General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy I Support Hillary Clinton (show me where I am wrong)
Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:53 AM - Edit history (2)
She would be the winner because she would be the first Female POTUS and that fact alone would make her a winner. In 2008, there were 10 million more female voters then there were male voters, yet there has never been a woman POTUS. Its their turn, and this is coming from a male. And let's face it, no Republican could say she is not qualified to hold that office. The same effect Obama had on the non-political Black community in getting them involved and voting, Hillary would have on the non-political female community, mothers and daughters would flock to the polls to take part in this historic event.
Hillary may be far to the right of me on most issues, and she voted for the war in Iraq, but I don't care because she may be the last best hope to save democracy in America. Money is undermining our political process, and that will only be changed by overturning Citizen United by the SCOTUS. The Justices Hillary would select could help do that, Justices selected by a Republican President would never do so.
Nothing the 221,316 users of this site want will occur, until the role of money in politics is reduced.
As much as I would love Elizabeth Warren to be our candidate, she will not run because, I am told, she does not like campaigning.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Not absent other reasons, anyway. If Alan Keyes had gotten the Republican nomination in 2000, he could've been the first black president; I still wouldn't have voted for him.
If I have an option I consider to be better in the primaries, she won't be getting my vote there. Should she win the nomination, I'll be voting for her.
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)She would be a winner because she would be the first Female POTUS. Being a winner is important because as President she selects the Justices for the SCOTUS. The Justices Hillary would select could help overturn Citizen United, and thereby lessen the effect of money in politics which now undermines american democracy. Therefore, she may be the last best hope to save democracy in America.
If Alan Keyes had gotten the Republican nomination in 2000, he could've been the first black president; You still wouldn't have voted for him, but among the non-political Black community he would have gotten a lot of votes and a heavy turnout.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)I'd prefer warren or sanders but it's more important to keep the w.h. b/c of scotus
Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Mrs. Clinton will surely do that herself. Most candidates do. I want a woman to be president too before I die but not her. She is not up to it and I have no truck with anyone who is that closely friendly with Bushes.
politicman
(710 posts)You really think that a candidate that is funding her campaign completely from the donations of the 1% and the corporations, will select a justice that would vote to decrease the influence of the 1% and corporations who give money to candidates?
Really, you should read what you write next time before posting it, Hillary is never going to go against her top donors by selecting justices that will restrict her donors ability to influence politicians.
Why would the 1% and corporations donate so heavily to her campaign if they thought for one second that their donated money would stop them from influencing a candidate in future?
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)wall street donates to both parties
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)politicman
(710 posts)Oh so her picks for candidates will be better than the repukes, but will still allow the 1% and corporations to donate heavily and influence the candidates?
I mean what other incentive is their for the 1% and corporations to donate so heavily to Clinton if they did not think that Clinton will just continue the status quo fo letting the very donations that they are giving her, influence other candidates?
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)More Republicans would be defunded then Democrats, so it helps her party
politicman
(710 posts)So you think that these 1% and corporations are donating so heavily and basically completely funding her campaign, all the while not having any assurances that Hillary wont nominate justices that would curtail their ability to influence candidates with donations?
Seriously, I don't know how you third-way democrats think, but your reasoning as to the reason of why the 1% and corporations are donating so heavily to Hillary is way off base.
The way that we can be sure that a candidate is looking out for the 99% instead of the 1%, is when the 1% don't donate as heavily as they are currently donating to Hillary because they know that their donations would be a waste of money.
I detest the 1%, but I can at least acknowledge that they are not dumb and would not be throwing huge amounts of money behind a candidate that they think will nominate justices that would curtail their ability to influence future politicians and policies with the very money that they are currently throwing behind a candidate.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And instigated the destruction of Libya.
Two of the most horrifically-awful actions our country has taken in the past 30 years. Hundreds of thousands dead, millions wounded. Such tragedy, for nothing!
I'm curious: at what point does a person's predilection for pointless mayhem become a problem for you?
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)"My country may she always be right, but my country, right or wrong, my country."
