I'm told "If you ever want a balanced SCOTUS, set your values aside and shut up and vote for HRC."

[NYC_SKP]

I repeat.

If you want integrity on the court, you'd better suck up and select the electable and forget about your values and your principles.

This makes as much sense as following a Deep Fried Twinkies with Bacon diet to lose weight.

Mmmmmm. Bacon!

[still_one]

1. No. What is being said is vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general elections.

[merrily]

59. As to the 2016 Presidential primary, anointee seems more likely that nominee, as the term "nominee"

has traditionally been understood.

And the 2016 Presidential primary is not the beginning or the end of that story. People who are prominent in the party and people who are powerful in the party have been disparaging primaries publicly. Schumer said he made avoiding primaries the official policy of the DSCC when he took it over in 2005.

If we stand for this, we may as wave bye to the only time we are supposed to be able to against Democrats. If that is okay with you, I can't respect that. It's not okay with many of us.

[still_one]

83. There is NOT one potential Democratic nominee who WON'T make a better SC choice than any of the

potential republican nominees.

Anyone who doesn't comprehend this needs to look at the makeup of the current court, and the difference in the justices appointed by Democrats verses the ones appointed by the republicans.

[CTyankee]

141. That fact DOES remain!

[sabrina 1]

118. If we want to have a SC that represents the interests of the people, we need to make sure the Dem

Party provides a candidate the people can go out and vote FOR. Telling people to vote 'for our candidate or else' is a sure way to a SC that will represent the interests of the Corporate State.

[Vincardog]

151. It would help if the President did not represent the interests of the Corporate State.

[Agschmid]

177. This.

Seems people are being obtuse.

[Xipe Totec]

2. As if the only election that mattered was the President's

If you want a balanced SCOTUS you need to purge the Senate and Congress of regressive vermin.

[arcane1]

6. Beat me to it!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Who puts forth the nominee for SCOTUS ...

Justices?

Yes. A Democratic Presid r ncy is that important.

[Xipe Totec]

30. Who can block the nomination?

Any one of 100 senators.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Not true ...

If I remember my Civics correctly, a single Senator can block a Federal Nominee; but, not a SC Nominee.

But even if that is true ... with a Democratic presidency, they block one nominee and another and another, we still don't get a republican nominee for 4-8 years.

[Xipe Totec]

35. It's called a Senate Hold. There are no limits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. I'm still not convinced ...

I'll have to research it more ... Senate Holds apply to legislation; but I'm not sure about SC Justice nominations, as there is a separate procedure for withholding consent for Judicial nominees, i.e., the Blue Slip ... that is limited to the home state Senator.

So I'll have to dig deeper.

[Major Hogwash]

53. Senator Barbara Boxer is not running for re-election next year.

If the Republicans somehow snatch one of those Senate seats in California, then we are in real trouble.

If we manage to keep both seats from California in 2017, then all the Democratic President (whatever her name is) would have to do is nominate lawyers or judges from California to sit on the Supreme Court, and that would eliminate any Senator from using the "blue slip" procedure to block a nominee.

Easy peasy, as my niece would say.

[merrily]

55. Republicans have been laser focused on California since Texas went red and California went blue.

They want, at a minimum, proportional voting for President in California (but nowhere else) so bad they can taste it.

I wonder how focused Democrats have been about that. I know California Democrats oppose it, but it should be an issue for all Democrats.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. I'm not convinced that the "Blue Slip" (or the "Senate Hold") applies to SC Nominees ...

I suspect it doesn't, as my quick search has not turned up a single instance of either. And, if either applied, we wouldn't have had the "Bork Fight" (not confirmed by the Senate) or the Harriet Miers (withdrawn at Democratic and republican objections). If either the Blue Slip or the Senate hold had applied, we certainly would have seen it/them in these cases.

[Gothmog]

153. Senate holds are part of the blue slip process and does not apply to the SCOTUS

Holds are only available to a senator in the homes state of the judge or justice being considered and this process does not apply to the SCOTUS nominations.

[Scootaloo]

63. And what do you want?

A Democrat who will pander to a Republican congress, offering up some flannel-mouthing Kennedy-style mostly-conservative?

Or a Democrat who will push for a strongly principled - dare I say empathic? - judge regardless of whether the Republicans like it or not?

I do not want a democrat whose entire impetus is compromise with reactionary conservatives.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Who do I "WANT" ...

or what will I GET with a republican nomination ... I suggest we will GET neither, should a republican do the nomination.

[leftofcool]

3. No, you should vote for who ever you want to vote for.

I suspect that many Dems care more about their values than SCOTUS choices. Everything is about choices. Allow Hillary supporters to make theirs as well.

[merrily]

69. Who the hell is stopping Hillary supporters from making their choice? As if anyone could anyway.

If Hillary supporters want to play victim this time around, they have to make a hilarious stretch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7

[Adrahil]

122. AFAIC...

If someone cares more about ideological purity than the practical matter of who gets nominated to the Supreme Court, that person is a fool and frankly doesn't belong here as they are not aligned with the TOS, which clearly states we vote for democrats here and work to get them elected, because winning elections matters.

[Gothmog]

154. I live in Texas where we are dealing with the effects of the Shelby County case

Due to Alito and Roberts being on the bench, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was gutted and we are having to sue to stop voter id laws and other changes that would never be allowed. The SCOTUS makes a difference

[liberal_at_heart]

4. I'm sure the intimidation factor will only increase as we get closer to 2016.

It will no doubt get pretty nasty around here. Good thing most people don't base their decisions on what strangers tell them to do on the internet. I know I don't.

[sharp_stick]

5. That's not true and hopefully you know that

All you need to do in order to get a balanced SCOTUS is vote for the Democratic nominee.

I don't think anyone gives a shit if you write in Mickey Mouse for the primaries just as long as you go out and vote for the person that wins the primaries even if it isn't Mickey Mouse.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. Luckily we don't even have to do that. We can vote for whomever we want in the primary and

in the general.

[sharp_stick]

10. Sure you can

but if you vote for Mickey Mouse in the general you stand a pretty good chance of losing the Supreme Court for a generation.

Personally, it's looking like Martin O'Malley is about to throw his hat in the ring. I could probably line up behind him pretty quick but if he doesn't win it, I'll go with the nominee.

[merrily]

67. Your vote in an anointing doesn't mean a hell of a whole lot, though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7

If the only true choice you have is in the general, that's not much of a realistic choice, either--and I say that as one thoroughly disgusted with the Third Way/No Labels cabal.

[arcane1]

11. It helps to have real liberals in congress and the Senate, too.

Scalia, for example, was confirmed 98–0 by the Senate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Who nominated Scalia?

[arcane1]

33. Exactly! The problem there was more than just a republican president.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. True, but to ignore who does the nominating is

foolhardy ... especially when considering that the next President (assuming 2 terms) will likely be putting forward 2, and as many as 5 nominees.

I'd far rather have them nominated by a Democrat ... meaning the likelihood of getting another conservative like Scalia is approaching zero, even if the Senate doesn't confirm another RBG.

[arcane1]

37. Agreed!

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. I hope you understand ...

I was not arguing against the importance of House and Senate majorities ... just the above assertion that there is more to consider than having a Democratic president.

