The Left Must Derail Hillary Clinton in the Primaries

[Cheese Sandwich]

A straightforward strategy for reversing the rightward trend of both parties

...What about the rest of us? Is it inevitable that we swallow the nomination of the neo-liberal Clinton, whose support of Bush’s Iraq madness (not to mention Obama’s Afghan and Libyan stupidity) and her husband’s recklessly pro-“free trade,” pro-banker, pro-deregulation politics ought to send reasonable liberals fleeing? Is it predestined that principled conservatives accept the anointment of the thoroughly fraudulent Jeb, whose support of his brother’s interventionist folly, along with his own outrageous meddling as governor of Florida to “rescue” brain-dead Terri Schiavo, should give pause to even the greediest oil baron seeking patronage from a Republican administration?

Like Adolph Reed Jr., I’m tempted to opt out of it all on the theory that we conserve energy by reducing “the frenzied self-delusion that rivets attention to the quadrennial, biennial, and now seemingly permanent horse races.” To echo Maureen Dowd, it is, indeed, fatiguing to urge on reluctant horses such as Senators Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) when the only office they seem to seek these days is vice president or committee chairman.

Nevertheless, a straightforward, nationwide electoral strategy is required if the left wants to reverse the rightward trend of both parties over the past three decades. The Tea Party has had much success moving the Republican Party to the right through primary challenges that should be the envy of frustrated Democrats, even though liberals of the Nation magazine–Rachel Maddow persuasion appear blind to the lessons of Tea Party tactics. One wouldn’t want to weaken Democratic incumbents with insurgencies lest “we” lose “our” Senate majority.

Yet political logic cries out for just such a strategy. Ask a mainstream “progressive” to list the most calamitous events in recent times. At or near the top would be the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, which opened wide the floodgates to plutocratic and corporate influence in election campaigns — in effect, an overthrow of the democratic ideal of one man/woman, one vote.
...

more: http://harpers.org/blog/2014/03/the-left-must-derail-hillary-clinton-in-the-primaries/


edit: Made excerpt shorter

[Live and Learn]

1. If the party is to have any meaning this is true. nt

[CoffeeCat]

4. I think she has to lose so bad this time...

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:06 AM - Edit history (1)

...that she wouldn't even dare to entertain the notion of running a third time.

You would think that after losing to Obama, a junior senator with half of her experience--that she would have taken the hint.

But no. She's back, and with all of the bells and whistles from her last failed attempt. Her "inevitability"; the media touting her as the eventual Democratic nominee; and every national and state poll in her favor. She had all of this going for her last time--and it meant nothing. She lost.

This time, the loss will be even worse. The electorate has aged 8 years. A quarter of our Democrat voters were in diapers when Bill Clinton was president. The Clintons are an important part of the history books to them, but they represent the past.

Bernie, and his Progressive ideals--are the future.

[PosterChild]

10. Yes! The future !

Way, way into the future.... like never!

[brooklynite]

35. You do realize that she ended up getting as many votes as Obama, right?

And that she's more popular THIS time?

And that Bernie Sanders isn't running the campaign that Obama did?

[Major Hogwash]

89. Well said.

She has to be stopped now.

[tecelote]

2. The left no longer has a political party. It's been wiped out.

Look at where the Republican party was 60 years ago...

Republican Party Platform of 1956

- Our Government was created by the people for all the people, and it must serve no less a purpose.

- The individual is of supreme importance.

The spirit of our people is the strength of our nation.

America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper.

Government must have a heart as well as a head.

- We shall ever build anew, that our children and their children, without distinction because of race, creed or color, may know the blessings of our free land.

- We believe that basic to governmental integrity are unimpeachable ethical standards and irreproachable personal conduct by all people in government. We shall continue our insistence on honesty as an indispensable requirement of public service. We shall continue to root out corruption whenever and wherever it appears.

- We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

- We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.

- Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."


SO MUCH MORE:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838

[CoffeeCat]

3. The left is alive and well, and it is the majority of our party...

The 2008 primary showed in technicolor--that the Progressive wing of our party is strong, willing to fight and alive and well.