Most Americans thought we had a good reason to enter Iraq at that time (WMD), she along with most americans did not know she was being lied to.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Were they somehow even less informed than Clinton?
ellennelle
(614 posts)there were plenty of folks who knew it was all BS, but MSM was shilling the lies, and only those who bothered to read between the lines and look for authentic reporting had a clue. hell, all you had to do was look at the rest of the world's position. but those in congress were facing accusations of being unpatriotic (ironic now, with the bibi visit, no?), so anyone with a shaky electorate, or hopes for running for prez, these folks had to vote accordingly.
compromise operates on so many levels.
i do care that hillary voted for the AUMF; it did not impress me favorably then, and it still bugs me. too often dems make decisions out of fear of their adversaries rather than respecting and reflecting their own constituents; forget about their own conscience.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)QuestionAlways
(259 posts)58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution to go into Iraq. Those voting for the resolution are:
Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
Broward
(1,976 posts)and she was dead wrong.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Interest in their NO vote on the ISIS Resolution, this vote makes me ponder their ability to take action in a time of need, the security of the US is a large part of the presidents job.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And what did they give as the reasons for their votes?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)All means before attacking Iraq but he did not allow the inspections of WMD's to complete because he knew there wasn't any, but you know this information already.
Just as you do not accept Hillary's reason for her vote I also have the option of not accepting reasons given by Warren and Bernie. ISIS has proven to remain a problem, WMD's was not found. There are times a president is expected to protect this nation and its citizens, I do not see this in Bernie or Warren. Perhaps they could change in the future and I could change my thoughts.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or that they voted to not give arms to shadowy "Syrian rebels" who promised to only use them to fight ISIS and Syria, honest?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Vote as inability to receive security briefings and act accordingly.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)At least you might be able to answer this question: does it matter what was in the bill? Or only that the acronym ISIS was used with it?
John Poet
(2,510 posts)"Bernie and Warren did what they thought may excite their political
Interest in their NO vote on the ISIS Resolution, this vote makes me ponder their ability to take action in a time of need, the security of the US is a large part of the presidents job."
I think they voted their conscience. Is that NOT an option?!
"what they thought may excite their political interest"-- really, that more aptly
seems to describe what Hillary did last time.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)that sounds like the typical crap we hear from the right-wing,
when our people take a stand against war.... "the Democrats are weak"
It's insulting to see it over here.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Hillary only does things that could potentially help Hillary.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)
Dem Votes For-Against:
House: 82-126 (39%-61%),
Senate: 29-21 (58%-42%),
Total: 111-147 (43%-57%).
So did 57% of Congressiomal Democrats have better information than Hillary? Or does she have a proclivity towards sending other people's kids into war?
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Politicians should be held accountable for the votes.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She was scared to death of not appearing "tough".
And she still is.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I believe that's "most" if them.
What's more interesting is that a lot of those are people we consider party "leaders" including Biden and Kerry.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)One of the most morally and ethically bankrupt ideas I have ever, ever had the misfortune of hearing. This is uber-nationalism, this is the beginnings of facism. This is the oppression of minorities, and the destruction of a world through the violent and traumatic hell that is war. This is utterly disgusting.
Iggo
(49,552 posts)I haven't heard that shit since the 60s.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)This has been one of his crowning achievements. A lot of self styled Democrats to this day insist that Republicans who voted for the war did not mean it---that was just party loyalty. The Dems who voted for it--esp. Hillary---did it because they wanted to murder people.
Odd double standard.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)If so, can you cite what I wrote that indicates this? Because it's certainly not what I feel.
Each member of Congress, Democratic or Republican, that voted for war contributed equally to the mayhem, and none should ever again be allowed near the levers of power.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-backed post-coup government “rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries,” opening the door for further “violence and anarchy.”
The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras’ police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence, Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.
Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department’s response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In “Hard Choices,” Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.
First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
Anyone who admires Henry Kissinger, is not a Democrat.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks.
ellennelle
(614 posts)but certainly not an adequate one.
reminds me of all the accusations folks leveled at blacks for voting for obama, just because he was black.
evidently no one so far understood what you were trying to say because you did not say anything about appointing justices in your post. say what you mean, mean what you say.
fact is, she's up to her eyeballs in wall street money, and has been for many years (why do you think she chose NY to run for senator?). moreover, she's always been a hawk and a champion for protecting 'american interests' around the world. remember what her husband's sec of state, madeleine albright, said? why do we have such a big military if we never use it? hello?
my biggest reason for resisting her nomination is that she and bill are diehard DLC folks; read: middle way; read: money. say what you will about obama's links to money, but never forget, he beat the person who had wall street in her hip pocket. and i honestly cannot imagine she'd have given liz warren the time of day, whereas obama gave her tons of power to give power back to consumers and the middle class.
