|
Post by Optimus on Feb 6, 2019 21:08:12 GMT -5
I didn't know much about Klobuchar until now, but I do recall reading a few positive things about her on the interwebs during the Kavanaugh hearing, gushing about her line of questioning or something along those lines. But, I stumbled upon this tweet... ...which led me to this article that describes how she's apparently an awful person behind the scenes, a wolf in sheep's clothing: Somewhat unsurprisingly, at least one former staffer (one of the few who apparently likes her), is whipping out the tired old "they'd never say this about a man" canard which, in nearly every case it's used, is easily empirically disprovable. Not sure how this will affect her chances, but I also don't think she really has any chance to begin with. She's relatively unknown, thus most people have never heard of her, and if this becomes the first thing people learn about her, it'll likely be the only thing they remember about her in the long run. However, it might also be a story that never picks up steam. HuffPo is generally a garbage source to begin with but if it picks up steam on social media, it might be something that neuters or otherwise nullifies her campaign right out of the starting gate.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 6, 2019 23:03:43 GMT -5
I also wonder if this isn't another example of the milieu of dog-eat-dog candidate sabotage that seems to be going on in certain corners of the far-left media. They already started going after Bernie Sanders a few weeks ago by digging up old accusations against a former staffer (and blaming Bernie for it somehow) and also throwing salt his way for his SOTU response (which, honestly, his insistence on doing his own response seemed a bit "look at me, I'm running in 2020!"). It could very well be the case that the behind-the-scenes gossip about Klobuchar is simply that - cheap gossip - and this is just another example of the mini-tribes among the Progressives warring amongst themselves, pre-emptively sabotaging any candidate who doesn't meet some arbitrary "wokeness threshold." First the accusations that conveniently came out about Bernie's former staffer right as Bernie stared floating the idea of running again. Then the Bar registration form from Elizabeth Warren that came out yesterday. Now this against Klobuchar. The timing of it all (and the objectively nothing-burger status of each story) just seems really suspicious to me. *shrug* Who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these types of stories are being leaked not by GOP snakes, but by far-left operatives trying to take out the competition (for instance, consider the sources of the story; CNN and Vox for Sanders, Washington Post with Warren, now HuffPo with Klobuchar). Not saying that's what's going on (I know it sounds conspiracy theoryish), but it's playing out like a plot from an episode of the West Wing. The Dems reeeeally need to get their house in order or 2020 is going to be a very depressing and embarrassing election for the nation/world...again.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 9, 2019 14:19:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 9, 2019 15:26:22 GMT -5
I also wonder if this isn't another example of the milieu of dog-eat-dog candidate sabotage that seems to be going on in certain corners of the far-left media. They already started going after Bernie Sanders a few weeks ago by digging up old accusations against a former staffer (and blaming Bernie for it somehow) and also throwing salt his way for his SOTU response (which, honestly, his insistence on doing his own response seemed a bit "look at me, I'm running in 2020!"). Which is why Bernie Sanders was put on blast after he gave a response to Trump's State of the Union speech after the Democrats had already tabbed Stacey Abrams to deliver the formal response. It was classic Sanders. Grandstanding, arrogant and clueless. Sanders deserves the salt for many reasons, but the most justified one is he wants to be the presidential nominee of a party he's not a part of. I don't know who I want the Democratic presidential nominee to be just yet, but I would prefer they be an actual Democrat. Yeah, that's just you flexing your knee-jerk response that a tribe of Progressives are waging an internecine battle against any Democrat who doesn't follow their agenda to the letter. That's a theory. Got any proof? Perhaps someone is trying to scuttle Sen. Klobuchar's presidential launch before it leaves the pad. Maybe it's the Left or maybe it's some conservative cabal or Russian and Chinese bots sowing dissension and creating confusion. Those are all viable options, and I have a feeling this is only previews of coming attractions. The 2020 elections could be successfully hijacked by external forces and there's no sign the Trump Administration and Congress are doing anything to defend against it. The WaPo also is the source for one of the biggest boost to Klobuchar's presidential aspirations and surprisingly it comes from a lifelong conservative, George Will. I believe Amy Klobuchar checks off a lot of boxes for Democrats. She's smart, approachable, and not a bomb-thrower. The Justice Democrats of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the progressive Left will view her as too mainstream and moderate to deserve their support. That's too bad, but it's worth noting that despite their success with AOC, every other candidate endorsed by the Justice Democrats lost their electoral runs in 2018. As regards Klobuchar's problems with her staff, that's worth inquiring about, but it's not a deal breaker. It's just talk and the timing of it is meant to overshadow her announcement. If she were to win the nomination, I'd love to see her tap Tammy Duckworth as her running mate, but I don't believe America is ready for two women on the same ticket. Agreed, but there's still time for the Dems to tidy up and rally behind a candidate to take down Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 9, 2019 16:57:37 GMT -5
I'm a little hesitant to put too much faith behind anonymous reports.
The dems throwing their hat in the ring so far aren't impressing me, but there's a part of me saying, "Hey, they're up against Trump. How bad can they be to lose to him?"