Obama may be a centrist President, but he represented "change" as a candidate. We all wanted to believe that a new kind of politician was going to shake up Washington and bring about substantive change. We also liked his liberal healthcare plan, his focus on the middle class (not the rich) and don't forget---his very liberal anti-war votes.

Many were attracted to Obama, solely because he was one of the lone votes against the Iraq War. This was a big deal.

Obama was popular, and he won the nomination because he campaigned as a liberal and he galvanized the Progressive movement within our party.

A movement that continues to increase in numbers and strength. I've got two kids in high school. Nearly all of the kids their age are very liberal. They don't understand why nothing is being done about climate change. They are very pro-gay rights. There are school-sponsored support clubs for straight kids who want to support the LGBT community. Many of them are not affiliated with a particular religion. The kids coming of age now (and also the young 20-somethings) are FAR more liberal than the generations prior.

I think this election is going to be paradigm shifting. Because the older Obama supporters who really wanted that "hope and change" see it in Bernie. And many young people love Bernie.

[Live and Learn]

6. I think and hope you are right. It has been building and hopefully Bernie's political revolution

will be the answer. It Bernie doesn't win, I really fear the ramifications. One thing I do know is that the movement will not die.

[daleanime]

29. +1

[jwirr]

90. No the movement will not die but it will be a lot harder to

fight back if she wins because she is going to push us even further to the right. I fear the SCOTUS judges she is going to stick us with for the next 30 years. Pro-woman is great but they are also going to be pro-corporation.

[tecelote]

25. I agree with most of what you're saying but...

This would be the left taking our party back.

The left hasn't been lost, the party of the left moved way to the right.

Hillary is Republican light and she is considered our front runner.

We do agree. We need Bernie if our nation, and our planet, are to survive.

One simple solution - Vote. If people turn out to vote, Bernie will win.

[LuvLoogie]

5. The Revolution reduced to pulling spikes.

(Building a governing coalition takes time, effort, give, and take.)

Go ahead and just put anyone on the ballot. Hey, it doesn't cost that much.

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. I love how you used the train metaphor from the title in your response

(pulling spikes)

It's always better if you can find a solid candidate.

[Live and Learn]

8. Revolutions don't die.

They evolve and the ramifications aren't always pretty. It simply amazes me that so many in our party are willing to risk ignoring what is so apparent.

[seabeyond]

47. Revolutions start local. I hear no one discussing local races, running themselves. I hear nothing

from Sanders about getting his revolutionites to run local and work their way thru state. I see one long time, non productive senator standing up, speaking out about a revolution and none of the work to put one together, where something may be done.

If Sanders were serious about revolution, he would be focusing a lot more on the states, and local races and calling on his supporters to get things done.

We hear nothing. Instead this revolution is one man at the top.

That is a sure fail, by definition of a revolution.

How serious are we suppose to take this?

[Hekate]

9. What, pray tell, is The Left going to do if it does not work out the way you plan?

Are you all going to try to sabotage her if she's the nominee for the Democratic Party? Just a hypothetical situation, because it's clear you are quite convinced that Sanders will be the nominee. But just supposing Hillary has the votes and delegates after all. What is The Left going to do to derail Hillary at that point?

[CoffeeCat]

13. If Hillary is our nominee; a Republican will be President...

Like it or not, Democratic support for Hillary will not be strong. Half of our party can't stand her. She's not going to have an army of Democratic volunteers working for her as Obama did. She is not that kind of a politician. Democratic turnout will be low. She's polling at 9 percent with Independents. You can't win ANY election with a only a sliver of Independents willing to vote for you. And forget about snagging any Republican votes. She's the enemy of the Republican party.

If she's our nominee, we will be looking at a Republican president and a Republican Congress.

That's just how it is.

She does not have the enthusiasm, support or numbers to win the nomination.

Republican turnout will be very high in 2016.

The Democratic party is like a big ship, and Hillary is like a giant iceberg. It's best we just steer clear of her.

[Hekate]

14. You're telling me what others are going to do. What is The Left going to do?

Stay home? Talk trash? Do oppo research for the GOP? The Left is already doing the latter two, but what about if she's the actual nominee? Gonna still do that to make sure she's "derailed"?