there are numerous other reasons i can't get excited about her, such as the reason i abandoned her six years ago. then she graphically demonstrated just awful management and judgment skills during her campaign, bad personnel, tacky infighting; think dick morris. at that point i got the icky feeling there was this attitude that the nomination belonged to her, that it should be a fait accompli; that entitlement has only grown this time around, and it honestly creeps me out. now she's showing similar poor judgment and management skills with this email thing (not that it's a real scandal, but she should have seen this coming). that whole scandal issue is not trivial, tho; there are so many old scandals the rightwing conspiracy are just dying to trot out again, scandals never resolved in their minds. and we all know faux snewz will beat those suckers to death, no matter what.
we need a clean slate, someone with nothing for those jackals to chew on, so they'll spend all their time trying to drum up crap instead of recycling tried and "true" BS. meanwhile, a clean slate candidate like obama (ahem, warren. or bernie. or o'donnell) is off and running, winning hearts and minds, and the election.
don't get me wrong; i admire much about hillary, and i'll of course vote for her against any and all republicans might offer. but, the fact that i can't get excited about her really concerns me because i know so many other dems who can't get excited, either. and it's that excitement that will make ALL the difference.
with all due respect, i agree with politician here; you really should have put more thought and care into your post, as it's a bit flimsy as an argument.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Not up to their eyeballs in corporate money.
ellennelle
(614 posts)i mean, there is only one dem prez candidate in the past decade, right?
but, i'll give you these in my lifetime. carter, dukakis, mondale, mcgovern. and obama.
now, i'll grant you obama raised a ton of money. but he was not 'up to his eyeballs' because it was all new money to him. and most of it was small donations. remember that part? that was his campaign coup.
republicans have always been awash in money because they have been since the late 19th century the party of money. the reason i did not list clinton or gore or even kerry is because they were all part of the DLC movement, whose raison d'être was "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." they recognized during the reagan years - when it was real clear investing in TV ads was the most important part of a campaign, and you need money to do that - that the dems faced a future of losing unless they brought big money on board. i call it 'the worst compromise', as opposed to the 'great' one (which was also horrible, but that's another matter).
clinton was in on that business from the beginning, and so was the core of the party. much as i admire gore and kerry, they bought into it too. (hell, kerry married it!)
of course, the role of money in politics in general is now legion, thx to the W's court appointees, alito and roberts. (W, of course, himself became prez courtesy of reagan's appointee, rehnquist, a notorious racist anti-Semitic.)
these historical facts should give us pause; i doubt anyone here would disagree with the sentiment behind your question, but it seems to me the reaction should NOT be to shrug and accept that everyone just does this money-whoring. we should instead keep pointing it out, and with the outrage it deserves.
moreover, seems to me we should therefore take the stance that anyone who is steeped in money - up to their eyeballs, as you say - should be regarded as highly suspect and dogged for it. hillary's just been in it too long for me to trust her on that count.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,600 posts)I'm just here to ensure everybody gets judged by the same standards.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)From what I've seen you are the first person to come out and state support for HRC.
(Maybe some in the HRC Group have but I haven't spent much time there to know.)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Supporting Hillary in DU is not allowed by the "progressive" masses. You must either support Warren or Sanders or now, O'Malley, who is the new shiny bangle of the moment. Never mind that Warren, Sanders, or O'Malley couldn't win in a general election. Hillary is very much supported in the HRC forum.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It's in my In Basket ... Just haven't opened it.
I see what you mean by O'Malley, the shiny new bangle. I suspect it's going to be like the 2012 pre-general election republican circus around here ... every week a different flavor of the month ... because many here are "ABH", even if that "anybody" is unknown outside of the county that they currently serve as Commissioner (but with impressive progressive chops).
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Martin O'Malley served eight years on the City Council, eight years as Mayor of a major city, and eight years as a Governor. I'm not aware of any actual county commissioners who are contemplating a run.
You're right that O'Malley trails in name recognition. If name recognition is everything, though, then we can skip the primaries and just see Bush versus Clinton redux. There are people in both parties who aren't thrilled with that prospect.
