republicans--we expect sewage from them--but by our own side. And not because he's an acquaintance, but because he was the best we had.

[brush]

109. Good post. Gillibrand fell for the repug scam and shoved Al under the bus.

Maybe she fell for it too quickly. Maybe she saw an opportunity to get rid of a possible 2020 rival as well as burnish her #me_too cred at the same time.

Whatever it was she fucked up and will always be remembered as the ringleader in dumping a fellow Democrat without giving him a chance for the investigation he asked.

[Demit]

139. I think she saw it as a feather in her cap. She probably didn't expect it to backfire on her.

To mix metaphors

She thought the action would redound to her positively, but now her fans have to always be defending her against the negative fallout. She overreached, at no net benefit to her and at a sad cost to us.

[Trumpocalypse]

146. She and 38 other Senators

[Demit]

160. It's not sticking to them. You'll be compelled to bring that up repeatedly and it won't make a dent

People's perception is that she was the driving force and I think that's not going to go away, sorry.

[Trumpocalypse]

165. Perception vs. Reality

Shouldn't we strive for reality instead of perception. Isn't that what separates us from those on the right?

[Demit]

174. The reality is that this was Gillibrand's baby.

"They [the women senators] would time their statements so that the first one came from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who's been at the forefront of sexual harassment legislation in recent years. Her statement landed on Facebook at about 11:30 a.m. ET, roughly the same time she started an already-scheduled news conference on sexual harassment in the workplace. ...

"'While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn't acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve,' Gillibrand wrote in a 650-word statement.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/senators-al-franken-resignation/index.html


She owns it.

[Trumpocalypse]

186. Actually what you posted disputes

that she was the ringleader. The first paragraph makes it clear that the others Senators coordinated their efforts and had Gillibrand go first because it was her signature issue. So it is really the Senators as a whole who own it.

[Demit]

212. I don't think so.

A group doesn't coordinate itself. One person acts as the coordinator.

Sure, the other senators backed her play, but she wanted to be at the forefront, and so she was.

Look, you and I have both stated our positions on this, so there's no sense in batting it back and forth. Good luck to you in persuading other people that Kirsten Gillibrand is being unfairly singled out.

[Trumpocalypse]

218. But your link doesn't state that

at all. As Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, " You may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts". So please provide proof of your accusations.

[LakeSuperiorView]

270. Did you try actually reading it?

"Kirsten Gillibrand
December 6, 2017 ·

Senator Franken Should Step Aside

I have been shocked and disappointed to learn over the last few weeks that a colleague I am fond of personally has engaged in behavior towards women that is unacceptable. I consider Senator Franken to be a friend and have enjoyed working with him in the Senate in our shared fight to help American families."

See the date? Dec 6th is BEFORE Dec 7th. Maybe you don't have calendars and such... Doubtful that this was Gillibrand's first words on the topic either.

[Trumpocalypse]

292. And as I stated before

the meeting with Schumer was on December 5th which is the day before the 6th.

[LakeSuperiorView]

314. All you have to this point is your opinion...

Put up some evidence that Franken agreed to resign on the 5th...

Gillibrand was yapping before her FaceBook post. She led the charge. She is a fine senator, but over-reached in her haste to harm a her perceived competitor for higher office. Maybe she could do some cabinet time and attempt to run in 2028.

[Trumpocalypse]

315. No she wasn't

The night before she was at Politico and refused to answer the question.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/senators-al-franken-resignation/index.html?no-st=1539622860

It was a coordinated effort by several Senators. One should not be demonized for it.

[LakeSuperiorView]

324. Thank you for proving my point. She was very vocal on Dec. 6th.

Your evidence that Franken agreed to resign Dec. 5th? Hmm? Still MIA...

Your opinion that he did is nothing more than your $0.02 and worth less.

[Trumpocalypse]

329. No You said

"Gillibrand was yapping before her FaceBook post" And as the article states that she wouldn't say anything the night before. And one facebook post is not being every vocal. So your point was disproved.

And here is what Bernie Sanders posted on twitter as well as the statement issued by his office on 12/6:

Link to tweet

?lang=en
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-franken

In both examples Sanders notes that Franken's press conference (in which he announced his resignation) had already been scheduled.

[LakeSuperiorView]

332. Where's your proof that he agreed to resign on the 5th?

All you want to talk about now is the 6th, which is a day before he resigned. Remember you claimed that he did that a day before the 6th...

[Trumpocalypse]

334. Because that was the point of the press conference

and it was already scheduled on the 6th.

[LakeSuperiorView]

335. So you have no proof that he agreed to resign on the 5th.

All you have is your opinion, and that you like Gillibrand. She will be supported, if she wins the primary. Minnesota will remember her for her role in leading the senators that ousted Franken and she likely would do very badly in a primary here.

[Trumpocalypse]

340. What do you think the purpose of the press conference was?

To announce a reunion tour with Tom Davis?

Read Sanders tweet again:

Link to tweet

What do you think Sanders was referring to by 'political future'?

As far as Gillibrand, I just think it is unfair to single her out and demonize her when it was 38 senators who called for Franken to resign.

[LakeSuperiorView]

341. And what is the date of the Tweet? Dec 6th.

I don't know why you keep bringing evidence from the 6th when you claim that he agreed to resign on the 5th. Maybe you just want to believe that Gillibrand did not lead the effort by the senators to get him to resign, She did, and will pay a price for it. People keep telling you this and you keep repeating the same tired stories, like you were trying to gaslight.

[Trumpocalypse]

342. The press conference was already scheduled on the 6th

before the calls on him to resign. Simple fact.

And it is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact that it was a group effort. To quote the CNN story:

Women Democratic senators had been talking behind the scenes for at least the past week about how to deal with Franken, multiple aides told CNN.

They would time their statements so that the first one came from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who's been at the forefront of sexual harassment legislation in recent years. Her statement landed on Facebook at about 11:30 a.m. ET

This was a coordinated effort by a group, and not of one person. Those are the facts. You can either believe them or continue to deny them.

[LakeSuperiorView]

343. Like it or not, Gillibrand was seen as leading the group.

And you still have absolutely no evidence for your claim that he agreed to resign on the 5th.

This is getting silly, you have no evidence for your claim, you are repeating the same things and you refuse to accept that Gillibrand will pay a price for her role in ousting Franken. Why do you think she recently polled at 1% for the 2020 candidate. The same amount as Amy Klobuchar, who replaced Franken on the Judicial Committee. Amy was not even seen as a potential candidate for President before Gillibrand led the effort to get Franken to resign.

I'm frankly tired of this nonsense, go ahead and repeat the same old claims and I won't respond to them.

[Trumpocalypse]

344. Seen as

doesn't make it reality. And I'm not denying that Gillibrand will pay a price. I just think that it is unfair to single her out when all the facts show that it was a group effort. It is unfortunate that there are some who seem to be dedicated to demonizing her (the Senator with the most anti-Trump voting record) while letting Harris, Warren, Sanders and others off the hook. That is a double standard.

And the fact that Franken's press conference about his 'political future' was already scheduled before the calls for him to resign is all the proof that is needed. It is simple logic.

[lame54]

353. Most i would not want to be pres...

All 38 were suckers who fell for a Roger Stone/Sean Hannity scam
Not one has apologized for it
Their weakness caused us a great loss

[Trumpocalypse]

354. That is fair.

All should be blamed equally.