[arcane1]

41. I do! I think we were both approaching the same thing from opposite ends

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Yep ...

[sharp_stick]

45. I think that's a very astute

and correct conclusion.

[sharp_stick]

44. Bang On

[Major Hogwash]

54. Worse than him, who nominated Bork?

We dodged a bullet that time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. Yes, we did ...

and I'd rather avoid giving a republican the gun in 2016.

[merrily]

68. Confirmed UNANIMOUSLY, after very few softball questions. Please see Reply 64.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. I know the record on Scalia; but, two points ...

First, Scalia was tapped, and confirmed, after the Bork fight ... it was a different day in politics, when there was a measure of comity in the Senate. The Democratic confirmation votes were more about fence-mending with republicans, so that the Senate could go on with the business of State; rather, any agreement with Scalia's conservatism;

Secondly, Scalia's record while in the lower courts, though staunchly conservative, did not displayed any of the partisan, results-oriented, willingness to violate precedent. I can live with a principled conservative jurist because they respect legal reasoning.

Lastly, the point of my contributions to this discuss is to highlight the importance of controlling the nominations ... No Reagan Presidency; no scalia or thomas. No bush presidency, no roberts or alito.

This is not to say controlling the nomination will give/have given us 4 RBGs; but, it would have/will limit the damage.

[merrily]

106. I'm sticking with Reply 64.

Besides, even if you are correct, comity is no excuse to stick America with Scalia or anyone else.

The Supreme Court is about us, not about how Senators behave toward each other. IMO, that is one of the core problems today, both politicians and their supporters thinking everything is about politicians and parties. We are not at a football game between the red team and the blue team, politicians are not hometown heroes and we ought not be their unconditionally loyal fans.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. See that is the difference ...

IMO, that is one of the core problems today, both politicians and their supporters thinking everything is about politicians and parties. We are not at a football game between the red team and the blue team

you are trying to define the world (of politics) as you wish it were; rather than, how it is! Politics and war are merely games, albeit with real world consequences, to be won or lost by those playing.

[merrily]

108. No, not even a little.

First, I made no attempt at all to define the world of politics or any other world, let alone my ideal world. don

I don't even know how you got any of that from a statement that we (the 100%) are not at a football game and we ought not be reacting like loyal fans. I don't even know how someone can even disagree with that statement.

Politics and war are merely games, albeit with real world consequences, to be won or lost by those playing.

Forgive me, but I don't even know what that means in the real world I would suspect families trying to cope wth a loved one who came back from Iraq unable to move, even to toilet themselves, while Ryan works out at the House gym and Hillary runs for President might not grasp your meaning, either. Same for people who lost their homes to banks as a result of repeal of Glass Steagall and/or NAFTA and then lost whatever rights they may have had against the banks in the bank settlement.

Whether "those playing" what you call "merely games" win or lose their re-election bids or bids for higher office or not, they generally do just fine anyway. Just ask Cantor, Romney, Lieberman, Daschle et al. It's the rest of us who really win or lose by their "games."

[U4ikLefty]

114. Awesome post!!!

[merrily]

117. Thank you. Much appreciated.

[TorchTheWitch]

134. Brilliantly said!

I want to embroider it on a pillow... though a rather exceedingly large pillow it would need to be.

Bravo!

[merrily]

135. Thank you.

Sorry about the pillow, though. Terseness just doesn't seem to be one of my natural gifts.

[Gothmog]

156. The Senate was a very different animal when Scalia was confirmed

I remember the Bork confirmation battle and that was a bitter fight that allowed Scalia to be confirmed in order to attempt to restore comity. If Scalia had not been confirmed, then neither Ginsburg nor Breyer could have been confirmed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. That was my exact point . Thanks.

[Gothmog]

161. Once again, you and I are in agreement

Law school really messes you up on somethings

[1StrongBlackMan]

163. Yeah ...

It makes one look at the context and history of a matter .

[merrily]

190. I already made the only comment about comity I have to make on that subject.

I think it was Reply 106.

If Scalia had not been confirmed, then neither Ginsburg nor Breyer could have been confirmed.

That is speculative and also does not explain the softball questions, nor the limited number. Again, even the hearings are not all about them. To the contrary, I suspect the hearings have nothing to do with them, even in their own minds, other than they play to the camera.

Also, when they confirmed Scalia they did not even know that Bubba would get elected or what Congress would consist of at that time or whether Clinton would have an opportunity to nominate any justices.

[Gothmog]

155. Early on, Scalia wrote some well reasoned opinions

Scalia is a conservative but he believes in stare decis and his opinions used to be well written. Since Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia has been letting his homophobia get in the way of jurisprudence and I believe that Scalia is either senile or skirting senility. We need a Democrat in the White House to pick his and Kennedy's successor

[sharp_stick]

43. Oh absolutely

The Senate and Congress have to be the overall goal.

Scalia is a cancer on the court.

[merrily]

70. Please see Reply 59 and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Well, surely you know, no other lefty who runs would ever choose any SCOTUS judges

who might even be more to the left of those HRC would choose.

[JaneyVee]

9. No one cares who you vote for.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Surely the Deep Fried Twinkies with Bacon will affect my judgment.

The sugar-fat buzz can do that!

[Katashi_itto]

17. I'll be to waffle-buzzed to vote Hillary

[Autumn]

81. Waffles. Any berries and whipped cream. Side of bacon

Yeah, I'm there.

[Katashi_itto]

98. :)

[merrily]

120. Mmmm. Waffles AND bacon.

[truebluegreen]

13. "...a balanced pro-business SCOTUS...."

Fixed it for ya.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. +1

[msongs]

14. exact same argument was used to vote for obama in 2012. nt

[OilemFirchen]

20. Pretty sure it was proven to be correct. (n/t)

[TheKentuckian]

91. By what? He has had no nomination for the Supreme Court since then and has

ended up posting corporate conservatives and even open Republicans to lower courts.

A major problem is that TeaPubliKlans will fight like hell against anyone more liberal than moderate with a corporate friendly lean when Democrats nominate but Democrats will show deference to ANY TeaPubliKlan nominees except the most absurdly over the top and open nut jobs (see Bork) and the utterly incompetent (see Myers) but will tolerate any level of right wing ideology or repugnant jurisprudence (see the majority including fake swing vote Kennedy).

[maui902]

16. I will never "tell" anyone how he or she should vote

But I will try to persuade like minded liberals and progressives to support the Democratic nominee, whoever she or he might be. I respect that each person has the right to vote for whomever he or she wishes, but in the general election each of us who supports a liberal candidate who did not win the primary will have a choice--vote for the winner of the Democratic primary and increase the chances that someone other than a Republican/conservative will occupy the White House for the next four years or vote for the candidate who best represents my values but who has no chance to win the election. From my perspective, every vote matters, and the time to support and vote for the liberal/progressive candidate who best represents your values is in the primary, where your vote will not be wasted. FWIW, I am open to Democratic candidates other than HRC, if for no other reason than to stimulate debate about the Democratic nominee should represent.

[uponit7771]

18. Hillary is electable and a progressive

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Part of that statement may be true; part of it almost certainly isn't.