Many of the people who agree with O'Malley in condemning the "triangulation" strategy would love to see Elizabeth Warren as President. I'm among them, but, alas, I think it very unlikely that she'll run. O'Malley hasn't declared, but he's been working on the possibility for more than a year already. I think it more likely than not that he will run. Note that, when Barbara Mikulski announced her retirement, O'Malley fairly quickly took himself out of the race for her Senate seat, a race in which he would have been a big favorite. That was taken as an indication that he's serious about a national campaign.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Mind you ... I want a robust primary;but DU treats it's political candidate like middle school crushes ... an unknown yesterday, madly in love today, walk past them like we never knew him tomorrow.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Per your #10 you haven't previously seen support for Hillary. I've seen a lot of it (and I don't frequent the HRC Group, either). The people who are dismayed by the prospect of Clinton as the nominee have expressed great enthusiasm for Warren or Sanders as President, but the former's continuing noncandidacy and the latter's electoral weaknesses have also been discussed.
In the DU that I read, neither O'Malley nor Webb has been a temporary fad. There's been discussion of each of them over time, with O'Malley attracting more interest than Webb. O'Malley had a generally progressive record as Governor on many issues, but has been criticized over fracking. Webb is seen as more conservative. There's been no middle-school-crush support for either, nor has either been embraced one week and abandoned the next.
I don't expect the future discussion to meet your description, because there just won't be that many candidates. It's unlikely that next week Brian Schweitzer will indicate interest in running and attract adoring fans, and the week after Sherrod Brown will do the same, etc.
My fearless predictions: Clinton, O'Malley, and Webb will run. Warren and Brown (both Sherrod and Jerry) won't. In the very unlikely event that Warren does run, Sanders will stay out. Without Warren in the race, Sanders will want progressive issues raised, and will probably get in, but might stay out (or get in but then withdraw early) if he decides that O'Malley is adequately carrying that banner. Cuomo will run if and only if Clinton decides not to. I venture no prediction as to Biden or Schweitzer.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I don't know what boards you and 1StrongBlackMan have been reading, but I've seen loads of support for Hillary -- indeed, quite a bit of rabid support for Hillary, including smearing as a "Hillary hater" (or Republican troll) anyone who says anything negative about her.
Please also spare me this "not allowed" baloney. What happens is that someone waxes enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy, someone else has the bad taste to respond by mentioning something negative in her record, and the Clinton partisans get all defensive. To clarify: You're allowed to support Clinton, but other DUers are allowed to disagree with you. If your reaction to disagreement is to feel that you're not being "allowed" to post, then stick to the HRC Group.
ellennelle
(614 posts)meant to include mark penn in there for her 08 campaign. i mean, ugh; between him and dick morris, you have to ask what she was thinking? kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel. or sewer, take your pick.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)You would still support Clinton in 2016? Because, you know, Warren would be much more aggressive than Clinton at selecting truly liberal Justices.
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)she is a woman also. The 200,000 people on this site vote because of issues, most people do not
But Warren is not running. Winning is the only thing I care about in the 2016 election as I explain in my OP
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)there always has been and always will be some excuse why we "must" hold our nose and vote for a lesser evil candidate even as both parties slide farther and farther to the extreme right.
I choose to make my stand now against the corporatist takeover of the Democratic party. Maybe you will wait a couple more presidential elections until it slides to right more and you wake up to the "boiled frog" effect.
I don't know what the right answer is. But I know voting for a right-winger, whether they have a D or an R after their name is not the right answer.
That box will be left blank.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)It's all about the supreme court at this point.
K & R
Scuba
(53,475 posts)What's not to like?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)And the majority that cast votes, will not elect her.
There maybe Bush Burnout but there is also a lot of Clinton Burnout.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)HRC, from her past activities, has nothing good to offer Democrats.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)would make good picks there. As a woman, it's insulting to me that I have to support her because she's a woman. Policy is more important than gender.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)"last best hope" nonsense.
Response to HappyMe (Reply #19)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We're boned.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)In the past 23 years, when has Hillary fought for to save Democracy?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Least of all a warhawk, bought and paid for corporatist.
Fail.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)>Plumbing is good.
>Plumbing made America great.
<God made America great.
>God has plumbing.
>My little grandson told me.
ileus
(15,396 posts)No matter what.
There are a million great reasons for Hillary, and zero real reasons not to support her.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Maggie Thatcher.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)even though I think she could\would win it all. She's just so polarizing. We really need a less controversial candidate. It would be interesting to see who would run if she's out.
yellowwoodII
(616 posts)The fact that a majority of the American people supported the Iraq War can be explained by their exposure to the hawkish media. Pardon my cynicism, but the pro-war vote from some of our "leaders" can be explained by the contributions of the neo-cons. Money, money, money.