[Trumpocalypse]

142. Warren, Sanders and

over 30 others fell for it too.

[tammywammy]

285. 16 women Senators coordinated together.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/senators-al-franken-resignation/index.html?no-st=1539622860

[mountain grammy]

147. Good post, thank you.

Expresses my feelings too, and, as a former resident and with many relatives in Texas, I feel tied to that state too. Have donted to O'Rourke and Allred.

We're hopeful that cousins in San Angelo have switched from Republican and are all in for Beto. Have an aunt in El Paso who loved Beto as her Congressman. She's 92 in December and I think she'll really sink if he loses this race. I'm hoping to spend election eve with her and hope we'll be celebrating a huge Democratic win.

[Bluepinky]

168. Thank you for the post. I felt like this was a total right wing set-up to get rid of Franken.

He was one of our smartest, most astute Senators, who knew how to cut through the Republican bullshit.
I was disappointed and very angry that so many Democrats pressured him to leave, even before an investigation could be conducted. I appreciate your corroboration that Al Franken was treated badly by both sides.
The Democrats have to be better and support their own. Meanwhile, we have two sexual abusers on the Supreme Court, a sexual pervert and liar for President and multiple ethics complaints against Republicans in Congress and serving in the Trump administration.

[mahina]

223. Thank you DFW. 100%. Lots of us called and wrote to Mazie

And let her know how unhappy we were about her role in this.

He was the best we had for sure.

And I really love Mazie but this was disastrous foul up and so transparent. How could she not see it?

Anyway. Now, do you think Al might consider running again?

I can’t really fathom the depth of the losses from that part of the country. We’ve lost Wellstone, (who I think was very likely assassinated), Feingold, whose loss I don’t accept, and Franken, all from the same region.

[DFW]

242. I only met Mazie once

I was a big supporter of hers, and I was invited to her swearing in party at the Senate in January 2013. She told me that after Hawai'i, the second biggest contingent of contributors to her campaign was from Texas (!!!).

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

I, too was immensely disappointed in her jumping on the resignation bandwagon. I hope it was due to her illness, because I certainly thought she was smart enough to see through the ruse--but then, I thought that of every Democratic Senator that didn't.

I don't think Al is interested in serving with that group again. He remains a dedicated Democrat, but I don't think he wants to work with them any more after what they did. what's to stop them from doing it again?

MAYBE governor of Minnesota some day, but he was really most effective right where he was--in the U.S. Senate. I don't even think he harbored any presidential ambitions, despite all the buzz to the contrary. Notice that buzz didn't come from him. I think he would have been happy to have had three successful terms in the Senate, having been proud of what he had done there. For that matter, I think he should be proud of what he did there. We had no more eloquent voice, and certainly not among those who left him out to dry.

[hlthe2b]

237. This is what I always assumed to have happened behind the scenes. I have a friend who knew AL

since his SNL days and, it appears, quite well. He told me that Al Franken was one of the most sensitive and ethical men he'd ever met and thus the lack of support or even skepticism from fellow Dems hurt him to the core. Al is a "big boy" and knows how rough politics can be, but he didn't think he'd be essentially "sacrificed' for political gain by those with whom he'd developed a trusting relationship with nary a question of whether the accusations were valid. Perception was everything to those who led the charge.

My friend is a very good judge of character imo and one of the few such kindly men I've met who has virtually no blind spots nor naivete'-- nor ego. I believe him implicitly on this and that is why I just can't take those here who continue to denigrate Al Franken while they try so hard to make an iconic heroine of Gillibrand. Her judgement, naivete', and tactics SHOULD have been questioned then and certainly now if she seeks higher office.

[DFW]

244. I don't know him as well as your friend does, but our mutual friend knows him better

All opinions of those who know him seem to jive together. The only ones who seem hell-bent on tearing him down are those who don't know him at all. That's not exactly a reliable source to refute what I know, and what those who know him better agree on.

[Turin_C3PO]

241. Thank you for this post.

It confirms what I suspected regarding Al’s high ethics and morality. Like I said below, I would support Gillibrand in the GE but certainly not in a primary contest.

[DFW]

247. Agreed. No Republican is palatable enough to warrant sitting out a presidential race

Even if our nominee is Gillibrand, which I would prefer it not be.

It's not a choice I would enjoy making, however, and I would be disappointed if our primary process couldn't yield us better. Ironically, five years ago, Howard Dean told me to "keep an eye out" for Gillibrand, as she might show up as a surprise presidential nominee for 2016 if Hillary didn't run. Needless to say, Howard hasn't mentioned her in the last 2 years!

[LakeSuperiorView]

226. Gaslight much? Please stop spreading lies.

Gillbrand's Facebook post calling for his resignation on Dec 6th, the day BEFORE he resigned.

https://www.facebook.com/KirstenGillibrand/posts/senator-franken-should-step-asidei-have-been-shocked-and-disappointed-to-learn-o/10155471770513411/

[Trumpocalypse]

229. And 38 others senators called for it too

Most the same morning and others within minutes. Saying that is was a coordinated effort among Dem Senators is reality. Blaming one single senator for it is the lie.

[LakeSuperiorView]

240. Changing the goalposts now?

"when he agreed to resign a day before any of them said anything about him."

Your exact words, which I clearly proved was a lie, with Gillibrand's exact words.

Please stop spreading lies.

[Trumpocalypse]

246. Not changing anything

and don't put words in my mouth. Franken and Schumer had a meeting the day before. Everything else was stagecraft for public consumption.

[LakeSuperiorView]

249. What part of a direct quote eludes you?

I quoted your exact words. You claimed he retired the day before any Democratic senators said anything. I then posted a link to Gillbrand's FaceBook post from the day before he resigned, proving your statement to be a lie.

[Trumpocalypse]

252. Doesn't prove anything.

The meeting with Schumer was the day before Gillibrand and 38 other Senator close behind her called for Franken to resign. The facebook post doesn't disprove that nor does it prove that Gillibrand was the "ringleader".

[LakeSuperiorView]

256. It proves that your statement was a lie.

Gillibrand posted on FaceBook on Dec 6. Franken resigned Dec 7. You can try to twist and turn all you want, but your statement was clearly not true.

Own it, instead of trying to weasel out like tRump saying he never promised $1 million if Warren proved Native American ancestry.

[Trumpocalypse]

260. No it doesn't.

Read what I posted, Franken agreed to resign on Dec. 5 when he met with Schumer. A day before any of the Senators called for him to resign. The whole this was organized and staged by Schumer.

[BannonsLiver]

250. You can keep typing that until you're blue in the face but it won't matter

The dye has been cast.

[Trumpocalypse]

253. Truth should matter

It use to matter to the people here.

[Jarqui]

110. I'll support her if she prevails

but I'll look at many others in the primary before I will her because of her position on Franken

[LAS14]

114. I agree. nt

[trueblue2007]

258. Ron Wyden ??

[delisen]

4. Would we lose Minnesota or the principle of due process?

[oberliner]

51. I don't think so

I bet she would carry MN.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

152. I bet she wouldn't. MN Dems hate her guts for what she did to Franken.

[oberliner]

195. Is there a poll you are basing that on?

If so, can you post a link?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

207. I know a lot of Democrats. You can't even mention her name among them

without everybody starting to rant about how she screwed Franken, who was and still is very popular here. I don't think there were any polls relating to Gillibrand but one can derive a lot from the many outraged letters to the editor in local papers and on line. She would have no chance of winning a primary election in this state.

[LakeSuperiorView]

245. Not in the primary.

If she is the Presidential candidate, then she probably would. But in the primary, she would attract crossover republics and and a small handful of Democrats. She is not viewed favorably in MN.

[MyOwnPeace]

5. Her part

in the Franken debacle leaves me question her decision-making skills - not the kind of person I would want as chief executive.

[oberliner]

49. What about the rest of her senate career?

[MyOwnPeace]

126. I acknowledge the impressive

resume that started this discussion. However, what she chose to do regarding Senator Franken showed, to my mind, poor decision making.
Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematics professor which also makes an impressive resume, well, except for that "bomber" thing...................

[oberliner]

197. I don't think that is a fair comparison

But I appreciate the response.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

213. In politics it often takes only one stupid move to overshadow a career.

Throwing Franken under the bus was her stupid move, and she won't recover from it. Nor should she.

[octoberlib]

6. No, thanks. Kamala Harris , please.

[Vinca]

7. I second that.

[hlthe2b]

11. Kamala Harris yes. She's shown the critical judgement we need.

[lovemydogs]

143. Oh, I love Kamala

[Amishman]

38. Gillibrand or Booker are much better choices.

We need to learn from the past. President Obama was so successful because he is positive, a good orator, and has broad appeal. Hillary was weaker in those areas, and struggled.

I see Gillibrand and especially Booker as better fits to the winning formula.

[octoberlib]

69. Gillibrand won't win , period. Not impressed with

her at all.

[hlthe2b]

148. She won't get a lot of Dem votes even. She handled the Franken issue very very poorly

and though she's done some good things as Senator, THAT is what Dems will remember--especially in light of the Kavanagh debacle.

[StevieM]

308. HRC ran a positive upbeat campaign. And in 2008 she had some pretty strong oratory.

She held in there against the Obama juggernaut.

It is hard to stay exciting when you are drowning in a fake scandal.

Had it not been for Comey she would have destroyed Trump.

And Trump, BTW, is a terrible orator IMO.

[oberliner]

47. How about a Harris-Gillibrand ticket?

I'd be all for that!

[erpowers]

107. Please Make the Case

The OP made a case for Kristen Gillibrand. Would you please give people reasons why they should support Kamala Harris? What has she done in the Senate that makes her a good candidate for President?

[ZZenith]

303. YES!YES!YES!

[steventh]

8. no

There are so many qualified candidates. We don't have to resort to this person.

[oberliner]

46. Why not?

She is pretty outstanding.

[steventh]

125. baggage is why not

There are many who would not support a Gillibrand nomination because of her Franken actions. It's much more effective to run a candidate who doesn't have such negative baggage right out of the gate.

The negative feelings about Gillibrand by Democrats arise out of concerns for her decision making capacity. Many believe Gillibrand made a huge mistake by rushing to judgment about the Al Franken allegations. Huge. And many will not forgive her for that mistake. You can see the persistent anger at Gillibrand all over DU and in particular in this thread.

No matter how fine you think Gillibrand may be in most respects, the shadow cast over her Franken pronouncements seems insurmountable. Hence I think the best path for Democrats is to put forward other contenders for a 2020 presidential run.

[oberliner]

200. People said similar things about HRC

That she had baggage. I think every candidate will have baggage of one kind or another, and I think Democrats would get behind a Gillibrand candidacy with enthusiasm similar to HRC.

[Kurt V.]

9. a good dem

but too early for me.

[oberliner]

45. Agreed

On both points. I just wanted to get her name in the conversation since I admire her so much and have heard other potential candidates being bandied about. She should definitely at least be in the mix.

[OnDoutside]

10. You know full well just divisive this is, but you decided to go ahead anyway.

[hlthe2b]

12. Indeed.

[EffieBlack]

39. Oh, come on. It's only divisive if we say

{whispering} "white people."

[oberliner]

43. What could possibly be divisive about praising a prominent Democratic senator?

And advocating for why she would be a good potential candidate for POTUS?

[OnDoutside]

61. There you go again.

[oberliner]

201. Can you clarify what you mean by that?

[sprinkleeninow]

284. Here's my discussion contribution. She turns me off since what she pulled on Al.

And I'm not a Minnesotan.

[brush]

111. If you can't figure out why she's divisive I'll spell it out...

SHE WAS THE RINGLEADER IN THROWING ONE OF OUR MOST EFFECTIVE SENATORS UNDER THE BUS AND OUT OF THE SENATE WITHOUT THE INVESTIGATION HE ASKED FOR, WHILE ALSO GETTING RID OF A POSSIBLE RIVAL FOR 2020.

Clear enough for you?

[LAS14]

117. When do two sides of an idea rate "divisive???" This is nuts. DU is a discussion website. nt

[brush]

124. Huh? Do I have to remind you of the 2016 campaign?

This couldn't be more divisive, especially 3 weeks before the most critical mid-terms in decades.

We have plenty of time for 2020 after Nov. 6.

[LAS14]

159. Do you mean the Hillary Sanders split? So....

.... what should we all have done? Kept our opinions to ourselves? Is that what you're suggesting now?

[brush]

162. Yeah, until after Nov. 6th. Not rocket science.

[oberliner]

206. That's not really a fair characterization, in my view

But I do recognize that that perception exists for some.

I am hoping, though, that people will focus on her positions on the issues that I outlined in the OP and move past whatever bad feelings there are with respect to Franken.

She really has been a champion of all of the same values that DU espouses during her time in the US Senate.

[LAS14]

116. What??? This is supposed to be a DISCUSSION forum. (Not yelling, just....

...underlining).

[OnDoutside]

119. And in the 3 hours since I posted, how has the thread gone ?

[LAS14]

122. I'm not sure of your point. If you think it's...

... gone "divisive," then I'd disagree and say that the discussion has continued in a lively fashion. Is that what you meant?

[OnDoutside]

133. No. The majority here are (as I expected), negative towards Gillibrand because of what she did to

Al Franken. I have seen nothing since that time to suggest that has, or is, going to change. The thread has unfolded as expected, and an OP as above, was only ever going to be yet another divisive thread between the few (including yourself I presume) and the majority who have no time for her. It was ill-judged at best.

[LAS14]

150. So we shouldn't post ideas if they are minority ideas???

And actually, I don't have a strong position on Gillibrand/Franken. I just have a strong position on encouraging varieties of opinion (excluding right-wing opinion, this being DU.)

[OnDoutside]

225. As I said in my earlier post, the OP knew what they were

doing, and the posts further down illustrated my point. I'm comfortable with that. Some here are transactional in their view of Al Franken being stabbed in the back, but the vast majority still believe it was disgusting.

[Renew Deal]

13. She is likely to be the nominee

But it is too early for this

[oberliner]

41. Agreed

It is a bit too early, but there are several posts from DUers promoting potential POTUS candidates, and I just want to advocate for KG being in the mix since she is awesome.

[Turin_C3PO]

243. She does have a good record.

But it’s really hard for me to get past the Franken debacle.

[hlthe2b]

180. NO way...I'd bet money other prominent Senators (Harris, Booker, Klobuchar, Warren etc) get support

as well as Biden if he decides to run. Gillibrand? minimal

[Renew Deal]

215. I don't think any one of them are a good bet at this point

Biden has as much chance as previous front runner Joe Lieberman. And I don't mean that in a negative way. It's just too early.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

211. Not likely.

[BlueStater]

360. What makes her likely?

She's an extremely polarizing figure and a lot of Democrats rightfully blame her for throwing Al Franken under the bus, as you can no doubt see from the responses to this thread.

[Demsrule86]

14. Please stop.

Stirring the pot before the midterms why?

[oberliner]

40. She is a great Democratic senator and would make a great presidential candidate

Several DUers have posted about potential Democratic candidates that they hope will run for POTUS (Beto O'Rourke, Michael Avenatti, etc). I think KG should be in the mix. She is awesome!

[LAS14]

118. Because DU is a place for DISCUSSION. (Underlining, not yelling.) nt

[Horse with no Name]

209. Exactly. She is my last choice

And I am tired of holding my nose to vote for someone I despise.

[Mojo2]

15. No Chance

After what she did to Al Franken, she would not get my vote regardless of who she runs against.

[oberliner]

35. Do you have anyone in particular you are hoping will run?

[Trumpocalypse]

63. So would none of the 38 other Senators get your vote?

[lunamagica]

16. NO!!!

[oberliner]

34. Why not?

[lunamagica]

232. For backstabbing Franken and the Clintons

[Tavarious Jackson]

17. NO!

How about Kamala Harris instead?

[oberliner]

33. Kamala Harris would also be a great choice

I would love to see them both on the ticket, in either position.

[people]

153. How about Kamala Harris?

Yes, yes, yes!!! She has principles, she's smart, she has guts and she's a great speaker plus she shows passion and warmth.

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. ...of the "Railroad Our Own" club.

She'll never get my vote.

[oberliner]

32. She has a lot going for her as a potentially strong Democratic candidate for president

Note that points I highlighted. Don't you agree with her positions on those topics?

[LanternWaste]

19. You told us anyone who though Roy Moore would lose Alabama was delusional.

Is this that same kind of thing?

[oberliner]

31. Sure am glad I got that prediction wrong

This post is not a prediction - it's advocating for a great potential Democratic candidate for president.

What are your thoughts on her?

[Little Star]

20. That would be a no for me.

[oberliner]

27. Why not?

[FSogol]

21. SSDD.

[oberliner]

26. What's the problem?

[betsuni]

22. LOL

[oberliner]

25. What's so funny?

[USALiberal]

23. No thanks! Nt

[oberliner]

24. Why not?

[EffieBlack]

28. No, Boo

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Zero chance.

[dem4decades]

30. No. Did i say no yet? Can i say no? I've forgotten my manners

No thank you.

[hatrack]

36. This LACK OF CIVILITY - horrid, simply HORRID!!

[LexVegas]

37. I could support her. nt

[djg21]

42. No. And she doesn't want to run now.

We don’t need another candidate from the Northeast or California. If we
want to win, we need a candidate from a flyover state that is at leased purplish. It’s all about the electoral college and getting electors who we can t count on already.

More importantly, I’ve got it from very good sources that Gillibrand doesn’t want to run until her kids are grown and out of the house. She is young and has time. She’d also have to give up a great job as Senator, where she is effective, to run.

She should stay put. She will get her chance later.

[blm]

44. 3 weeks before midterms you post a knowingly divisive thread

for Democrats on this board. Not to mention how premature the subject is when our party needs to be focused on winning 2018 election NOW.

[Kingofalldems]

55. Also a diversion from the great Sen. Warren news.

[oberliner]

282. Please check out my post on the great Sen. Warren news

It's here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11280909

Amazing that Trump can be so brazen about his lies when they are on video.

[Trumpocalypse]

64. How is this divisive?

Or any more divisive than similar posts for Harris, Warren, Booker, Sanders, etc.?

[blm]

70. Method of Operation

.

[Trumpocalypse]

74. Which means?

[brush]

113. Ahhhh...try three weeks before the critical mid-terms? That's why it's divisive.

[Trumpocalypse]

123. Again there are similar posts

regarding Warren, Harris, Booker and Sanders. How is this more divisive than those posts?

[brush]

128. Simple. There's plenty of time for this after Nov. 6. Focus on GOTV.

If you're not contributing to the campaign by phone banking, canvassing, fundraising, doing date entry or voter reg. or something, at least cease with diversionary stuff until after the election.

I don't care what candidate you favor.

[Trumpocalypse]

137. So you would call similar posts

about Warrren, Sanders and the others divisive too?

[brush]

141. I clearly said "I don't care what candidate you favor".

Plenty of time after the election.

[Trumpocalypse]

145. Nice diversion

But it was a yes or no question.

[brush]

149. Oh please. Your question wasn't necessary since I clearly stated...

that I didn't care what candidate one favors.

[Trumpocalypse]

151. So yes or no

Are similar posts about Warren, Sanders and others divisive? Yes or no?

[tavernier]

73. You sound surprised.

[blm]

75. Heh

Unfortunately, not surprised

[oberliner]

278. There is nothing divisive and lots of DUers have posted threads about potential nominees

And why they think they would make good choices.

She should be in the mix - she is a great progressive Democrat.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

48. SSDD

[rzemanfl]

50. No thanks. I have stated why often enough.

I see no reason to make this a serial on my end. SSDD indeed.

[Autumn]

53. I would rather have Warren/Harris.

[aikoaiko]

57. She's OK, but has some weak spots. I'm uncommitted to any candidate for the Democratic primary race

Are you committed to Gillibrand, or is this more of an academic statement of her strengths?

[Trumpocalypse]

58. Unfortunately

I don't think Gillibrand is a viable candidate. She shot herself in the foot with many with the Al Franken thing. I do think many have unfairly maligned her but that is just political reality.

The shame is she would have been a great candidate. She has shown in the past that she can reach out to those white working class swing voters who went for Trump. I also think that Trump would just look mean if he tried to insult her.

[democratisphere]

59. We need a person that will stand with ALL OTHER Democrats.

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2018, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

[brooklynite]

67. Well, she stood with the entire Democratic Senate caucus...

...but I'm guessing you're only thinking about one specific Democrat.

[democratisphere]

86. Yes. That ONE and ALL OTHERS.

There is no excuse.

[brooklynite]

93. So in the context of the OP, all Senate Dems are unqualified as Presidential candidates...

...except for the always popular Joe Manchin.

[democratisphere]

99. Joe who?!

[democratisphere]

104. Perhaps it is time for a fresh horse.

[USALiberal]

105. Waiting for your knowing someones whole staff post. Nt

[Bettie]

62. She wouldn't be my choice in a primary

there are several better choices I can think of off the top of my head and probably a bunch of others who aren't even currently on the radar.

[PubliusEnigma]

65. Nope.

[stonecutter357]

66. Joe Biden 2020 !

[tavernier]

76. So far my choice,

for dozens of reasons, but mostly because he would quickly and efficiently mop up the trump stain with a smile on his face. I know we are ready for younger candidates, but the nation is bleeding and Joe is that trusted family doctor who makes house calls.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

68. From what I've seen of her I think she'd be eaten alive in the Democratic primary debates.

[helpisontheway]

71. Nope..Forget her...she threw Al Franken under the bus..nt

[drbtg1]

72. Answer: no. Reason: Much like Sec. Clinton, she is divisive and thus damaged goods

Unlike Sec. Clinton, her status as damaged goods was self-inflicted.

And unlike the Republicans, the Democratic Party doesn't embrace and promote damaged goods as well.

[JHan]

78. Can you give examples of this divisiveness ...

..wothout mentioning the name Franken?

[drbtg1]

84. This would be like giving a description of the ocean...

...without mentioning the word water.

However, I would add her comment about the Clinton affair would also give her plenty of, shall we say, "Joementum"

[JHan]

90. I didn't agree with her completely re Clinton but she is not the only liberal..

I've heard suggest resignation. I don't see why that negates her senate record.

I also don't understand why her colleagues are exempt from the same criticism.

I've made peace with the Franken situation as a political calculation by the Dem caucus. That Gilibrand led the charge doesn't absolve her colleagues, they obviously decided collectively that Franken was a liability.

[brush]

121. Her being the ringleader though highlights her poor judgment in so quickly falling...

for the repug hit job on Franken—Tweeden's open right wing affiliation with Roger Stone and Hannity and the obvious "gag" photo as evidence was so apparent, anyone without an agenda to get rid of a possible 2020 rival should've seen it a mile away—not to mention all the "anonymous" accusers, on even saying she was sexually assault when Franken put his arm around her waist and touched her love handle.

And that one was the last straw for Gillebrand. Come on, she's damaged goods.

[JHan]

129. If she was a ringleader, her colleagues were happy to be led.

Singling out Gillibrand is convenient. There was probably a lot of talk among them how to handle the whole thing.

It's cathartic to single her out and blame her for Franken's fate but that doesn't make sense to me. I don't separate her from her colleagues.

This was a decision by Senate Democrats.

[brush]

132. She forced it though. She damaged her own chances.

[JHan]

140. still I can't separate her from her colleagues over this,

It's possible leadership ( Schumer) was fine with her speaking out about it because of her bona fides when it comes to sexual harassment awareness.

Like I said further up, I've made peace with the fact Dems made a political calculation. They all did. Other Dems made strong statements, even if it was just a tweet. The message was clear that Senate Democrats saw the Franken allegations as a liability.

[brush]

144. True enough, but she placed herself out front. There are consequences for poor judgment.

[JHan]

155. Well I think that's unfair to her. This is what I think happened...

Schumer thought about the politics of it, the prospect of 'hearings' which would continue to put Franken in the news. They probably also looked at polling. Gillibrand was the most outspoken so she's a convenient target, but I don't buy that her colleagues were cowed or just followed her lead. I don't know why the narrative isn't that focus on her lets them off the hook.

I think as Democrats we have to accept that leadership made the choice and it was a collective choice.

[brush]

158. Yeah, but she jumped on the bandwagon way before Shumer or any of the others.

She also went against Bill Clinton too after years of taking money and endorsements from the Clintons.

Not good.

[JHan]

166. yes ..that's something she can't erase.

After all, she came to the senate post-Lewinsky.

But I always expect that kind of hypocrisy from Politicians so it didn't surprise me. I tend to be cynical about these things by default.

I've been mulling about the Clinton resignation idea. On the one hand, the whole thing was just surreal and ridiculous. And I say this as a young person reading about it. I decided to follow the slow burn podcast, just to get a sense of what it might have been like in real time. I've already read way too much material about it.. And just.. *smh*. I'm really uncomfortable citing it as some grand example of abuse of authority. Maybe resignation would have been the better political choice than going through with impeachment ( unfair as it was). Bill would have emerged a more sympathetic figure done in by the zealotry of right-wingers. Gore would have stepped up as VP, and maybe the Lewinsky-scandal wouldn't have held as much weight against his prospects.. then again Republicans would have tried anything. It's just a sordid mess.

[brush]

196. Consensual is the keyword. They both were willing (she even flashed her thong at him).

[lapucelle]

351. Monica Lewinsky wrote an interesting piece for Vanity Fair last year.

In it, she faults Ken Starr as a primary abuser of his power and authority in the scandal that altered the trajectory of her life rendering her "unmarriable", i.e. "damaged goods".

This was the man who had turned my 24-year-old life into a living hell in his effort to investigate and prosecute President Bill Clinton on charges that would eventually include obstruction of justice and lying under oath—lying about having maintained a long-term extramarital relationship with me.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/monica-lewinsky-interview-anti-bullying-psa.html

The casual use of the expression "damaged goods" to commodify women in this thread is mind boggling.

Women, it seems, are particularly at risk of being labelled, pigeonholed and conveniently packed up into small, stereotypical boxes. From critical terms like ‘slag’ and ‘slut’ to irreversible indictments like ‘damaged goods’ or more generalised terms like ‘bird’ or ‘chick’, these labels put women firmly in their place and make them nice and easy to deal with.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/damaged-goods-slut-and-spinster-sexist-labels-against-women-8192854.html

https://everydaysexism.com/

[JHan]

357. that's true.. "damaged goods" is particularly sexist.

It's interesting how the narratives change re Monica over the years.

[Trumpocalypse]

192. No that's not how things work.

Any action against Franken would have had to been approved by Schumer first. It was a collective effort.

[Trumpocalypse]

189. You nailed it nt

[drbtg1]

154. "Sexual harassment awareness"? Funny, because I don't remember any Gillibrand amendment,...

...but I certainly remember the Franken amendment.

Sen. Franken was far stronger on the issue than the opportunist from NY. But when there was blood in the water, the opportunist went in for the kill.

While you might not be able to separate her from her colleagues, I, as well as others, can't separate her from the political shivving of Sen. Franken.

Once again, she's damaged goods, and Democrats must demand better.

[JHan]

156. Look, my only point to you is you cannot single her out for a collective choice that was made..

And why isn't the narrative that singling her out ...lets her colleagues off the hook, since you obviously feel so strongly about it?

[drbtg1]

163. Yes, actually, I can single her out for being the ringleader.

The timing was rapid and her colleagues were little more than political lemmings on the issue, but she was most certainly the ringleader.

And as for what I feel strongly about here is two-fold. One, the Democrats should have the strongest candidate and she is NOT it, and two, why do a number of people here appear to support obviously damaged goods? (Very suspect!)

[JHan]

164. So Senator Gillibrand cowed Schumer and others?

really? that's what we're going with?

I think it's more likely a political calculation was made. We can dislike their choice all we want, but the notion that Gillibrand forced other Senators who respected Franken, to turn against him is laughable. These are seasoned politicians.

And spare me the "damaged goods" nonsense please.

[drbtg1]

175. LMFAO!!!!!

My first post in this sub-thread talked about her being damaged goods but you had to reply anyway! If you feel the need to be "spared" about damaged goods then don't reply to the damaged goods post. Pretty simple.

[JHan]

181. It's a message board, people respond to posts whenever and wherever.

whenever I make a post I expect someone will respond to it because it's a message board. That's how they work.

"Damaged goods" usually refers to a politician engaged in some scandal - your use of the phrase when it comes to Gillibrand is peculiar at best.

[Trumpocalypse]

194. Schumer was the ringleader

Only he has the power to get all the other Senators to go along.

[tammywammy]

345. The women senators coordinated their response.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/senators-al-franken-resignation/index.html?no-st=1539622860

They weren't cowed or political lemmings to Gillibrand. 🙄

[lapucelle]

352. "Once again, she's damaged goods"...

This should not have been said at all. Insistently repeating it is highly offensive.

The original contention was that both HRC and Gillibrand hold the "status" of "damaged goods" because they are divisive.

There was the ancillary claim that the "opportunist from NY" has no one but herself to blame for the "status" she was assigned.

It's remarkable the amount of everyday, casual sexism that people engage in, blissfully unaware of the import of their actions and their words in perpetuating the problem. The Franken amendment was an important and meaningful step in in the fight to address and end sexual harassment in the workplace.

So is S.2159.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2159/cosponsors?pageSort=firstToLast

[drbtg1]

358. Oh, hell, no!

The charge of sexism over that phrase is crap. I would label Anthony Weiner as NYC mayorial candidate or Joe Ganim as CT gubernatorial candidate as damaged goods as well. The phrase damaged goods results from actions taken and thus crosses all genders, races, religions, sexual orientations, and any other grouping you care to list.

Your charge of sexism should be a violation of DU rules.

As for your URL, it shows a bill that went absolutely nowhere.

[lapucelle]

359. Adding an exclamation point at the end of a superficial assertion

does not render it a cogent point, unless, perhaps, one is in middle school.

Decontextualized expressions are one thing; contextualized code is quite another, for there are distinctions with differences. A pejorative expression when applied to one group might simply be nasty; however, when applied to another group, it may become a problematic and prejudicial slur. Nuance is difficult, but it is worth pursuing.

Merriam Webster defines the phrase "damaged goods" as meaning

:a person who is considered to be no longer desirable or valuable because of something that has happened

: a person whose reputation is damaged

The trope of the (sexually) violated or transgressive woman as "damaged goods" first appeared in literature about 100 years ago and emerged in film shortly after.

Because culture informs the interpretation of language, it is important to be aware of subtext, as well as to recognize that those who know little about the interpretation of language generally shouldn't expound to those with more expertise. It should also be noted that ignorance, whether feigned or genuine, is only tolerated for so long.

As for the claim that S.2159 "went nowhere", that too is incorrect. S.2159 was introduced in this session of Congress (Nov. 2017), read twice, and referred to committee, as was its companion bill in the House, H.R.4396. Both bills are currently in committee.

In case anyone is as challenged legislatively as they are linguistically, that means that the bill is "somewhere". Let me make that clearer: The bill is somewhere!

[Trumpocalypse]

176. What proof do you have that

she forced it through? Please provide links.

[brush]

188. Provide your own links. I don't work for you. Everyone knows she lead the charge so...

links shouldn't be hard to find.

So transparent you are.

[Trumpocalypse]

199. No. You are making an accusation

I'm asking you to back it up with proof. Refusing to do so is just an admission that you don't have any proof to support your accusation.

[brush]

204. Get lost.

[Trumpocalypse]

321. So you can't support

your accusations.

[OnDoutside]

228. +1

Everyone else was willing to let the ethics committee do its work but she showed dreadful judgement in expecting to get a handy win for herself. In actuality, that and sticking it to the Clintons, has killed her 2020 chances

[Trumpocalypse]

234. She and 38 other Senators

Plus all the ethics committee would do is determine if Franken had violated Congressional ethics rules. It is not a find of guilt or innocence of the accusations.

[OnDoutside]

295. The others were marking her, she was the first to stick the knife in. Quite Shakespearean in fact.

[Trumpocalypse]

298. She doesn't have that much power or influence

It was a group decision and effort. Either blame them all or blame none.

[OnDoutside]

299. She doesn't have that much power or influence now.

[Trumpocalypse]

301. And she didn't then either.

The only one who does is Schumer.

[OnDoutside]

305. Your efforts to rewrite history doesn't wash, she led the demand for his resignation. And that was

after burning her bridges with the Clintons. Womp womp

[Trumpocalypse]

309. No that is not what happened

I’m setting the record straight. She never had the power or influence. Unless you think that Senators such as Warren, Sanders and Harris are lemmings who just followed Gillibrand blindly.

[OnDoutside]

310. No, they are 2020 rivals, who marked her move.

[Trumpocalypse]

311. Any proof of that

Please provide links

[tammywammy]

287. The senators coordinated together.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/senators-al-franken-resignation/index.html?no-st=1539622860

[Trumpocalypse]

312. But it is easier to just blame one

and demonize her.

[Renew Deal]

361. Your comment is a joke

The republicans don’t embrace damaged goods? Like Trump and Bush?

[lark]

79. Can't get behind her.

I would support and donate to most others, but not her. I prefer anyone else who could win and doesn't make life altering decisions willy nilly without caring about the facts. She lead the charge and started it. Sorry, Dem since I was a teen, but don't like her one bit. WE have lots of options that I think are better than this woman who also backstabbed her mentors, the Clintons.

[lark]

227. True, I pity the good Dems running against her.

She will destroy them if she can, regardless if she's behind or in front, she's just ruthless in promoting herself. Hopefully she won't do well and will drop out before she destroys the chances of good Dems.

[JHan]

80. her record is solid, I don't really have issues with her.

[Miles Archer]

81. Can't get past Al Franken. Sorry, she's not my candidate. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

92. So you rather have another 4 years of Trump?

[Miles Archer]

100. You're asking that because she is our one and only option?

Maybe you should read my other 12,512 posts and see how I feel about another 4 years of Trump.

Can't even pretend to understand how you came to that conclusion, but no...I would not rather have another 4 years of Trump, and no...she is not our one and only option.

[Trumpocalypse]

108. So then, if it is Trump vs. Gillibrand in the general

You're voting for?

[Squinch]

130. Oh, stop. Was that supposed to be some kind of gotcha?

If so, its incredibly lame.

[Trumpocalypse]

135. Just asking a question

Why is that a problem?

[Squinch]

136. And implying that if someone doesn't like a candidate they must be trumpers.

Just stop.

[Trumpocalypse]

138. Not implying anything

That's why I'm asking the question. I saw similar posts in 16 about Clinton here and wanted a clarification.

[dlk]

82. She Turned on the Clintons, Who Did Much to Help Her, as well as Turned on Franken

Not presidential material in my book.

[BlueTsunami2018]

83. I'd only vote for her if she somehow got the nomination.

Not under any other circumstances.

[dhol82]

202. I would vote against her in the primary first.

If she manages to make it through I will be severely troubled to actually vote for her.

[mahina]

85. She lead the charge that cost us a wonderful and irreplaceable voice.

Without evidence or due process. It was a hit job for the right.

No thank you.

[Trumpocalypse]

96. Due process is a talking point

John Conyers didn't get due process either. And all Franken asked for is an ethics investigation which only determines if he had violated Congressional ethics rules, not a finding of guilt or innocence.

[ebbie15644]

87. no

[workinclasszero]

88. Nope

Never would support her in a primary or with money either.

If she somehow became the democratic candidate I would hold my nose and vote for her very unenthusiastically.

[elfin]

91. NOOOOOOOOOO! nt

[WeekiWater]

94. Solid progressive, smart, strong fighter.

Like her a lot.

[oberliner]

191. My thoughts exactly

[Greybnk48]

95. 11/06/2018. Nothing else exists. n/t

[oberliner]

190. Fair enough

And Gillibrand is doing a good bit of campaigning for Democrats in the midterms!