[uponit7771]

24. Both are true enough for America to progress... Im not looking perfection that some will rip...

.. apart at the slightest sign of not being 110% "progressive" that FUD constantly redefines for the left

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. If Hillary is "progressive" then I'm Queen Elizabeth.

[winter is coming]

77. I expect that if people said they're not interested in HRC because she's not Queen Elizabeth,

we'd get a rash of posts claiming that she is.

[uponit7771]

79. Strawman, I typed "progressive enough"... FUD and some .5% of dem voters are looking for perfection

... not me

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

21. I guess if she's in the general election yes

Are you implying Bill Clinton's Supreme Court appointees were righties? If so please elaborate.

[KoKo]

22. She's got some bad stuff out their lurking about Ukraine.....

Might not all get put together until she is our One and Only Candidate...but...it's not good. Clinton Foundation, Russian Oligarch, Petersen Foundation connection...STUFF.

But, then, these days what's Good is Bad for Some /Bad is Good for Others...and you know the Drill.

[antigop]

26. did you see this one?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-friends-1426818602

Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends
Foundation agreed not to seek donations from other governments, but cash kept flowing from individuals with connections to them

[KoKo]

39. This....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/us/politics/trade-dispute-centers-on-ukrainian-executive-with-ties-to-clintons.html?_r=2

[Major Hogwash]

51. How would any of that impact us concerning SC nominees?

I guess you don't know who appointed Thomas or Scalia?
It sure as hell wasn't a Democrat!!!!

[merrily]

64. Who voted for (let alone block) both those confirmations? It sure as hell wasn't only Republicans!

Italian immigrants and their descendants represent an enormous number of voters, the largest single immigrant group, according to a map at the Ellis Island Museum of Immigration. Italian immigrants and their descendants used to be almost exclusively Democratic voters. But, it took a Republican to nominate an Italian to the SCOTUS bench. Apparently, Democrats not only did not want to keep him out, they didn't even want to look picky about confirming him.

Whereas Rehnquist's confirmation was contentious, Scalia was asked few difficult questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and faced no opposition. Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, becoming the first Italian-American justice.[2]

We know that Clarence Thomas's nomination pitted issues of workplace sexual harrassment against confirmation of the African American Justice nominated to fill the seat of the nation's very first African American Justice, the great Thurgood Marshall. Additionally, the ABA had given Thomas the lowest rating of any Justice. (OnO'Connor had also received a similar rating, but when she was graduated from law school, there was no affirmative action for women, but plenty of discrimination against female lawyers. Her first job after being admitted to the bar was legal secretary. Thomas had the benefit of affirmation action all along.)

So, there was a close vote for Thomas. However, close votes are not that hard to arrange and he did get confirmed, including by Democrats in a Democratic majority Senate, despite very good reasons not to confirm him.

Anyone who takes DC kabuki at face value is too adorable for words. Anyone who pretends to take DC kabuki at face value reeks, IMO.

[Lordquinton]

29. what member of the Democratic party would tell others to shut up?

This is so counter to democratic values, all your doing is fostering an environment of resentment and promulgating the lie that only hillary is electable.

Who would have thought that a black guy nammed Hussein could become president? Twice! And he beat Hillary, she lost once already.

[great white snark]

31. Cool, cling tightly to those principles while your fellow citizens suffer.

BTW where are these elusive DUers who tell people to shut up? Statements like mine elicit discussion.

[merrily]

61. As if ending welfare "as we know it," signing DOMA and NAFTA and lobbying Democrats to

vote for repeal of Glass Steagall did not cause Americans to suffer.

[JTFrog]

89. So, you are judging her on her husband's merits?

How unsexist of you.

I'm not a big fan of Hillary's, but that has nothing to do with her husband's actions in office. Those who are spouting their anti-Hillary talking points here day after day should have better material than this.

And I will vote for her in a heartbeat over any ass backwards crazy right wing dictator regardless of DU's hair on fire hate fest.

[merrily]

109. What utter ad hom crap. The only thing I "judged," IF ANYTHING, were the statements in a post of

Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2015, 03:16 AM - Edit history (2)

great white snark to which I was replying.

That post implied that those whose principles will not allow them to vote for the Democratic nominee cause their fellow Americans to suffer. The point of my reply was that voting for, even electing, the Democratic nominee does not automatically prevent suffering.

I cited actions of the Clinton administration simply because it was the most recent Democratic administration before Obama's and I did not want to debate the current administration. My post didn't even fucking mention Hillary or any other woman.

Should I have gone back to the 1970s for the Democratic administration before both Obama's and Clinton's? Is that is what is really necessary these days to avoid a charge of sexism on DU?

Or is any criticism of any Democratic administration at all going to be deemed sexist now because the Democrat who seems to be running for President currently happens to be a woman?

By the way, Sanders, O"Malley and Webb have all made noises about running for President, too. Was my point that voting Democratic does not necessarily prevent Americans from suffering also anti-white male?

I have been the victim of sexism quite a few times, but my reply to great white snark has zero to do with sexism. It's not even in the same universe. If you really thought the post was sexist, you should have alerted, rather than make an ad hom attack on me. That's what the jury system is supposed to be for, to conceal ugly posts for the benefit of all who read DU posts.

And, of course, heaven forbid you should even attempt to address any fact stated in my purely factual post, when you could just ignore everything my post actually said for the pleasure of insulting me for things my post never mentioned at all.

However, let me not do to you what you did to me by totally ignoring the substance of your post, scant and utterly misplaced and ad hom as it was. Besides, I've seen this issue come up before with other posters.

As already stated, my reply to great white snakr was about voting (or not voting) causing our fellow Americans to suffer. It was not about Hillary. However, your reply certainly was, so I will address that.

FYI, the reality is that Hillary does happen to be the wife of a former President who seems to have chosen to run for President herself and certain things do and will inevitably flow from that, especially given the way they have both behaved around that issue and the importance of the office.

First, in 1992, he and she both sold his candidacy as getting two for the price of one. Her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy the same way, with no demurrer whatsoever from her (or him) and her supporters have already been selling her seemingly likely 2016 candidacy the same way.

She has referred to his administration with words like "we" and "us," including while she was running for President in 2008 and since then. For example, when questioned at a 2008 primary campaign event about how her husband had run on equal rights for gays, then signed DADT and DOMA, she replied, "I thought we did pretty well."

Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to qualifications to be President.

I have not heard her disavow anything her husband did. To the contrary, she has praised her husband's administration. So, I am not at all sure how associating her with the things he did, good or bad, is sexist. So, neither Hillary nor her supporters can have it both ways.

But, again, that is my response to only hint of substance in your post to me. My reply to great white snark had dealt with none of that. It spoke only to whether voting for one Party or another prevents human suffering. All the other nonsense was in your mind, not mine.

(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and he behaved about that and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain. So even in your imagined version of what my post never said, the charge of sexism is wholly unwarranted.)

You really should think twice before you call any DUer bigoted. That is a very serious charges and require grounds other than merely your ability to fling about the term. Speaking as one who has endured sexism, I must add: Do you really think accusing male and female DUers of sexism willy nilly is going to help the cause of any female running for President, now or in the future, or the cause of any female, period?

Sorry, your ad hom reply said a lot more about you than it said about me or about the cause of equality for women.

On edit, this post was probably an overreaction, but no apology or deletion. If you call people bigots willy nilly, you get whatever reaction your charge gets.

[sendero]

123. What...

... she said.

There is every reason to believe that HRC's policies are very much in line with Bill's, she was his right hand man and sold as such throughout his administration.

Let's look at the record:

NAFTA

The end of "welfare as we know it"

"Free" (no quid pro quo) trade with China

Telecommunications Act (set in motion the current consolidation of media and resulting continual spin from the MSM)

Repeal of Glass-Stegall (permits the large banks to gamble using YOUR money, heads they win, tails you lose)

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act - among other things removed regulation of financial derivatives, a DISASTER that happened in 2008 and will happen again.

There's lot more but I want to eat my bacon and eggs. I loved Bill Clinton during his time. Of late I have realized what a horrible president he was for everyone but the 1%. No more Clintons for me.

[merrily]

125. thanks for the confirmation on the substance

[JTFrog]

124. Gee...

Yes, a definite overreaction. I can't imagine why it appears your comment is about Hillary Clinton in a thread about... Hillary Clinton.

In this post, however, you've made it quite clear that you judge her by her husband's actions.



I certainly never asked for nor expected an apology or deletion.

Carry on.

[merrily]

126. As already stated, call someone a bigot without cause and you get what you get (and most likely

deserve every bit of it).

I never said you expected an apology from me and you certainly deserved none for my response to your unwarranted ad hom attack. I am the one who got called a bigot wrongly by and did deserve an apology from you, but I sure didn't expect one. Good thing.

And again, you have zero to say about the substance of any issue, even on the "issue" you read into my prior post.

Carry on.

[JTFrog]

130. No one called you a bigot.

You went there all by yourself.

There is a difference between calling someone a bigot and saying they did or said something that could be construed as sexist. Again, I read the first post I replied to you as being about Hillary Clinton because this is a thread about Hillary Clinton. You then said it wasn't about Hillary, but went on to post a whole bunch of stuff her husband did as reason to not support her.

There are legitimate reason to support or not support Hillary Clinton for President. Her husband's record isn't one of them.

[merrily]

131. You most certainly did. You accused me of sexism and sexism is a form of bigotry.

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 03:00 AM - Edit history (1)

You're the only one who went there all by your self. After being called on it, you are trying to backpedal.

Some distinctions are signficant. Claiming that accusing me of posting sexist things is not the same calling me sexist, however, is a distinction without any significant difference, especially when, on a message board, all you know of me is what I post.

Despite the above, I am willing to rephrase: if you call a post bigoted or sexist without ample justification, you get whatever response you get. Oh, and what you imagine the post says does not qualify as ample justification.

There are legitimate reason to support or not support Hillary Clinton for President. Her husband's record isn't one of them.

Again, I did not do that, but since you imagined I did, please see the reasons in Replies 109 and 123 for some of the reasons that I disagree with you on this point. You've refuted none of those reasons, but simply re-cast and re-worded your original accusation.

[davidpdx]

175. +1

Nicely put. Sometimes on DU you have to fight fire with fire.

[merrily]

180. Having been a victim of sexual harassment at work and sexism, I am certainly not going to be shamed

with false claims that I am sexist simply because I make a political comment on a political message board that is not favorable to Hillary.

And that seems to be one of the standard strategies of the Hillary supporters. One of them claimed I was sexist simply because he lied that she had immediately corrected her claim of having being shot at in an airport abroad and I posted briefly, factually and accurately out that, no, she had not done that until after every network had aired video of children handing her flowers on the tarmac.

BTW, I had not brought up the airport. Someone else had. But this jerk then claimed that anyone who even mentioned that incident was sexist.



I didn't put up with false claims of racism and I am not going to put up with false claims of sexism. Moreover, IMO, the people who make those false claims are hurting the case for diversity, not helping it.

[Vincardog]

34. Mmmmmm. Bacon! A vote for HRC is a vote for the STATUS QUOE we need movement in

The opposite direction.

[840high]

46. ....

[NanceGreggs]

47. If you are basing your ire ...

... on what you read on a political message board, and what you perceive to be being told that you have to set your values aside, shut up, and vote for HRC, that's your problem.

It seems an appropriate time to recall JFK's admonition to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

What it comes down to in a general election is voting for the (R) or voting for the (D). We can argue all night about how flawed that system is, and how limiting that choice is - but as things stand, that IS the way it is.

A vote for the presidency is not about individual principles; it's about the FACT that either the (D) or the (R) is going to be governing the nation. Those are your choices. So what it comes down to is not whether your personal principles will be compromised or not - it comes down to who, of the two choices given, you want to entrust the nation to. Who, of the two choices given, is the better CHOICE - the (D) or the (R)? THAT is what is at stake here, along with what that choice means in terms of appointing SC justices - among other decisions of import and consequence.

"... what you can do for your country." That is not empty rhetoric - it is based on the reality that your vote should be premised not on what is good for you personally, but what is good for your fellow citizens, for your country as a whole. When you cast a vote for the next POTUS, it is not about YOU - it is about everyone who will live with the consequences of a Republican being elected president rather than a Democratic being elected.

"... forget about your values and your principles."

Maybe you can explain what "values" are at play by voting for a Republican over a Democrat. Maybe you can explain which of your personal "principles" would be served by voting for an (R), or voting third party (i.e. throwing your vote in the garbage), or writing-in Mickey Mouse (i.e. throwing your vote in the garbage while laughing), or not voting at all?

If your "values" and "principles" are all about YOU, and not all about your fellow citizens, you might want to think about that.

[Major Hogwash]

56. Okay, you win.

But, don't get all exercised over what NYC_SKP says about the coming Presidential election.

He lives in California, and I have no doubt whatsoever that California is not going to be sending any delegates to the Electoral College to cast votes for the Republican candidate after the election next year.

[NanceGreggs]

101. I stopped worrying about what gets said on DU ...

... a long time ago. It's connection to what Democrats say, think, or do in RL is now almost non-existent.

[NYC_SKP]

90. Nance, people are so worried about losing that they're going to lose by picking Clinton.

Not all, but many, are calling Warren supporters traitors and haters.

Remember the last time she was inevitable?

Did you think a black dude named Obama would have a chance in hell?

This time, why can't we have a real progressive, why can't we at least have a primary?

[NanceGreggs]

99. I'm not even sure what you're getting at.

Who said we can't have a primary, or won't have one? Someone on DU? If so, you might consider the source.

Are you suggesting that Hillary supporters are grasping at her candidacy because they're "worried about losing", and for no other reason? That's a pretty broad brush you're waving around.

I keep reading this tired meme about Hill having been bested by Obama in '08. Let's not forget that HRC had millions of staunch supporters - as did Obama and Edwards. But according to the revisionist history being touted by some here, Obama entered the race and within minutes, Hill was left standing in a corner by herself, all of her supporters having flocked to Obama's side. We both know that's not what happened. She had enormous support - it didn't disappear overnight.

The only people who touted HRC as "inevitable" was the MSM - you know, that same MSM who everyone here claims not to pay attention to. I was in the thick of things here during the '08 primaries - an Obama girl from the start. Got into it hot and heavy with the HRC supporters - and yet I never heard one of them say "support Hillary because she's inevitable", or support Hill because she's the "annointed one", or support Hill because "it's her turn". Not once.