I'm genuinely curious.

As for enthusiasm for Hillary, it's there. Her campaign style is different from Bernie's, but believe me, she has enthusiasts. They're just not at DU right now because the atmosphere is so toxic. Please understand, though, that just because you drove everybody but your gang out of the playground, it doesn't mean the playground is the whole world.

[CoffeeCat]

18. To answer your question...

...I don't think the "left" will do anything. I don't think there will be any concerted effort at all.

That's not what the left is about.

If Obama had lost the nomination to Hillary in 2008, there wouldn't have been be any dastardly plans made or any organized efforts to do anything.

To tell you the truth, I think there would be a lot of despair and a sense of loss.

Loss of our party. Fear for the future of the country. I know that I would feel politically homeless, and I've been a Democrat for decades.

I think this general feeling of despair would result in low voter turnout--not out of some vicious scheme, but out of depression and a loss of hope.

[Ed Suspicious]

57. Exactly.

[Live and Learn]

20. Personally, I will blame people that supported her in the primary for all that occurs afterwards.

And happily say I wasn't one of them.

[Hekate]

21. So you won't vote?

I think a lot of The Left (I refer to the terminology of the OP, if that's not clear by now) are not actually Democrats. There's no loyalty oath, mind you (again, using the terminology that comes up here so often from those who support Sanders to the exclusion of any other possible candidate) just a set of principles and a party platform that differs radically from the GOP platform.

I've been a Democrat for over 45 years. My favored candidates seldom made it past the primaries, and if I had refused to vote for the eventual nominees I would have essentially been a non-voter with no say at all in the outcome.

I want to have a say in the outcome. Over my lifetime we have made advances in many areas that matter to me, though we still have far to go. If everyone stayed home because their candidate didn't make it all the way, we wouldn't t have made any progress at all.

[still_one]

23. To be quite frank this whole mantra that some DU Sander's supporters have been repeating how if

Hillary is the nominee she will lose the general election is what I suspect some would really love to happen so at the minimum they could say "I told you so"

In fact, the vast majority on DU who say they won't support the Democratic nominee if it is Clinton are Sander's supporters. If there are Clinton supporters who have come out and said they will not support the Democratic nominee if it is Sanders, it is pretty rare. I haven't seen it, but I sure have seen plenty of Sander supporters saying they will stay home, do a write in, or anyone but Clinton.

Anyone who does not vote for the Democratic nominee against any of the republican candidates running in the general election, can profess their liberal credentials all they want, but the facts are, if they refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if it is Clinton, their actions indicate that they would rather cut there nose off to spite their face, and that mind set cannot be reasoned with.

The irony is if Sander's wins the Democratic nomination, and loses the general election, I have no doubt these prophets who have so much "in your face have said Clinton can't win the general election", will blame everyone else for that hypothetical Sander's loss in the general election, except themselves, and their candidate.

[Fumesucker]

39. I see it more as a matter of honesty, some are being honest and some aren't

There are some Bernie supporters who I think are being untruthful about not voting if Clinton is the nominee and I think there are some Hillary supporters who won't vote for Sanders if he is the nominee.

If the polling were reversed you'd see the opposite behavior, we saw it in 2008 and there's no essential reason for it to be different today.

Both sides have same motivations when it comes down to the "team" thing and both sides will take a win or a loss the same way by finding a scapegoat to blame it on. We get invested in our predictions yeah. Some of us are more invested and some less in teams, that's another division among us besides the Clinton/Sanders obvious one.

DU is going to be Definitely Ugly no matter what happens I think.

[Puglover]

49. I don't think it will be ugly at at.

It will be a sparsely populated echo chamber. The rules are clear. Support the Dem nominee. Or don't post. And it is Skinner's living room. While I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary I have nothing to say about her but..."eh". Same stuff different day.

And if I (and I suspect about 60 percent of Bernie supporters can expect the same dreck that used to ooze out of the BOG, see the Rick Warren wars) endlessly posted I can assure you traffic here will be sparse. And some will think that's great. So I guess that's a good thing anyway.