I expect more from people who should have known better
That war has cost us blood and treasure for over a decade and will continue to do so in the consequences that we are now experiencing.
Surely, we can do better.
I could give a darn as to a candidate's gender
Autumn
(48,707 posts)Her war stance, the TPP I just can't seem to get past those. We came, we saw, he died kind of turned my stomach and turned me off. Look up Joe Biden and how we got Clarence Thomas. 
TBF
(35,354 posts)I can give you a list a mile long of religious women who will not support Hillary. Seriously. I even know ladies down here who shared that they agreed with Wendy Davis on abortion, but that they vote on overall issues. And you saw what happened in that election - she got beat a lot more badly than I thought she would.
There are reasons to support Hillary, such as name recognition, but I wouldn't bet the farm on women turning out for her.
And that is the dumbest reason yet I have seen thrown up against Warren. If Warren doesn't "like campaigning" she wouldn't be a senator. Honestly, back to the drawing board.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Elizabeth Warren:
er average net worth of $8.75 million, including her home, secures her a spot the Top 1% bracket in terms of wealth.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/news/economy/elizabeth-warren-wealth/
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Good for them. Seriously. I think its great.
Its about HRC working for the rich, representing the rich.
Quit throwing out strawmen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/the-dc-centrists-straw-me_b_6800302.html
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
djean111
(14,255 posts)She was unable to comprehend that merely having money does not turn off Democrats.
That is one of the stupid mantras of places like Free Republic.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)same bullshit "logic" isn't it?
Strange perception for a Democrat it seems to me.
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)of opinion no matter who gets nominated. Can't see any Dem turning down Hillary for a Scott Walker type. That's the problem the GOP is faced with their extreme candidates getting nominated.
Right now Democratic operatives are following "The Extremes" and recording the tunes they are singing to the crowds that show up at their rallies. Tunes that may sound crazy to normal people, but are normal to the crazy people that show up GOP rallies.
If any of them get nominated we can be sure that those idiotic statements they made during the primary battles will show up when they are campaigning and embarrass them right out of the election.
Remember 47%?
All that crazy talk might get the primary win, but when the true crazy past statements come out, they're sunk. That's the GOP dilemma.
Ask Sharon Angle how she defeated herself by getting nominated, and how Harry Reid had every primary campaign speech she made recorded and the crazy parts amplified in the general election.
So far the GOP has never let an "Extreme" filter up to the top, just let them vent and venture into obscurity afterwards.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If she is our candidate she will lose to Jeb.
Because the big negative of Jeb is dynasty thing and if you have two dynasties as a choice people will just stay home.
And the SCOTUS thing is immaterial because the GOP controlled congress will never approve of anyone they don't like, and so her choices will be one that they do...and congress must agree to appoint them to the SC.
And it must be noted that all they need is 5 justices to win, not all 9, so you can have 4 that are as liberal as you want and still lose...and importantly a chief justice who will decide what cases are heard or not and Roberts is a fairly young man and will be with us for a long time...and the Dems in congress allowed him to become the chief with little opposition.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Those Congress members who voted for the Patriot Act and the AUMF, violated the US Constitution. It is only Congress that can declare wars. This is a responsibility they assume and it is only theirs to make; whether their constituents or their children will be called to fight, possibly be killed or injured. And of course it can ruin their political aspirations. All the more reason for them to make the most difficult decision, via argument and debate on the floors of the Senate and House.
Those who gave this authority to Bush and Cheney are totally responsible for all that these two did and are not fit to take on even more responsibility, as President.
Many of those who voluntarily abjugated their duties as Senator or House Representative didn't even bother to read the NIE report on Iraq.
It was not the body bags being flown into Dover AFB in the middle of the night, that convinced Hillary that her pro Bush/Cheney wars was wrong, rather her losing Iowa in the primaries.
Let us also not forget that John Kerry running in 2004 as Presidential candidate wanted to bring the troops home and end the wars. Hillary would not support him, as she was pro war. Many commented at that time, that she was looking to win in 2008 and therefore wanted Kerry to lose.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Really, any Democrat. So there, Hillary is no more attractive than any other. In fact, Hillary is worse than many others.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Hillary has won a huge landslide. Any logical thought process would show that Hillary would win a squeaker of a victory at best. But what the hell, a win is a win. The Republicans will still hold a majority in the Senate unless we win at least five seats. Looking at it, I figure three seats are possible, other than that we would need some pretty heavy duty coat tails to pick up those last two seats to make it a fifty fifty house with the VP as the Tiebreaker. Improbable is a very weak word.