[MontanaMama]

97. The best Dem nominee for president in 2020

may well depend on whether or not Dems can win back the House in 2018. It also may depend on our strategy for taking back the Senate in 2020...we need some kick ass Senate candidates in place to make that happen. First things first...eyes on the prize.

[oberliner]

187. Good points

But since people have been talking a bit here about potential 2020 candidate, I did want to make a case for adding her name to the mix.

[Drahthaardogs]

98. Did anyone else hear goats galloping on the bridge?

Or is it just me?

[rzemanfl]

106. On the record I had as a child like 66 years ago, they went clip-clop. n/t

[oberliner]

185. Can you clarify what you mean by that?

[Drahthaardogs]

273. No. I can't clarify.

But I'll tell you what, I'll give you three guesses!

[quickesst]

102. Kirsten gillibrand....

No thanks. I'd rather not have an experienced, professional opportunist as the 2020 Democratic nominee. It was easy for me to form my opinion by simply stepping out of the Al Franken box.

[oberliner]

184. Who would you like to see as our nominee?

[quickesst]

336. As of right now, and if Hillary does not run....

..... there is only one, and his name is Joe Biden. That could very well change over the course of the next year or so, but if anyone is going to emerge out of the field, there are two things they would have to make significant strides in. That would be name recognition and likeability. All of them have both of these qualities, but only on a regional basis. Those that have what it takes can solve that problem during the primaries, along with a good policy message. One thing is for sure. Whoever does emerge as the nominee will get my vote, including Gillibrand.

[oberliner]

339. He is definitely a popular choice

Last edited Tue Oct 16, 2018, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)

He seems to be in the lead of most candidate polls at this point.

[quickesst]

350. He certainly hits all the attributes....

..... people look for in a candidate, but as I stated before, that could all change if someone else is able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack over the next year or so. Whoever ends up being our nominee may not be my first choice, but as long as they're able to run that shit stain out of the White House , I'm all in.

[SHRED]

103. Nope

Too divisive.

[oberliner]

183. In what way do you find her to be divisive?

[SHRED]

216. Just look at this thread

Lots of division.

[ms liberty]

112. No. n/t

[oberliner]

182. Why not?

[Squinch]

115. I'll take "Who's that under the bridge?" for $100, Alex.

[oberliner]

179. Can you clarify what you mean by that comment?

[Squinch]

224. I don't think you need any clarification. But good try!

[LAS14]

120. Here's a different take on the Gillibrand/Franken thing.

Regardless of what one thinks of Gillibrand's judgment in leading the pressure on Franken, I think it might rise close to the level of Hillary e-mails in an election. That is, fear of wrongly accused men seems to have not just fired up Trump's base, but also swayed a number of independents toward the right. I wish I could give you a link. I'll search some more on Google. But I can see this could be true. It was at the heart of Collins' speech.

Don't you agree that "support" for Kavanaugh was way higher than we (at least I) expected?

[oberliner]

178. I do agree that support for Kavanaugh was higher than expected

Especially right after the Ford testimony. I thought her testimony was so powerful and persuasive, but, in retrospect, I'm not that shocked that he got all those R's to vote to confirm.

[LAS14]

210. But I continue to be shocked at the drift right on the part of indpendents.

I wish I had a link. I'm sure I heard those reports.

[MoonRiver]

127. No, and I'm sure she won't make it past the primary.

Aside from betraying Al Franken, I find her boring (zero charisma). She definitely does not demonstrate much intellectual depth, and can't think fast on her feet. I'll vote for our Democratic nominee, but doubt it will be Gillibrand.

[oberliner]

173. Who do you think it will be?

And is there someone you are hoping it will be?

[MoonRiver]

203. Not sure yet. There will be so many choices.

I do know who I don't want, and Gillibrand is one of those.

[oberliner]

208. Who else do you not want?

[MoonRiver]

214. I don't want Biden.

He's a good guy, but we need younger people running, IMHO.

[oberliner]

323. Biden seems to be the most popular choice at this point

Of course there is a long way to go!

[LanternWaste]

235. I don't want people to cite Michael Harriot as a source one day

and then turn around deftly and quickly, telling us his work is "not someone whose garbage should be posted here..." when it becomes inconvenient.

But that's me... we all of us have opinions.

[oberliner]

322. I very much value your opinion

Michael Harriot's garbage should not be posted here. I regret having ever posted anything by him.

Thank you for taking me to task for doing so.

[samnsara]

131. im not feeling this....

[oberliner]

172. Why not?

[snowybirdie]

134. You've made your point

Why am I seeing this post over and over agsin?

[oberliner]

171. I don't understand your question

[Trumpocalypse]

198. It's called the first amendment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

230. The First Amendment applies only to the suppression of speech by the government.

Internet message boards maintained by a private entity can restrict speech as much as they want, and other people on the board can complain, or not, depending on the rules set by the forum. The First Amendment has fuck-all to do with it.

One thing the Internet does provide is access to the Constitution. It would be nice if more people actually read the damn thing.

[Trumpocalypse]

233. So it is OK with you that

someone freedom of speech be suppressed as long as the government doesn't do it?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

236. I don't see anybody's speech being "suppressed" here.

I see people disagreeing, and I don't see that anyone is stopping them from disagreeing. But don't invoke the First Amendment just because you don't like the way someone is reacting to someone else's remarks on a private message board.

[Trumpocalypse]

248. That is true for the most part.

I was addressing one single poster who seemed to want the OP suppressed. Not sure why you are trying to pick a fight about it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

254. Just making a point about a common mistake about the First Amendment.

The poster merely suggested, rather mildly, I thought, that the OP was beating a dead horse. There was no indication that he or she wanted the OP's post "suppressed," just that maybe it was time to give the issue a rest. DU, whose rules we all agree to as a condition of membership, has its own means of "suppressing" posts that are determined to violate the TOS, but this one clearly didn't and nobody claimed it did. But if it had been contrary to the TOS the post could have been removed without violating the First Amendment in the slightest.

[Trumpocalypse]

262. Well you made your point

But the other poster was essentially telling the OP to shut up. That's just rude. And as long as the OP doesn't violate DU's posting guidelines, no one has the right to tell the OP to shut up. If someone doesn't like the topic of a post, they don't have to click on it.

[tazkcmo]

300. That's how the law works.

Your employer is lawfully able to suppress your speech. The owners of this website have and will continue to suppress our speech by "tombstoning" people from the site. By signing up as a member you have agreed to that suppression and apparently approve as evidenced by your membership and participation.

[Trumpocalypse]

302. And if the rules of the site are not violated

is it ok to tell someone to shut up just because you disagree with them?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

328. Sure. Maybe it's a bit rude, but it doesn't suppress their speech

because the person who has been told to shut up won't be required to to shut up, and they probably won't shut up. If the request to shut up (which didn't actually happen in the post in question) is extremely rude and personal, it will probably be alerted on, and a DU jury will decide whether it's rude enough to warrant deletion, e.g., voluntary suppression pursuant to the member's agreement to abide by DU's TOS. If it doesn't violate the TOS the speech isn't suppressed because the post will still be there.

[Trumpocalypse]

330. So do you support telling people to shut up

just because they have a different opinion than yours or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

331. No, it's rude.

But it's not suppression of speech.

[Trumpocalypse]

333. Thanks

But it is whether you admit it or not.

[CrispyQ]

161. I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination, but we better be smarter than this. -nt

[oberliner]

170. Why do you not think it would be smart to nominate her?

[CrispyQ]

219. I would love to see a woman or minority at the top of the ticket,

but I think we'll lose again if we do. I know I'll get flamed for that, but it's my opinion. It's based on the stunning misogyny & racism that has been on public display since 2008, but which has been jacked up on steroids since 2016. And if we put Biden at the top of the ticket, we'll lose. He's associated with Obama, he has issues on the Thomas nomination, & he's an old white man. Also, he doesn't have a great track record on running for prez. No Sanders, either. When I was a kid the dems were the young, vital party.

Our first order of business is to gain control of our government. Then we can start to fix it.

[IluvPitties]

167. No.

[oberliner]

169. Why not?

[IluvPitties]

177. Going after Bill and Hillary, Al Franken...

Gimme Klobuchar over Gillibrand any day.

[oberliner]

193. I'm with you on Klobuchar

I think she would great as well.

[Gothmog]

205. Fans of Al Franken have long memories and will not forgive or forget

[Kingofalldems]

217. I guess the RW think tanks are scrambling with this great Sen. Elizabeth Warren news.

They seem to be dumbstruck right now. Perhaps a talking point by this afternoon.

What do you think?

[Turin_C3PO]

220. Of course I would support her in the GE.

But I won’t support her in a primary.

[Kingofalldems]

221. Wow! Check out this breaking news:

Link to tweet

[doc03]

222. No way in hell she was responsible for driving our best

Senator out of office.

[Trumpocalypse]

231. How was Franken the best Senator?

He was a very good Senator but how was he "the best"? And please don't just talk about Jeff Sessions.

[Kingofalldems]

239. It ain't working.

[Trumpocalypse]

251. What ain't working?

Asking someone to explain and prove a claim they made. We should have the same accountability to prove our actions, statements and accusations that we ask of our elected officials.

[Devil Child]

238. If she secures the nomination she has my unconditional support

All that matters is defeating Trump and his cabal.

[happy feet]

255. NO!

She drove Franken out of the Senate.

[Trumpocalypse]

263. She and 38 other Senators

Why do they get a pass?

[Mr. Ected]

259. Posts like this are intended to be divisive

This isn't the first time you've rubbed DU's face in KG. But as we near the mid-terms, this is pointless and only acts to turn Democrat against Democrat.

Please cease and desist. We have a long time to discuss this, but now is not the time.

[Trumpocalypse]

264. Are similar posts

about Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker and others also divisive?

[Mr. Ected]

268. Yes, but you're missing the point

This poster has dropped this name more than once with intentions that are not even lightly veiled.

[Trumpocalypse]

269. Maybe the poster's goal is to support a particular Senator

and nothing more. Are posts lamenting about Al Franken also divisive?

[Mr. Ected]

271. Or maybe the poster wants to poke a hot stick in our eye

Are posts lamenting Franken's demise uplifting to certain elements at DU?

[oberliner]

274. Or maybe the poster likes Kirsten Gillibrand and thinks she is a great progressive Democrat?

And maybe the poster wants to try to encourage others to take a look at her strong record.

[Trumpocalypse]

291. How are they uplifting?

They seem to get everyone upset.

[LAS14]

286. How do you know what the poster's intentions are? Veiled or not? nt

[Trumpocalypse]

294. How.do you know what they are?

I’m taking the OP at face value and not making accusations without proof..

[LAS14]

304. Sorry. I meant to reply to Mr. Ected, post 268.

[oberliner]

275. No, they aren't

She is a progressive Democrat who would make a great candidate for POTUS.

People have made posts about other folks they think would be good potential candidates even though we have a long time to discuss.

[cp]

261. Not a chance

Opportunist who collaborated with Roger Stone's ratfucking of Al Franken.

[Trumpocalypse]

265. So Sanders and Warren were also collaborating?

Along with Harris, Booker and over 30 other Senators.

[LW1977]

267. This

[LW1977]

266. Um.. no.

Not her.

Proud Minnesotan.

[tazkcmo]

272. No thank you.

I will vote for her in the general if she receives the nomination but she isn't even in my top 5.

[oberliner]

281. Who are your top five?

[YOHABLO]

276. No thank you.

[jalan48]

277. We can do better than this.

[aeromanKC]

279. NOOOOOO!!!

FTB!!!

[oberliner]

280. What does FTB stand for?

[pamdb]

288. Kristen

After the way she led the charge against Al Frankenstein, I will never vote for her.

[LBM20]

289. No way. We don't need another northeastern liberal. Need someone from the middle the country. AND

the Franken problem. That was BULLSHIT!

[sdfernando]

290. HELL NO!!!!!!!

Not after what she did to Franken!

There are many many better candidates I would like to see instead of her.

[RhodeIslandOne]

293. Absolutely not

Klobuchar for President.

[LAS14]

306. How in the world can you "see" behind what the poster put in the post?

What I see is a straightforward opinion about a senator, inviting discussion.

[George II]

320. Bazinga!

[oberliner]

318. Proud to advocate for Gillibrand, a great progressive Democratic senator

She literally has the highest "anti-Trump" score in the US Senate.

No one votes against the Trump agenda more than Gillibrand does.

[Still In Wisconsin]

297. Fuck that.

There are at least a hundred other Democrats I would prefer.

I would vote for her if she was the nominee but she won’t be. We don’t need to nominate someone from the “ we eat our own” club

[oberliner]

317. Why do you say that?

[stonecutter357]

313. fuck putin!

[oberliner]

316. What does Putin have to do with Gillibrand?

[stonecutter357]

337. i think you get the picture .

[oberliner]

338. I don't - can you explain why you mentioned Putin?

I don't know of any connection between the two.

[USALiberal]

325. LOL, 15 recs should be enough proof it is a bad idea! nt

[underpants]

326. I knew this was going to get interesting when I first saw it this morning

[dflprincess]

327. Could we get through 2018 first? nt

[oberliner]

346. Fair enough

Here's to a big blue wave in the midterms. I would mention that KG has been focused on that as well, campaigning for various Democrats in various places.

[dflprincess]

347. Haven't seen her in Minnesota

wise move on her part.

[oberliner]

348. She was recently in Pennsylvania

Who are the heavy hitters who have been campaigning in Minnesota?

[dflprincess]

349. I don't believe there have been any big names this year.

The DNC tends to take us for granted & here we sit with a good chance to flip two Republican Congressional districts, but in some danger of losing two of the ones currently held by DFLers. I'm not sure the DCCC even helps with any of those races.

Klobuchar doesn't need the help and Tina Smith (she's the one appointed to Al's seat) is up in her race but it is closer than Amy's. That, of course, is a senate seat we shouldn't have had to defend this year. Even if any "heavy hitters" had decided to show up, Gillibrand would not have been welcome here by the rank and file. If she's smart, she won't bother to campaign here during the 2020 primary season either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

355. I will support her if she's our nominee.

She's the perfect running mate for Cory Booker .

[ooky]

356. Which we must all do.

What we don't need is people not voting for her in the general election because of Franken. That's my biggest concern with her. I don't like what happened with Franken bit she will have my full support if she is the nominee. We have all seen the alternative.