The fact that I am not a fan of Tiger Beat thinking about ANYONE has nothing to do with Obama, Clinton or even Bush. It's juvenile mindset and a turn off.

The sparring on DU is amusing at this point. If and when it's Hillary and nothing but Hillary I suspect I'll be playing a lot more WOW and my Kindle will be getting much more use.

If she gets the nod I WANT her to win. But I do not think she will. And that scares me to death.

[still_one]

63. That is a pretty good assessment

[Ed Suspicious]

56. It's not about us voting. Damnit. You know we're politically active. We need the formerly

politically inactive, the formerly apathetic to come out in numbers. She will not excite the formerly inactive. No way. No how. Worse still, because I'm not excited, because I don't believe in the direction of the party, I'm not going to be as effective an advocate for the party. If Hillary wins the primary, I see no way the Democrats win the general.

Hillary is a loser for the Democratic party.

[Hekate]

72. Sanders (according to you) has the apathetic and inactive whooping it up. Also...

...still according to you, if he's not the nominee they will drop out and so will you. It's all becoming clearer now.

The Left (back to the OP) or at least the cohort you have described, has nothing to offer the Democratic Party. They are tiny in overall numbers, and if they don't get what they want right this very minute they won't play.

I had this conversation with Greens during the BushCheney admin: build a grassroots coalition, start with the local races, get known, run for State Assembly, run for US Congress -- do this over and over again all across the country. It's Poli Sci 101 on how to get one of your believers to the White House. However, outside the two major parties I just don't see this happening.

More importantly, outside the GOP I don't see this happening -- look how far they've gotten with their scary Tea Party. They have believers AND grassroots organizing AND powerful GOTV action AND a very long term plan. They show up.

What have you got? People who don't show up and won't show up. Thank you so much.

[Ed Suspicious]

74. I did NOT say that I drop out! Read more carefully.

[Hekate]

75. I read very carefully. I'm good at deconstructing an argument, and that was yours. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

77. My argument doesn't need deconstructing. It's right there

for all to see. Clinton is not generating the enthusiasm among independents that will be needed to win the general.

[still_one]

24. and vice versa if Sander's wins the nomination, and loses the general election

[Live and Learn]

17. The movement will continue, either way

But, it will be a lot more palatable under Sanders than Hillary.

[Chan790]

46. If she's the nominee...it's over for the Democratic party.

We'll lose the GE. We'll continue to lose Governorships and in the Statehouses. We'll lose seats in the Senate...and we'll be the fucking Whigs. We'll cease to exist even as an opposition...it'll be the hell-in-a-handbasket Republicans and their rubber-stamping Clintonite Democratic pretender cronies. There's a reason why I keep comparing Hillary to Philippe Pétain. It's because she's nothing but a collaborationist to the fascists she nominally opposes.

We don't have to do anything...she's a terrible candidate that will not win the GE for all the effort in the world. She wins the primary and the GE is already lost. We can sit on the hillside and gloat about how right we were as Clinton goes down in flames. Maybe if it's not too late in 2020, you'll all listen to us and take the long knives to these pretender Democrats like Hillary that you're all so in love with. For "inevitable" and "electable"...they never do seem to win much.

To support Hillary is to be a willing dupe in the destruction of America.

[grasswire]

85. they never do seem to win much

......yep, despite Obama winning, he was determined to give ground wayyyy too much.

No more third way. No more NEW Democrats. No more corporatists. NONE.

[marym625]

11. K&R!

We have to take our party back. Then, we should move away from a two party system.

Money out of politics

[Hekate]

22. That's a weird construction. You want to take your party back, then destroy the 2 party system.

What does that even mean, and are you sure "your" party is the Democratic Party?

[marym625]

69. That's a bizarre take on what I said.

Yes, I'm positive that the Democratic party is my party. It's third-way, DLC bullshit that doesn't belong. That moved in with the intention of fucking up the basics of the Democratic Party. And now, the DNC, which has lost more seats than gained every year with third-way DWS at the helm, is trying to screw real Democrats.

Like how you went to such negative with "destroy" and accusations. