…how was grabbing Lindsay Menz by the buttocks “done for laughs?” How about when he grabbed Stephanie Kemplin by the breasts? It doesn’t matter if he was “being a horndog” or just being “totally inappropriate.” If he had kept his grubby hands to himself he’d still be a US Senator. That he is no longer a US Senator is not Gillibrand’s fault.
Doing the right thing is still better than the alternative, or than waiting until one has political cover to do the right thing, no matter the motive. Since I can’t read minds, I’m forced to judge by actions and words, and Gillibrand did the right thing before most of the other Democratic contenders.
But again, I just consider that a point in her favor, not necessarily the deciding factor.
Thing is your humble opinions and many others’ are not going to agree. The lot of us can/would argue about that ad nauseum (and have in the past) and not convince each other of the error of the others’ ways.
Is that where we should be going into a general election season?
…this thread is in Great Debates. We argue ad nauseum here. We often do not not convince each other of the error of the others’ ways. Thats kinda the point. I don’t live in America. I’m not American. I’m not going to censor myself going into “a general election season” because of some misguided sense of unity.
Sorry but you have completely missed the point. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
The point is not about what we argue about here in Elections or in GD, and the point is not about arguing with you, even if you were an American. The point is that the fact of the matter is that in the case of a Gillibrand run there would be these ad nauseum arguments continuing and those who see her as someone whose has principles and convictions that hinge mainly on what she thinks will be good for herself are many now, and they are unlikely to suddenly be convinced otherwise. There are other women who may run who have the cred (#metoo and otherwise) that is more widely accepted as authentic and who are not as divisive among Ds and D leaners. Men too.
The simple fact that a thread discussing her possible candidacy could easily devolve into another prolonged airing out of differences over what was fair and right or not in regards to Franken, tells us something I think. That something is not that she would be a good candidate to have as the all rally behind nominee.
Why not Gillibrand? Too many potential D voters think of her as an inauthentic opportunist with no real convictions for her to win or be the best possible nominee. Why not Gillibrand? She does not inspire. Why not Gillibrand? Because we have several significantly better choices.
…nope. You were crystal clear.
I think its perfectly reasonable to address the accuracy of the narrative. And I couldn’t think of a better place to address that accuracy than in this very thread. This is a message-board, not the “real world”. This is a debate. We are debating here. It isn’t my job to “convince the average voter.” What happens outside of this thread is none of my concern.
Sure. But people are questioning her authenticity in *this *thread. I have every right to express my opinion here, to engage in debate, thats the entire point of this forum.
Yep. Its tells us how easily it is to create a narrative out of thin air, how easy it is to get people to accept that narrative, and how keen people are to get people to “shut up” in defense of that narrative.
What exactly did Gillibrand do wrong in regards to Franken? Kamala Harris, Maggie Hassan, Claire McCaskill, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, and Patty Murray all came forward asking Franken to go. Were they all wrong? We shouldn’t consider Kamala Harris for the presidency, because she held the same opinion as Gillibrand and therefore isn’t “authentic”?
Nope. That “something” is how easy it is to destroy a potentially fantastic candidate by simply making something up: then repeating that “something” every time her name is mentioned.
I haven’t argued that Gillibrand should get the nomination. But if potential democrat voters think that someone who has spent a significant amount of their career standing up for the rights of the sexually abused, taking on “multiple pro bono cases defending abused women and their children”, " proposed legislation that would remove sexual assault cases from the military chain of command", as someone “with no real convictions” and as “an inauthentic opportunist” then I’m here to correct the recordfor them. This is the straight-dope after all, and we are here to fight ignorance.
Women are used to getting punished for speaking out against sexual harassment and sexual assault. Christine Blasey Ford is still receiving death threats, has had to move four times, and still hasn’t gone back to work. According to you Gillibrand should not be considered as a presidential contender because people have “branded her an opportunist” for being “one-of-many” calling for a man who couldn’t keep his grubby hands to himself to step down from office.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your ultimate conclusion. But that conclusion is based on what I consider a completely false narrative. I don’t see anything wrong with arguing that the narrative that has destroyed any chance of Gillibrand standing for higher office is based on a false premise. That’s my point.
This is really true? Do you have a cite for this? I’m not saying it to challenge you, simply in attempt to fight my own ignorance. But if true, wtf? Is she paying for all these repeated uprootings? If so, that is completely outrageous.
…original source her go-fund-me page.
Do you think it likely that Gillibrand threw Franken “under the bus” in large part because he might otherwise have been a rival for the Presidential nomination? (Though I doubt if Franken could ever have been more than a minor also-ran for the Presidency.) It sounds like that’s what you’re saying, but I want to be clear.
If that is what you’re suggesting here, then your extreme cynicism about politics must give you nightmares. Do you want our thoughts and prayers?
I take the opposite point of view. This is the SDMB, intellectual heartbeat of North America. 
We must assume the responsibility of doing the hard work, drafting those who need to be drafted, stifling those who will just be disruptive distractions. If we haven’t made our wisdom visible to the candidates (and cigar smokers?) before primary season, we may be too late! 
(Certainly the wise men waited too long to explain the necessity for Biden to run in 2016.)