But even if we do, the Republicans pick up more seats in the midterms, and again take control of the Senate. That means we won't have the House at all, and we may hold the Senate for no more than two years. So what kind of Supreme Court Justice can you nominate for a Senate that is that close to approve? Obviously you aren't going to nominate a Ginsberg. You're going to nominate a Kennedy, a moderate who switches sides often. If it is a Republican Majority Senate, which is far more likely, then the White House will have to put forth a full frontal assault in the media to pressure the Senate to confirm a Kennedy in lieu of another Alito.
Now, what is the one thing that is true about the Clinton's? Scandals always follow them. So figure Hillary will have if we are very lucky, six months before the scandals start to distract and weaken her. After that, the chances of a Kennedy getting confirmed become more and more unlikely. The chances that she'll be willing to fight to push a confirmation through of a left wing Justice like Ginsberg drop dramatically as time go by. Basically, after the first week, it just isn't going to happen.
Now, to your first point. Warren would be the first Female Potus. Palin would be the first female POTUS. That moron from South Carolina would be the first female POTUS if she was elected. The question is what do we want from that first Female? If it is merely her gender, than we're making the same mistake of identity politics that failed us in 2014 when we campaigned almost exclusively on the War on Women. Women did not turn out to vote for us in record numbers. They did not turn out to vote for our female candidates in winning numbers for the most part. The only women it seemed to help was Joni Ernst and Mia Love. In other words, Republicans.
So your idea that women would turn out in record numbers and support Hillary is not demonstrable by history. Your argument that it's time for the honor of the first female being elected, and that Hillary should have that honor is questionable. Your argument about the supreme court is accurate in that it identifies the probability of a nominee, but short sighted given the realities of the Senate Confirmation.
Things working against you and Hillary. Issues. Issues is what gave the election to the Republicans in 2014. It's how they won. They at least pretended to pay attention to issues. On far too many issues Hillary sounds a lot like them. A pro war pro big business pro free trade politician who supports the NSA spying on me and thee, the PATRIOT ACT, and Fast Track trade authority so Congress can shut up and pass the trade deals like they are supposed to.
Those issues will not garner the turnout we need to win the election. Hillary is on the wrong side of almost every populist issue, and that makes her a very bad candidate. Sure, she's got name recognition right now in the polling. But guess what, so do the Kardashian's. That doesn't mean I want them for the Presidency.
santroy79
(193 posts)dont get me wrong I would rather have a few other people as POTUS if I could pick (Sanders & Warren) but they would have little shot at winning. Hillary will probably win in a major blow out and also might carry the down ticket in a major way. I think it would be foolish not to give her our support.
Hillary 2016!
santroy79
(193 posts)I would love for Warren to be President but last time I checked she isnt even running. Unless Im missing something.
0nirevets
(432 posts)Hillary Clinton is the putative Democratic candidate. Like a pro football team's recently drafted QB waiting on the sidelines for an opportunity to play, we voters, like the players and coaches, may disagree on how the team is being run, or what players should next take the field, but that does not mean that we ever, ever, ever root for the other team or stop playing our guts out to win for our own team.
Democrats, I'm sad to say, are pretty lazy as a party. We stayed home in droves in the midterms, and look what happened. The current sad state of gridlock that replaced the previous gridlock is our own collective fault. All we had to do was show up.
No candidate is perfect, but a NON-vote for the eventual Democratic candidate is a YES-vote for the Republicans. Remember that next time you sit out an election.
ms liberty
(10,902 posts)It is insulting to me as a woman; it is also demonstrably incorrect. She wasn't supported by a majority of female democrats during her last presidential campaign, or she would have won the primaries and been our nominee in 08. I won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman, and the majority of women don't vote as a solid block in that way.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)The Clinton "brand" is a stain on the Oval office.
Republicans will rally around that idea to mobilize
their base to donate and GOTV.
Ignoring the mind numbing idiocy of Emailgate,
the Clinton brand is scandal ridden.
Missteps, poor word choice, and misremembering
surround the entire Clinton legacy.
Yet we should ignore all the bad decisions and vote Hillary?
It should be obvious that Hillary places her political ambitions
above what is best for the Democratic party, and the country.
Rather than put the party through the grueling and demoralizing
exercise of defending damaged goods Hillary should support
a better, untainted candidate, that would reflect well on the
party and actually HELP down ballot candidates.
We need that "new car smell", not a tired retread.
Hillary will be the single best fundraiser... for the republicans.
Is there a Democrat who would be more effective at mobilizing
right-wingers to donate and get out the vote?
Simultaneously, Hillary will demoralize the Democratic Wing.
The net result being depressed voter turnout, hurting the party.
Of course when the right-wing wins it will be the fault of
the "left" because they didn't march lockstep.
Hillary also has a serious health concern, blood clots.
In the event she is medically incapacitated that would
put a republican one step closer to the oval office!
But somehow we should overlook the polarizing nature
of the Clinton brand and vote for Hillary, because...
SCOTUS, woman, not a registered republican 
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)all women in this country are not going to step forward and vote for a woman candidate just because she's a woman. I was going to make a very sarcastic post and say yes, women always vote for other women and that's why we now have Senators Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Alison Grimes, and Governor Wendy Davis, but I didn't. However, you need to think about those women and the fact that they lost, before you say Hillary will be a winner because she'd be the first female President.
So please, get over the assumption that she is a total shoo-in to win. You need to understand how many conservative women are out there, how many deeply religious ones sincerely believe that women have no place in the public sphere, how many still vote as their husbands do, regardless of the privacy of the ballot box.
And this entire email thing is just the beginning. I've been saying for a year or more now that the Hillary supporters simply have no clue about how widely disliked she is outside of a rather fervent core of supporters, many of whom post here at DU. Look, I'm NOT trashing your support of her, but I am pointing out that she is far, far from bullet-proof or automatically electable. I've been saying that if she gets the nomination, what the other side will do to her will make the entire swift-boating of John Kerry look like a love-fest.
Added on edit: You are not wrong to support Hillary Clinton. Where you are wrong is that you assume she's automatically the winner of the general election simply because of her gender.
Response to SheilaT (Reply #68)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Or any other woman with a shot at winning.
The sad truth is that HRC has only won one election in her life and that was a Senate seat that she Carpetbagged and really could not lose.
She is a terrible candidate. She ran a terrible campaign in '08 and if she bigfoots her way to the nomination she will not be up to the toughest campaign in history (and make no mistake, it will be the toughest campaign in history).
If you really believe that our country's democracy is at stake then you should support a better candidate. Simply saying that she will win because of her gender isn't enough and that is why you are wrong.
greatlaurel
(2,020 posts)"Clinton Denial of the Pipeline
The Department of State did not issue a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline while Clinton served as secretary of State. Environmentalists suspected Clinton supported the project and was preparing to award it the administration’s stamp of approval. But that didn’t happen before Clinton left the administration and former U.S. Sen. John Kerry was tapped for secretary of State.
In fact, in 2012, Clinton's Department of State recommended President Barack Obama deny the Keystone KL pipeline after Congress set a 60-day deadline for the administration to review the project. However, that decision was rooted in the time constraints and not the merits of the pipeline plan itself.
"The president concurred with the department’s recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest," the State Department said in January 2012."
It is interesting that HRC stated she was "inclined" to approve the pipeline, but, in fact, denied the pipeline based on the short timeline from the GOP congress. She does not insult the unions pushing for approval of the pipeline, while finding a way to deny the approval. Some folks might recognize that as being a really good politician.
I think we should look at the results we got from HRC on the pipeline. Ultimately, environmentalists got the result they wanted and that was a denial of the pipeline.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)she should be so ashamed as to have left public life after that.
She should be ashamed to even consider running.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)corporate candidate. NO THANKS.
HRC supports TPP, that should tell us all she says about anything else is up for grabs. I think we already had our talk-a-good-game token win. Nothing is going to change, unless we end this delusional adoration of tokens & rhetoric.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
When Limbaugh Compared 12-Year Old Chelsea Clinton To A Dog
Bill Clinton had been president-elect for just a few days when, on November 6, 1992, Limbaugh launched one of the nastiest attacks of his career against an innocent target: 12-year old Chelsea Clinton.
Complete video of that day's program does not appear to be available online, but a portion of Limbaugh's attack was aired in a 1995 documentary about Limbaugh by PBS' Frontline. Also, a transcript of the program is posted in the Nexis database.
Limbaugh began the segment by noting that the New York Daily News' David Hinckley published a list of who's entering and leaving the White House. Limbaugh stated: "He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could -- could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at -- see who is the cute kid in the White House."
The program then put up a picture of Millie, the Bush family's dog. Limbaugh responded, in mock confusion, "No, no, no, no. That's not the kid." The program then puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, with Rush saying, "that's the kid."
Watch a portion of this exchange from Frontline, this part of a series. Rush has had the rest pulled off the net, but this Media Matters article goes into what Rush was always about as well as linking to the NPR videos:
A full-blown racist and misogynst, who said daily HRC's UHC plan would implement Death Panels. A precursor to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party goons who attacked Democrats at Town Hall meetings that dared to suggest the ACA would change health care, and it even has a UHC provision if a state wanted to have it. In states where UHC was not adopted, Medicaid expansion under the ACA acts as UHC for those who qualify for it.
All that hatred, due to Hillary's support of health care reform, the rights of the poor, women and children seems to have been forgotten. This is about attacking those groups, no one should be confused about that.
Limbaugh got voters to put Newt Gingrich in and was the beginning of Tom DeLay's 'permanent Republican majority.' So much evil was spouted by this demagogue and he's still there and will be for a long time, barring the total defeat of his world view by HRC and the rest of the Democrats.
The GOP are forever beholden to him for the victory he gave to them through propaganda. He has no shame and is not dependent upon revenue by advertisers. Dick Armey revealed as he left one of the Koch front groups that they'd been paying Rush. His father funded his network when other networks ran him off for racist rants.
It would be so sweet to see Rush go away. But from what I'm hearing in my area, he's still getting converts. And it's working on a very personal level, his disdain is adopted by people who mistreat their family members because of learned heartlessness and selfishness from this thoroughly evil man.
HRC's victory would not be about her, but more for us who believe in liberal causes and progressive legislation. Yes, she will be seen as polarizing. The right will continue to hate her and ALL Democrats, but are we afraid when they call Obama a 'fringe left-winger'?
Why should we cede the ground to such who want us destroyed as Limbaugh and the Tea Party do, when it's really not about anything HRC has done?
Most of what is said about her is RW misinformation, and they can use it on the left, they just frame it differently to cause us to fight amongst ourselves. And it's really our politics they object to, not HRC. Limbaugh also called for 'hunting down liberals with dogs.' I'm not going to keep company with those who will avoid HRC because of fear of Rush.
People should understand why his first target was HRC, and it was NOT because of the slurs we see her being assailed with people who purport to be Democrats but may not be, who say 'both parties are the same.' They are telling the truth, if they are Libertarian or Communist, whose ideology says Democrats and Republicans are a failure, so don't vote for them because it's not what they want.
We are better known by our enemies than our fair weather friends.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)If a republican gets elected president, he has no explanation why the country is going down the crapper other than to blame Obama. And that will wear off in a year or two.
But if a Dem wins the office and especially Ms Clinton, he'll be happier than a pig in shit. Every move she makes will be analyzed and explained in a way that makes her look un-American and weak. They've been doing it to Obama for years without much effect because Obama has the dignity and inner strength to handle it. Clinton does not. She'll react to everything they say and come off looking like a fool.
And they're going to say a lot. Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) may not be a major factor in American politics but CDF (Clinton Drama Fatigue) sure as hell is.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Not going to tell you that you are wrong. I hope I can expect the same respect in return, since I am not voting for her in the primaries.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Seriously, THAT is your first argument?
Is this based on her large campaign contributions from the financial industry, or her social ties to the financial industry?
So....do you have an argument based on anything besides your poor assumption about women and projections onto Clinton?
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)While slightly more than half of men don't like her. Very telling in my estimation.
ram2008
(1,238 posts)Just because she's a female doesn't mean she deserves the presidency, there are other candidates who are qualified as well. And any Democratic candidate/president will appoint justices who are liberal.
You say you want money out of politics, yet Hillary is the representation of the whole system of money in politics- she represents the establishment and will be funded by big money donors. If that is your worry then Hillary should be the last person you support.
Your reasoning for voting for her is weak, and casting a vote for the reasons you stated would be irrational.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Ignore the Iraq War Vote for a moment, and list Clinton's populist bona fides.