Is this the sort of thing that’s going to get Gen Z excited about progressive politics? I doubt it. I’m no 17-year-old, but when social media is filled with videos of masked immigration officers indiscriminately attacking protesters and separating children from their families, I don’t think what young people want is a “progressive content hub.” I might be going out on a limb here, but I think what Gen Z wants is for their elected officials to do something that actually helps their constituents. Does this feel like the right time for a Substack essay?
It’s starting to feel like whoever is behind her political planning is the same person behind Hillary Clinton’s and now I’m wondering if that person is getting their ideas from someone determined to torpedo the U.S. political landscape with constant cringe and feelings of helplessness.
Would that be an excuse if it was true? You knew everyone hated a candidate, but nominated them anyway?
The logic involved is beyond stupid, and flat out wrong, and everyone knows it. Justifying nominated someone that can’t win is not excused by their minority status, no matter why people rejected them. And given that Hillary was rejected by white woman, and kamala by blacks, and woman, it makes the argument even dumber.
Sure, it’s possible you didn’t like either woman who gained the Democratic nomination for President both times it happened, but you’ll give the third a fair shake. Anything is possible.
As an outsider with high vested interest in American politics, without a doubt both Kamala and Hillary were better than the Republican alternative in 2016 and 2020, but I would hope they were not the best the Democrats have to offer (which could very well be a woman), and they were rather forced onto the electorate which has the air of unearned inevitability, to say the least.
The country still should have voted for them.
Obama was a better choice than Hillary for the Dem nomination though.
Again outsider perspective: I think Hillary is perhaps the most representative of American pragmatism, and probably a ball buster in her interactions. Kamala seems a bit gentle, I guess, for lack of a better word.
As is typical of American politics and in particular Democrats, it’s difficult to pin down beliefs or predict what they will actually do in office, and it always looked like status quo based on corporate donors. But status quo is still better than fascism.
In the end I don’t think Obama performed much better than Hillary would have. He had a lot of promise but for whatever reason - constraints, his real personality, whatever - he let a lot of people down as well.
It’s starting to feel like whoever is behind her political planning is the same person behind Hillary Clinton’s and now I’m wondering if that person is getting their ideas from someone determined to torpedo the U.S. political landscape with constant cringe and feelings of helplessness.
Remember this? Ugh…
It’s still probably David Brock/Media Matters, the one that helped give us Clarence Thomas by smearing Anita Hill and smeared Bernie in 2016.
It’s either that or the way people perceive female politicians is slanted.
Would that be an excuse if it was true? You knew everyone hated a candidate, but nominated them anyway?
The logic involved is beyond stupid, and flat out wrong, and everyone knows it. Justifying nominated someone that can’t win is not excused by their minority status, no matter why people rejected them. And given that Hillary was rejected by white woman, and kamala by blacks, and woman, it makes the argument even dumber.
Or, you know, neoliberal ghouls are unpopular no matter their gender. Have you considered that possibility?
Sure, it’s possible you didn’t like either woman who gained the Democratic nomination for President both times it happened, but you’ll give the third a fair shake. Anything is possible.
As an outsider with high vested interest in American politics, without a doubt both Kamala and Hillary were better than the Republican alternative in 2016 and 2020, but I would hope they were not the best the Democrats have to offer (which could very well be a woman), and they were rather forced onto the electorate which has the air of unearned inevitability, to say the least.
The country still should have voted for them.
Obama was a better choice than Hillary for the Dem nomination though.
Would you say they were ghouls?
Uhhh no.
Again outsider perspective: I think Hillary is perhaps the most representative of American pragmatism, and probably a ball buster in her interactions. Kamala seems a bit gentle, I guess, for lack of a better word.
As is typical of American politics and in particular Democrats, it’s difficult to pin down beliefs or predict what they will actually do in office, and it always looked like status quo based on corporate donors. But status quo is still better than fascism.
In the end I don’t think Obama performed much better than Hillary would have. He had a lot of promise but for whatever reason - constraints, his real personality, whatever - he let a lot of people down as well.
Why do you think I liked the men that got the Democratic nomination for president?
Probably because of their balls.*
*You set yourself up for that one.