Who are the better candidate?
Who are these Dems that think she’s an opportunist? And more importantly, how does she play to the independents? Can she swing states back that Trump won in 2016?
We don’t need the best candidate to make core Democrats happy, we need the best candidate to win in 2020. Winning the rust belt back is really important. Winning indy votes is really important. The real question is, is she the one to do that? It isn’t **Warren **that is for sure. Biden & Sanders are pretty damn old already.
Here are 11 other serious options as per the Washington Post:
California Sen. Kamala D. Harris, not bad but California is tough to overcome than NY.
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, he’s my Senator, he isn’t Obama, his track record is not strong, but maybe.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy
Former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe
Former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick
Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, interesting as he is in the Rust Belt.
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, I can’t seem to find anyone in the area that likes him. I don’t think he’s a strong candidate.
Former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, this is quite a stretch.
Oprah Winfrey, you know, she might just win, but would that be a good thing?
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, an little known moderate Dem Governor of a red state. If he could get some name recognition, might be one of those candidates that could rally independents.
Why can’t Warren win back the rust belt? She’s spent her whole career fighting for the working clas. That’s her defining issue. And that’s just what the non-deplorable portion of the Rust Belt wants. That’s why the Democrats used to do well in the Rust Belt, because there was a time when they were all perceived as being like Warren.
Accepted, I hope, that the way the Franken fracas went was controversial. Now that article is written from the perspective of someone on the Franken bad and was treated fairly side of the controversy, but should serve as a reasonable summary that there are large factions among those who vote in Democratic primaries, among progressives and centrists both, who feel that the rush to judgement and political execution was done for political expediency and posturing. Soros is far from alone. #metoo has lots of support within the Democratic party, far more than the movement has across all voters including women overall, but even within our ranks there are many who feel that #metoo does not excuse lack of fairness, does not justify presumption of guilt and punishment before process. Gillibrand is the face of #metoo too far and is the person most likely to get those who otherwise are supportive of and believe the accusers to feel uncomfortable with the way it gets played out.
If many Democrats feel she goes too far what do you think swing voters think?
As to her real convictions … she was a politician who got an A ranking from the NRA and who boasted about how she kept guns under her bed, she was the politician who talked tough on immigration, who “opposed any sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants, supported deputizing local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws, spoke out against Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to allow illegal immigrants to have driver’s licenses and sought to make English the official language of the United States”, she was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the financial sector’s largesse.
She’s gone from a very conservative Democrat to a parrot of all causes progressive. Funny how that times with the change of the stage that she wants to perform on. Her vision for the future comes off as caring about her getting elected as the only thing that matters. That translates into poor general election performance.
septimus thinks someone believing a politician might have thrown another under the bus for political gain suffers from “extreme cynicism”. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is horribly naive. I sleep well at night thank you.
What Exit? asks who are the better candidates? Any of them, even Ojeda. Personally I am currently thinking that Harris, Klobuchar, or Brown are the best choices for a general election, but Biden would do.
Yeah septimus , I sleep very well. You sound like someone whose only exposure to politics has been reading its definition in an encyclopaedia.
Politicians regularly put colleagues on their “own” side down for gain. It’s axiomatic, the other side is merely the opposition, rivals on your own side are the enemy.
Politicians do it all the time. Sometime it works very well, othertimes it backfires.
Boobs.
There is a lot of ingrained bias that women will not be good leaders - and the working class rust belt is not exempt from it.
For background, I’m an Ohioan originally from Kentucky. I’ve observed in folks I’m acquainted with (very loosely acquainted with, I hasten to add) an utterly intense dislike for Elizabeth Warren, one out of proportion with anything she’s alleged to have done. How she became a boogeywoman I can’t say, but I suspect she’d have an uphill climb.
Which of course is why Tammy Duckworth, Amy Klobuchar, Debbie Stabenow, Tammy Baldwin, among others, have been so unelectable in the Midwest. Oh. Wait.
No doubt there are some who vote informed by some misogyny … but the dislike of Warren is not mostly based on that. Despite her working class origins and her advocacy of working class issues, she has developed a national image that is of the intelligentsia. Voters of the Rust Belt working class think of her as an East Coast egghead elite and not as one of them.
Maybe she could market that perception away but it would be an uphill slog.
No the Rust belt wants their factory jobs back. The terrible horrible but secure “go to work for the same company for 30 years and retire with a watch and a small pension” jobs. The ones that no longer exist and *no one *can bring back. The ones that Trump lied about giving those poor people false hope. They also dont trust anyone from the “elite” East Coast.
I’ve seen the same thing, I think the Dems need to avoid Massachusetts Politicians on top of it, none have done well in many decades.
The vast right-wing conspiracy that has been hounding Hillary out of proportion to anything she’s alleged to have done took on Warren as a side-gig, ten years ago. They’re very good at what they do, which is demonizing boob-having people with opinions.
The other women mentioned have not been on the national stage as long as Warren has, but they’ll get the same treatment if any of them becomes a serious front-runner.
They had no trouble trusting a different East Coast elite. Though to be fair, nobody would ever mistake him for one of the intelligentsia.