So exactly what are you suggesting? That HRC supporters withdraw their support because a bunch of people on DU don't like her? Should they stop supporting the person they feel will make a good president because people on a message board don't agree with their assessment of her?

To be perfectly blunt, I think the Warren supporters are delusional. The woman has stated over and over, in clear and unmistakable terms, that she is NOT running. So rather than supporting someone else, they'd rather spend their time and efforts on a candidate who IS NOT RUNNING. What does that tell you about how serious people are about actually identifying and supporting a viable alternative to Hillary?

Right now, HRC polls extremely well against all GOP contenders. Whether you like it or not, THAT counts. THAT is important. Of course, as in '08, that could change - but until it does, until someone else emerges who has a better shot at winning the general for the Democrats, whining incessantly about how "we can do better than HRC" is pointless.

If you don't want HRC - that's fine. What are you going to DO about it? Find someone else to support, fund, work for, campaign for? Or just complain that you aren't getting the candidate YOU want, and that's the end of that?

For years, DUers pointed out that Republicans only shoot down Democratic ideas, without offering any of their own. They pointed out that GOP politicians spend their careers putting down their Dem opponents, instead of touting their own positives. And that's what I see happening here. People posting thread after thread about what an evil warmonger HRC is, without ever offering up a viable alternative and touting THEIR accomplishments, THEIR positives, THEIR plans.

The "anyone but Hillary" contingent - well, the monicker says it all. They only know who they don't want - they have absolutely no clue as to who it is they DO want. Or they offer up Warren or Sanders - the woman who isn't running and the man who isn't even a Democrat.

[BlueCaliDem]

128. BINGO. And very well written, Nance.

[Gothmog]

159. Great post

I was involved in the caucus and primary fight in 2008 in Texas between HRC and President Obama and I ended up supporting President Obama. I did so not because Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate but because I like the concept of a law professor/law review type being POTUS. I would have supported Hillary Clinton if she was the nominee. Right now, I really feel that Hillary Clinton is the only electable democratic candidate and that we need to win in 2016. As a father of two daughters, I really think that it is time to elected a female POTUS and I think that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate out there.

In Texas, we are suffering from some extreme gerrymandering and a horrible voter id law due to the SCOTUS gutting of the Voting Rights Act. The Shelby County was a really horrible decision based on the same legal principle as used to justify Dredd Scott (equality of state sovereignty). One of the few things holding Roberts in check is public opinion and Roberts will be free to ignore public opinion if a republican wins in 2016.

If a republican wins in 2016, we will lose the SCOTUS for a generation and we can kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye. The SCOTUS is extremely important and I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. The SCOTUS makes a difference.

[NanceGreggs]

164. Thanks!

I always admired and respected Hillary - but when it came down to it, I felt that Obama was the right candidate in '08, so chose to support him over her.

For '16, I think HRC is the right choice!

[Gothmog]

165. Agreed

Again, I am the father of two daughters and it is time to elect a female POTUS

[tularetom]

181. In other words, "vote for Hillary, it's her turn"

Remember how everybody laughed at Republicans who were nominated because it was their "turn"?
They really had no accomplishments to point to but they'd been around for a long time and had name recognition.

Bob Dole, McCain, Romney.

It sounds just as dumb when it's applied to a Democrat.

[davidpdx]

176. Nance, I've always been nothing but nice to you and shown respect

That is an extremely ugly to say and it disappoints me.

To be perfectly blunt, I think the Warren supporters are delusional. The woman has stated over and over, in clear and unmistakable terms, that she is NOT running. So rather than supporting someone else, they'd rather spend their time and efforts on a candidate who IS NOT RUNNING. What does that tell you about how serious people are about actually identifying and supporting a viable alternative to Hillary?

[betterdemsonly]

48. i think depending on the courts to protect abortion rights

encourages people who vote republican to get tax cuts but depend or roe to protect abortion rights. If they had to protect abortion rights through their votes maybe they'd care for something other than tax cuts and stop voting republican. Let's face it most blue states will still have abortion rights.

[aspirant]

49. Seems applicable

Wasn't Deep Fried Twinkies with Bacon(or something like that) her husband Bill's craving for years?

[Major Hogwash]

50. Here's the problem, you are already projecting your fear on to SCOTUS nominees.

Whether Obama, Warren, Sanders, or Clinton picks them, they are not going to be all that bad.
I don't know why you are afraid of Hillary picking SC nominees.
That doesn't make any sense.

Your fear should be focused on who the hell would someone like Ted Cruz appoint.

But, I digress . . .

[LadyHawkAZ]

52. one would think a balanced or progressive court would BE a progressive value

Along with women's rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, labor rights, a foreign policy that doesn't default to "blow shit up", and a whole host of other important issues.

But, I get proven wrong every day.

[longship]

57. If HRC is the nominee, do you stay home on Election Day?

If so, I feel sorry for you, and us if the GOP wins the White House.

And BTW, I am no HRC fan. However, I am a loyal Democrat.

I also think that we need a progressive candidate in there. Thankfully, there is plenty of time.

But I will vote Democratic in 2016 no matter who the nominee is.

[TheKentuckian]

94. What does not voting for a particular nominee have to do with not voting in general?

That won't be the only slot on my ballot or your's nor does it exclude voting for someone else in that slot, which you can bet your ass I will be exercising my rights as always.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. The primaries are over? FUCK! I STILL HAVENT FILED MY TAXES FOR 2014!!!!!!!!

i really have to stop playing around with these long-acting sedatives.

[Gothmog]

60. Due to Nader's stupidity, we have Citizens United and have lost a key section of voting rights act

Citizens United is a very bad law that came about due to Alito and Roberts. We have also lost Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I th the GOP wins the White House in 2016, we can kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye

[betterdemsonly]

65. It was also due to the dems who voted for many republican appointments.

Also America was a plutocracy long before thanks to 96 telecommunications bill, signed by Bill Clinton, Glass-Stegall also signed by Bill Clinton, not to mention the sunpac decision given to us by a supposedly left leaning court. What makes you so sure Hillary's appointments won't just be social liberals, but than vote right wing on economic matters? Afterall the big money primary insures we have nothing to the left of Nixon running for office. Atleast with no hope of a court you'll have to vote progressive to change things as opposed to voting for a bipartisan compromiser, that just wants to "get things done

[merrily]

66. Not exactly. Look at the confirmation hearings and votes re: Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and

Alito. And please see Reply 64.

Also, bear in mind that Gore was a candidate who could not even carry his home state--and not because of Nader. Also that the Clenis and perjury resulted in the second impeachment in US history and certainly the most embarrassing one for high school history teachers to cover, enabling Bush to run on restoring dignity to the White House.

It's funny how Republicans don't curse Perot anywhere near as much as Clintonites curse Nader. For that matter, Republicans don't seem to have a whole lot to say about any of their third party challengers, yet Democrats seem to think they have a God given right to no third parties.

And remind me who Americans have to thank for NAFTA, extraordinary rendition, the Telecommunications Act, lobbying Democrats to vote for repeal of Glass Steagall, the "end of welfare as we know it," etc.?