Then I remember, he won once already.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 9, 2019 18:34:37 GMT -5
Which is why Bernie Sanders was put on blast after he gave a response to Trump's State of the Union speech after the Democrats had already tabbed Stacey Abrams to deliver the formal response. It was classic Sanders. Grandstanding, arrogant and clueless. Sanders deserves the salt for many reasons, but the most justified one is he wants to be the presidential nominee of a party he's not a part of. I don't know who I want the Democratic presidential nominee to be just yet, but I would prefer they be an actual Democrat. As would I, which is why I pointed out that his insistence on doing his own SOTU response came off as a kind desperate "look at me! I'm running in 2020!" attention grab. Sanders is kind of an odd bag of policy issues for me. I really like some of the things he says, but he also holds some incredibly anti-science beliefs (regarding alternative medicine) and sometimes when he speaks about "big S" Socialism, it makes me question whether he knows what it actually is (in the same way I often question whether the Democratic Socialists actually understand it). But, then once I start agreeing with him on something, he'll then do/say something that reminds me that he's only a Democrat when it's convenient for his political goals. It's actually a hypothesis, not a theory. If I actually had proof, then it would be a theory. That's pretty much my point. I don't know enough about her to really have an opinion on whether she'd make a good President, but I've worked for enough asshole bosses that fit the description of her behavior from these "anonymous staffers" that admittedly it kind of riles up my "anti-asshole boss" bias, and casts her in a more negative light in my eyes. I'm trying to step back and not let that affect my opinion and remind myself that this story could very well turn out to be a big pile of mostly manufactured bullshit. But, I'm also hoping that these early flame-outs will, as you said, make way for better candidates later this year. If the Dems can get the clown-car controversies out of the way early, then great. That means fewer surprises when the candidates with serious chances are in the race. I don't want any "October surprises," whether it's in 2019 or 2020. It's the "approachable" part that I think these accusations are aimed at dismantling. Also, as a sad indictment of the state of partisan politics, it's interesting to me that if these types of things came out about a Republican candidate, Trump has shown that the base likely wouldn't care, which says a lot about the types of people in the far-right base. I like what I've seen of Duckworth. She's shares some similarities in her military background with Tulsi Gabbard, but thankfully she comes without all the head-scratchingly crazy takes on things like Obama's performance and the Syria/Assad situation that Gabbard has. I hope so. I still hold out hope that Gavin Newsom will throw his hat in the ring or at least start raising his national profile.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 9, 2019 18:42:16 GMT -5
Then I remember, he won once already. Sometimes it still feels like a bad dream or that whoever programmed this Matrix we're all living in accidentally spilled coffee all over the keyboard.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 11, 2019 8:46:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 11, 2019 9:36:45 GMT -5
If Sen. Klobuchar can garner double-digit support in the polls, she'll have no problem finding staffers, and more importantly, contributors who may gravitate to her brand of "Minnesota Nice." One of her biggest assets (and potential problems) is among Klobuchar's fans is a group that would never vote for her, but have a lot of admiration and respect for her.Bipartisanship has become a baaaaaad word in these hyper-partisan times, but Klobuchar has seemingly found a way to reach across the aisle to work with the Republicans. That will make her suspect to some left-wing Democratic voters craving a candidate who will all but punch Trump in the nose, but if you want someone who would rather talk things through with the other side instead of simply demonize and demagogue against them, Amy K. has a chance to be the rarest of rare Democrats: liberal enough to be appealing to the base and moderate enough to be elected by the rest of the country. When the debates begin the praise showered on Klobuchar by conservatives will likely be used against her. I can see Warren, Harris and Booker particularly throwing jabs at Klobuchar, but I'm certain she'll be prepared to defend her record while playing offense against their own. I'm far further on the left side of the dial than Klobuchar, but I admit to liking her and she would be an asset at the top of a ticket or as the running mate of whomever is.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 11, 2019 13:17:59 GMT -5
Klobuchar would be my favorite candidate among those declared, republican or democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 11, 2019 13:43:34 GMT -5
Klobuchar would be my favorite candidate among those declared, republican or democrat. Why? Genuinely interested because I don't know much about her.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 11, 2019 13:56:59 GMT -5
Briefly, I like her positions on immigration reform, foreign policy - specifically that Iran's nuclear ambitions must be stopped not contained -, her position on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and her push for carbon-free energy production (code word for nuclear).
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 11, 2019 15:26:17 GMT -5
Klobuchar would be my favorite candidate among those declared, republican or democrat. Why? Genuinely interested because I don't know much about her. Well, as long as you consider the source, Five Thirty Eight, which I know you give the side-eye to, you can learn quite a bit more about Amy K.
I still think there's gonna be a White male on the top of the Democratic ticket in 2020, but if I'm totally and completely wrong, why not Klobuchar?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 11, 2019 16:30:00 GMT -5
Why? Genuinely interested because I don't know much about her. Well, as long as you consider the source, Five Thirty Eight, which I know you give the side-eye to, you can learn quite a bit more about Amy K.
I still think there's gonna be a White male on the top of the Democratic ticket in 2020, but if I'm totally and completely wrong, why not Klobuchar?
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I don't side-eye 538. I generally like their content and follow them and Nate Silver on Twitter. I give the side-eye to Vox, Fox, and pretty much anything with "ox" in it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 11, 2019 16:58:40 GMT -5
Lox?
|
|