Clinton vs. Sanders

[loshan]

Although I get the Bernie love and I appreciate how he is pulling the entire conversation to the left, I will happily vote for Hillary if only for veto power and SCOTUS as opposed to a Republican sweep.

That puts me firmly in the Plumbean/Rigs camp.

The primary pie fight always puts me off politics. I suppose it is because fighting with the asshole neighbors down the street is one thing, fighting with family is different, and worse.

Washington is a caucus state (primary on the Dem side is just for show) so I'll worry about who I'll be strategically caucusing for closer to mid-March.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by loshan

Although I get the Bernie love and I appreciate how he is pulling the entire conversation to the left, I will happily vote for Hillary if only for veto power and SCOTUS as opposed to a Republican sweep.

That puts me firmly in the Plumbean/Rigs camp.

The primary pie fight always puts me off politics. I suppose it is because fighting with the asshole neighbors down the street is one thing, fighting with family is different, and worse.

Washington is a caucus state (primary on the Dem side is just for show) so I'll worry about who I'll be strategically caucusing for closer to mid-March.

This, a thousand-fold. I loathe primary season for this very reason. It's one thing to watch the political theater taking place in the now not-so-cramped clown car of the GOP. It's quite another to watch reasonable people destroy the oh so very fragile veneer of decency and civilization we have left. Hate in-fighting and I really hate that HRC is held to a double standard when it happens. I can dismiss the GOP HRC hate easily, but to see the latent sexism on the more progressive side come to the fore is truly disheartening. If any male campaigning said the things she does, he'd be called strong or ruthless-in positive tones; she does it and she's called conniving or bitchy or "ambitious". WTH? ANYONE running for Pres is ambitious by definition! Why is that a pejorative when applied to women only?

AuntiePam: Maybe. And maybe they see that Bernie sign and think that their GOP candidate has a better chance. I have yet to meet a modern conservative who does not hold contempt for the idealism of liberals. It's still very much a dirty word to them and a socialist is on par with a communist. But most conservatives will still be very polite and friendly to you (until you--general you-- go online or to a candidate rally--that seems to bring out their nasty side). So, chances are, you'll never know what your neighbors think about you or your choice (if your community is anything like mine).

The type of changes Smarty is referring to... are not going to happen in this country. We're too big, too heterogeneous, and too entrenched in our independent/ pioneer culture. On a more personal note, I was not a SAHM to take care of other people's children! I was one to do my absolute best by my own kids and to volunteer and give back to my community while I had time. I was fortunate (for a brief while) to be financially secure enough to live the life my mother and her friends wanted so badly to escape from. That's an entire other thread, but the very idea of a national collective daycare gives me the heebeejeebees. I don't even like the daycare sponsored at work (it lasted about a year). It's a lovely idea on paper. In some places it could be quite viable, but as a national approach to young working families, I'm leery. It's one of the many ideas that sound wonderful, but once you drill down, it gets dicey quickly. I firmly back young families having access to superior daycare of their choice.

Never mind the remote chance of getting funding, or even the bills necessary to get this kind of legislation passed, the massive cultural shift that would have to occur is unlikely, given the current distrust of Gment in general and the Right's loathing of liberals et al. We sometimes accuse the GOP of living in a bubble of entitlement. Sometimes I think we liberals live in a bubble of idealism.

Take this example:yes, it'd be lovely if every school in the country had an organic garden and that produce was used to make the school lunches (a meme going round FB right now, at least for me)... but that presupposes the political and human will to achieve that; the cost of water, soil, labor (done by the children in Gardening Class, apparently), maintenance etc. It also does not take into account that not all crops grow on a school time line or in the varied geographic regions. And then there is crop failure, insect infestation etc.
By all means, let each school have a garden--especially in urban schools so kids can learn where their food comes from and that nature is not "other", but the rest of it is very pie in the sky. And it may not lead to the results that are expected.

My point is that we don't get a "do-over". There is no clean slate to be had. We have to work within the parameters of the real and the true, not what we wish for. I wish, for another example, "Detroit" would stop making gasoline-powered cars, full stop, but again, it's not going to happen in my lifetime...