[Gothmog]

74. Due to Nader, we have Alito and Roberts which is why we have Citizens United

Jeb or Walker would get to fill two or three SCOTUS slots if they win and the court will be locked into being a right wing institution for decades. With Alito and Roberts on the court, we have Citizens United and Shelby County (the case that gutted the voting rights act). If Jeb or Walker wins in 2016 we will have more nut cases on the court.

Gore would have won if Nader had not been so arrogant and stupid.

The fact that Kennedy and Scalia were not blocked is not relevant to the issues being discussed.

[merrily]

111. Riiight. The unanimous vote confirming Scalia after few questions has nothing to

do with a Supreme Court decision in which Scalia voted, such as Bush v. Gore and Citizens' United, to name only two.

And votes by Democrats confirming other Republican nominees to the SCOTUS bench have nothing to do with the composition of the current SCOTUS bench or with Bush v. Gore and Citizen's. It's all Nader's fault.

Clinton's impeachment for perjuring himself over a blow job he had the arrogance to think he could continue to hide, thereby helping the next Republican candidate, and Gore's inability to win his own home state, let alone win the election indisputably had nothing to do with anything. It was all about Nader's exercising his constitutional right to run for the Presidency and his miniscule percentage of the 2000 popular vote and only that.

No sense anyone arguing with thinking like that, especially when it's repeated after ample, thoughtful and factual responses from DUers. So, I will debate it no further.

[KoKo]

76. and don't forget Clarence Thomas ushered in by Joe Biden....

who cut off the witness for Anita Hill by closing his hearing. Plus the Florida flawed ballot which the Supremes cut off the legal recount while in process. The NYT's was going to reveal their investigation that Florida recount showed that Gore won but "9/11" happened and the story was spiked.

There are links for all that... but, they are saved on my hard drive that died....and I haven't gotten anything transferred from it yet.

[Gothmog]

160. If all nominees are blocked, then we will not have a functioning court

Elections have consequences and one of the consequences is that the POTUS gets to control to a large degree the make up of the SCOTUS. The senate can block a nominee but there are political realities and the blocking of a SCOTUS is and should be a rare occassion. In most cases, the POTUS will get his nominee confirmed unless there is a major problem. If your view of the confirmation process was adopted, then no one could get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed. If Scalia had been blocked following the blocking of Bork, then neither Ginsburg nor Breyer would have been confirmed. The Senate Republicans would have been free to block all nominees of any Democratic POTUS. I am glad that Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg are on the court.

Heck, now I wish that Bush had Harriet Meyers confirmed. She was the managing partner of a major dallas firm and would have been far more reasonable compared to either Thomas or Alito (Harriet was blocked mainly by the republicans). I am friends with partners at that firm and they told me that she would have been a good justice.

As a practical matter, all most of us can do to influence the direction of the SCOTUS is vote for the Democratic nominee. It is not reasonable to expect that the Senate will block all nominees of a republican POTUS and that we can prevent future Roberts, Scalias or Alitos from taking the place of Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy.

[uponit7771]

80. +1

[jeff47]

102. No, that was due to Gore's lousy campaign.

Candidates are not entitled to votes. Candidates have to earn votes. Gore failed to earn enough votes.

If you'd like, you could ask him. He's repeatedly said he ran a lousy campaign in 2000.

[merrily]

62. If all I could offer someone voting for POTUS were SCOTUS nominations--which

can be blocked anyway, I'd be too ashamed to pipe up. Ditto if all I had to offer were "Then say hello to President Cruz."

[Omnith]

71. Who tells you that?

[randome]

72. Poor little you.

Just vote, okay? Geeze, it isn't that hard.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[mmonk]

73. I'm reminded this extreme court of present was seated by a Democratic Party majority.

The chance to have a more moderate court was lost because Senate Democrats would not hold up extreme appointments under threats of the nuclear option under the Bush Administration and "bipartisan groups of Senators". "Bipartisanship" seems to always mean moving to the right.

[seabeyond]

75. not if you are a woman losing your rights. it matters.

i am stating after the primaries, when it is time to vote pres.

[NYC_SKP]

82. Oh good Lord. Surely you don't think Hillary alone supports womens' rights? Please.

Damn, those Clintons are clever in managing to convince people of such things.

[seabeyond]

84. right cause, that is what i said. .... see. this is the crap i hate,

that i do not do. you and i get along fine. yet.... stupid shit like

Surely you don't think Hillary alone supports womens' rights?

is actually asked out loud, by you, to me.

surely you are not asking me if i believe hillary is the ONLY democrat that will support womens rights, right?

[NYC_SKP]

85. Then maybe you think only she can beat a Republican?

Trying to make sense of your first reply.
I think Warren has a far better chance.

[seabeyond]

95. my whole post.... i should have been way more clear, cause this is important to me. as a woman.

i was not clear because i did not take the time to say it clearly, i am sorry.

not if you are a woman losing your rights. it matters.

i am stating after the primaries, when it is time to vote pres.

whatever in the primaries. the argument that she has best chance? pfff... i do not go there so i probaly totally dismissed that in conversation. this is the waste of time argument i do not do. all i know and care about right here and now.... with our issues

a democrat better damn well get in cause of the supreme court. and that is the only thing i focus on. the only thing i need to focus on, it is that important.

the things i want from a dem, i am not gonna get. the nation will not allow it.

all the other fighting to me, is wasted, but go for it.

i know beating up in primaries with repugs, took a lot of the repugs out of serious contention and one easy win for obama, again.... imo.

[merrily]

115. None of the Republicans who ran against McCain and Romney would have beaten

Obama and the primary did not damage McCain or Romney or Santorum or anyone else. It simply helped reveal the candidates to voters, who amply deserve, at the very least, to know the faults of people running for President, including as seen by people in the candidates' own party who are to the right and left of them. Primary debates mean more chances to see the candidates as they have been, as they react to challengers, and to form an opinion about how they are likely to be if nominated and if elected. Primaries also give Americans more chances to see a Party as a whole, the kinds of positions it takes, the kind of candidates it allows to rise to the top, like cream on milk or scum on stew.

McCain did not lose to Obama because the primary weakened McCain. McCain lost because he is McCain, because he acted like a fool when the economy crashed and because he picked an dumbass nutter with a big mouth and secessionist spouse, who prided herself on being a redneck, as his running mate. And because Obama did better.

Romney lost because his very own speech to fundraisers got recorded and made public and because he marveled at working conditions in China that has workers sleeping in triple bunk beds, abused daily and trying to commit suicide--and the solution of the employer is to put up nets to catch them after they try to kill themselves by jumping off the roof. And because Obama did better.

And the horse Romney rode in on lost too. (j/k about poor Rafalka.)

[rock]

78. Well, of course, if your principles lie with the repiggies

You don't have to explain your choices to me.

[hughee99]

92. I feel like I'm seeing a lot more arguments lately that end with the basic premise

"set your values aside and shut up and vote for HRC."

[NYC_SKP]

100. Or, "I hope you enjoy your President Cruz" or Bush, or whomever.

Thank you for catching my drift.

[merrily]

119. Posts like that are the result of our Party changing its values

under the guise of pragmatism.

Choice and equality are very important to me, but I would also like candidates to protect unions, workers and Main Street, at least as much as it protect banksters and Wall Street. I don't think that's too much to ask.

As far as pragmatism/electablity, the results speak for themselves. Republicans hold more state and federal offices now than they did when Democrats were supposedly unpragmatic.

[treestar]

93. I'm beginning to understand

That my personal values should not be the basis of my vote. It counts only in combination with others. As long as there are enough Republicans to win, I will vote for the Democratic candidates.

[LynneSin]

96. How about stop worrying about voting for Hillary until we actually have a general election where...

she is the actual candidate.

She hasn't won anything yet.

Got 18 months to make something else happen until then which is pretty much what we said this time 7 years ago when people posted the SAME EXACT THINGS ABOUT HILLARY.

Just saying

[Purveyor]

103. "electable". Hillary is not in the general. eom

[merrily]

116. No guaranty she's electable, either.

If Hillary is the most electable Democrat, or the only electable Democrat, the Party and the nation are in even deeper doo than anyone of us have come close to imagining.

[JoePhilly]

104. Lie.

[merrily]

112. Disgusting charge against the OP for expressing his or her political view.

[Reter]

105. It's already pretty balanced

You have four solid liberals, three far right conservatives, and two regular conservatives. The only way to make it perfectly ballanced is to add a 10th regular liberal Justice.

[merrily]

113. That would result only in (2) the possiblity of ties and (2) charges of (gasp) "court packing."

[AgingAmerican]

110. Um....the primary hasn't even started yet

nt

[RobinA]

121. Ya Know

I've been hearing this argument for at least 30 years and I've been voting accordingly and IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING as the SC gets ever closer to falling off the right edge of the flat earth.

They can either come up with a liberal candidate, which I will help to do by voting in the primary (provided they field a liberal candidate at all, of course) or I will vote for Congress and skip President.

[BlueCaliDem]

127. Only in the general election. Not the primaries. :-) And no, I wasn't one of them who

would tell anyone to shut up and vote HRC IF she decides to run.

[gwheezie]

129. Vote for any dem in your primary

For heavens sake vote for whoever you want in the primary. Of course hillary supporters are going to use whatever argument they can to persuade people to vote for her. I expect you will/have done the same for who you support. What do you expect?
I did not play in the 08 dem dysfunction and I won't do it in 16. I plan on voting for hillary in my primary unless another dem comes along and makes a better case for the nomination.
Don't take it personally. Hillary supporters want her to be the nominee. We aren't going to shut up. support who you like and don't shut up.

[merrily]

132. That instruction is much less meaningful when the Party tries to discourage primary challenges.

[gwheezie]

169. Short sighted of the party

I don't think it helps dems in the GE. If we do not have an exciting primary debate among several dems it's going to be pretty boring.
I would like hillary to be the nominee but it's not like she's my sister so for me I would like to see her challenged. She needs to make a case for people who have not made up their minds to vote for her.

[merrily]

183. Is it really short sighted, though?

I guess it depends on what you assume/think the priorities and goals of those currently controlling the Party are.

If you notice, Schumer said he had instituted the "avoid primaries" policy in 2005.

In 2006, Dems took Congress, but I believe that was because the nation was so utterly disgusted that Bush had lied us into war and not because Schumer or anyone else in the Party was seeking to avoid primaries.

In 2008, Dems strengthened their numbers, but, IMO, that was because the economy had just crashed under Bush, McCain was running a truly lousy campaign, not to mention Palin, and Obama was a great candidate.

In 2008, the party insisted that Hillary's extending the primary long after she had any possible chance of winning it had been great for the party. (I didn't think so. McCain was able to get a huge head start in running against Obama, while Hillary forced Obama to continue spending money, time and energy running against Hillary, but whatever. )

In 2010 and 2012, though, Republicans made historic and stunning gains. Yet, the word still is, a primary challenge would be bad for the party.

I don't assume people who wield power within the Party and within the nation are stupid. I do assume that their goals and priorities may not be what I once assumed.

[marym625]

133. Thank you!

I was told the same thing. Additionally, I was told I have lost all credibility and will be ignored. That the fact I have been jumped all over and said something about it, as well as had words put in my mouth and twisted by some self righteous know it alls, that I am a phony.

Love that actual facts, discussion, the reality that not everyone agrees with everyone about everything, isn't possible for some.

[merrily]

136. Someone said I will no longer matter on DU if Hillary is elected.

I replied that would be no biggie. I probably already didn't matter to people who thought as he does, much as he had probably ceased to matter to people who think as I do.


As far as being on ignore, bring it. The more the merrier. (IMO, whether you put someone on ignore or not, having a need to announce that is laughable to begin with.)

[marym625]

146. It is very sad to me, that this is going on

Not the personal attacks, not the fact we look like idiots to anyone looking in and not even the childishness of it all. But the fact that opposing opinions seem to be not allowed.

I asked sheshe2 if we could just, please, agree to disagree on the subject of Hillary. She said yes. I am very glad of that. But with most, if you have a differing opinion, you're shit.

[CTyankee]

147. So if you work for/vote for the progressive candidate of your choice,

as will I, and said candidate doesn't make it to the general and HRC is our Dem candidate in 2016, what will you do? Do you write in your candidate's name (if that is allowed)? Do you plan to stay home and not vote? Do you vote for another party that shares your values, if that option is available? I can see the third alternative but it may not be an option everywhere.

[merrily]

184. I never stay home, even though, as a practical matter, my vote is irrelevant.

I'd vote in a primary for official city hall exterminator, if they held one, but I live in Boston, which went strongly for Hillary in the 2008 primary.

Why do you ask?

[CTyankee]

186. I was curious as to what folks are doing who are Dems and don't want Hillary.

I am, at this point, pretty clear on what I am going to do as I have expressed it here often. I intend to work on a Warren challenge if that materializes but support HRC if she is our candidate. I'm not conflicted on this. Plus, I see how Warren (and O'Malley now) are helping to pull HRC to the left and I like what I see.

[merrily]

187. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026420812#post230

I have written in a Democrat in one general, meaning not ""THE" Democrat the Party had chosen. I don't even remember now which election or candidate, LOL. So much for my big protest. But you can be damned sure it wasn't an election like Brown v. Warren or Brown v Coakley.

The rest of the time, I have just voted straight ticket. However, I will take no loyalty oath as to what I will do next time. I'm not even sure yet what I will do if Hillary is the nominee. I probably won't know until the pencil is in my hand. (I can vote on paper.)

But, as I said, easy for me to say. My vote in any general is either going to increase a strong Democratic majority or be irrelevant, esp. a Presidential. Massachusetts went for McGovern, the only state and that includes his home state. It went red in a Presidential only for war hero Ike and St. Ronnie. And I don't know how suffolk county went in those elections, Boston being possibly the bluest large area of the state. I don't see going for Bush or Cruz in Boston's future.

[CTyankee]

188. You are in a pretty good position, just as I am in blue CT.

I love living in CT and esp. The People's Republic of New Haven, as I affectionately call my city.

Speaking of New England, it's looking pretty bad for Jeb up here. Cruz would be a non-starter. Frankly, with this line up I don't know who New England republicans would feel good about voting for...

[merrily]

189. Well, some Bostonian Rs I heard talking on the bus felt good about McCain, so

there's no telling. But, to be fair, that may have been before he picked Palin. I know the Dem primary was still going on when I heard them.

