The Silencing of the Hillary Clinton Supporter

[deurbano]

41. Agree to disagree. And you are already blaming me "and people like" me for

future losses when revelations about what happened during the election are still unfolding?

The Republicans have done nothing but scream and throw tantrums and here they are. We need to become better at "working the refs" as Eric Alterman has often pointed out. The Republicans are experts at it, so the media kiss their asses, while the polite, civil, "let's just move on... nothing to see here" Democrats are rewarded with the NYT and Washington Post posting excerpts from a sleazy, completely un-newsworthy Breitbart publication, "Clinton Cash" just as Clinton begins her campaign. They always feel they have to bend over backwards to preemptively trash our side to satisfy the perpetually aggrieved and whining right-wing cry babies who are always shrieking about the liberal media. (Just so the whiners can later scream "FAKE NEWS!" anyway.)

Franklin was answering a question and he barely said anything, BUT he also said Clinton has a right to analyze what happened.

“And I think she has a right to analyze what happened, but we do have to move on. And we have to move on by proving we are the party that cares about a lot of the people who voted for Donald Trump.”

I agree with him. (Not that I am prepared to give a rat's ass about Trump voters just yet, given where they have brought us... but yes, work on our proposals and messaging, and show them how screwed they are under 45, and why Dems are better.) But It's possible to look to the future while also exposing the truth of what came before. In fact, we can't really come up with a winning strategy without correctly identifying WHY we lost. Clinton earned the right to point out what SHE thinks went wrong. Just read the Charles Pierce article. He's not some big Clinton apologist.

Comey was a giant issue. (Even 45's pollster said Comey cost Clinton the election.) What about fake news? Russia's role? The "liberal" press (see "Clinton Cash" above)? Voter suppression (very successful in Wisconsin, for example)? Misogyny? White nationalism... and racism, in general? The state of the DNC when Clinton's campaign began? (Hadn't heard that before.) Some Sanders' supporters (I started out as one) were not just pro-Sanders but anti-Clinton, and said she was basically the same as that disgusting piece of orange filth. (Did that cost votes in close states by dampening voter enthusiasm, leading to third party, write-in or no voting?) Maybe you don't agree with all of these possible issues... or any of them... but identifying what went wrong is a necessary precursor to making sure it doesn't happen again. I mean, we can't cure misogyny, but maybe if we shriek loudly enough about it, it will at least be on the radar. And who cares anymore what anyone thinks about the shrieking or the shriekers? Look where we are! Shrieking works.

My daughter saw Elizabeth Warren, yesterday, and she said Democrats can be too nice when it comes to politics. I agree.