But, yes, living in perhaps the bluest city in a blue state makes many things a lot easier.

[longship]

137. First, one must respond with two facts.

1. HRC has not announced her candidacy.

2. It is 19 months until the election.

Gees, Louise! Are we all beholden to the continuous, never-ending presidential campaigns that the media portray?

Relax. There is time. The UK often does this in six weeks, or less. What is the fucking hurry?

The only answer I have is that we are being led by the nose. Never a good thing.

[brooklynite]

145. Here's a hint...we're NOT the U.K.

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Dream all you want about simpler and shorter elections, but absent constitutional changes, they won't happen here. Our political process has evolved based on our legal and political structure and our cultural preferences.

1) You must run in Primaries in order to win enough delegates to get the nomination

2) You must campaign in Primaries in order to win the State's delegates

3) You must campaign in MANY primaries at once to win delegates fast enough

4) Campaigning in many States at once means you can't just do face to face campaign activities.

5) Paying for television advertising and a campaign team that CAN do face to face campaign now costs tens of millions of dollars.

6) Raising tens of millions of dollars takes months before the first primaries.

7) Having a campaign that can raise tens of millions of dollars requires preliminary organization and financial commitments.

8) If you not already in the field collecting a campaign team and financial commitments you won't be competetive.

Like it or not, the campaign is already underway. Cruz has announced. Others will announce next month. Hillary Clinton is laying the groundwork to announce. Elizabeth Warren, by comparison, is not.

[longship]

148. How about let's start with not never ending elections.

I have an idea.

1. If one is going to have primaries, make them all at one time. That way states like Iowa and New Hampshire don't have such a stupid and disproportional impact. Make the primary in late August, preferably on an entire weekend, and all states.

2. Get the fucking corporate money out of campaigns. In fact, get money out of the campaigns entirely. Put spending limits on each campaign. Get rid of Citizens United.

3. Level the playing field on media exposure. Put the fairness act back into place.

4. At the beginning of the campaign, some time before the primary in August, say July 4, all declared campaigns have free access to media.

5. National party conventions in September.

Shit! For Christ's sake, the 2016 campaign is not only underway now. It began on Election Day, 2014.

And, as I wrote, the UK does it all in six weeks. And I don't give a fuck that we aren't the UK. The US way makes politics utterly suck here. Can anybody credibly argue the contrary?

USA! USA! USA! Where national politics utterly sucks.

[brooklynite]

150. So, you want Hillary Clinton to automatically win?

Because a national Primary will be fully dependent on a major fundraising effort and a massive advertising campaign. Nobody will make the effort of retail politics that are possible with small, one-shot States like Iowa and New Hampshire. Do you imagine a Bernie Sanders type being able to compete?

Add to that, explain how you'll get a Constitutional Amendment passed to overturn Citizen's United? I'm just focusing on reality, rather than dreamland.

[longship]

158. Obviously I do not want anybody to automatically win.

That would be a huge straw man to suggest it.

Maybe you just ignored my point about taking money out of campaigns. Or, maybe I just did not state it very well. If it was the latter, I apologize. If it was the former, shame on you.

I will stand by my opinion that national politics in the USA utterly sucks until I have evidence to the contrary. It is also my opinion that this fact is all about the money and a complicit media.

[brooklynite]

162. I would love to take money out of politics. I'm saying it's not practical at this point...

[longship]

167. Well, I suggest that we elect people who will.

If that is at all possible.

[NCTraveler]

138. There will be a vote before the general election.

I understand you are new to this. Google "Democratic Primary." That will be a good starting point for your research.

[Autumn]

139. There's something wrong when people tell you to "set your values aside".

When we people set our values aside to do something, bet your ass there will be bad consequences. I won't be setting mine aside.

[CTyankee]

140. Who is saying that? I'm not and I will work for Warren and hope she runs and

if not I will support another progressive in the primaries. However, if HRC is our Dem candidate I will vote for her. And it's not a "balanced" SCOTUS that is the issue here: it is the future of Roe v. Wade. Please don't try to make this issue seem unimportant.

It's just not right to make this opinion something it is not. Please rethink what you have said in light of what I have told you about this issue. In no way is this about forgetting our values and principles. Please don't insult those of us who are working and will continue to work on progressivism.

[jwirr]

142. And we have to do that in the primary. That is what a primary is for. Unfortunately the progressive

candidates are not running (Elizabeth) or from another party (Bernie) or as Robert Reich says "to short". The only other hope is that someone from another party has so much charisma that no one can resist them. I really hope we are going to actually have a primary.

[NYC_SKP]

143. The charisma is frightening.

Charismatic leaders, when I think of that term a few names from history come to mind.

I won't mention them, but too often their behaviors aren't consistent with benevolent leadership.

[jwirr]

144. I was thinking of JFK and President Obama. But you are correct - 1930 and 1980 come to mind.

[Thor_MN]

149. How about?

Supporting Warren as much as one wants (BTW, she still isn't running), but could it be done without promoting Right Wing agendas?

[CTyankee]

152. I think it has already had a pretty good effect on Hillary, who now has to

move to the left and at least start to talk about inequality issues. That is what Warren is accomplishing and I think it is wonderful! Now Dems have to move left and Warren has encouraged that and helped them to get more comfortable talking about progressive ideas. It is Warren's great achievement, IMO, and what she has been after all along.

[Thor_MN]

166. What I bristle at is Dems using Right Wing talking points for any purpose.

They make enough damn noise and don't need any encouragement.

[CTyankee]

170. I don't call those people Democrats.

[Thor_MN]

172. Then I guess the only problem is they do and they are here.

[CTyankee]

173. Ah, you see, this is why we have Elizabeth Warren stepping forward!

She is doing the exact right thing: she is correcting the other so-called Dems who are retreating on progressivism.

[Thor_MN]

174. Oh, when did she announce her candidacy?

I must have missed it.

[CTyankee]

178. What you are missing here is the influence she can have on the party by NOT

running for president. I am a huge fan of hers. You should read her book "A Fighting Chance." It is impressive.

Often change agents in American politics don't wind up being presidents or even run. They know they are more effective that way. Just look at her accomplishments so far. Besides the CFPB she is changing the political discourse on so many issues and the country is better for it. See http://www.warren.senate.gov/

Ask yourself: would we Dems be in a better place without her voice?

[Thor_MN]

179. Like I said, it's fantastic people are singing her praises...

but I'd like to see them do it without attacking other Democrats with right wing "scandals".

[CTyankee]

182. I know. It's wearying.

I saw Barney Frank on Up with Steve Kornacki this morning and he said something interesting: activist Dems march, RWingers vote.

My mantra is GOTV...I've seen it work right here in my city and state...

[workinclasszero]

168. I'm voting for the democratic candidate in the general

Be that Senator Warren, who has said repeatedly she is not running...or Hillary.

Are you?

[akbacchus_BC]

171. If HRC is nominated as the candidate for the Dems

then you have no choice but to vote for her. Any Democrat is better than an asshole republican!

[Warren DeMontague]

185. You should vote for the Democratic Nominee, a year from November. You should.

But that's a long way away.

What some people here don't seem to want to acknowledge is, we don't have a nominee yet. That sort of ideological hashing-out is what primaries are for.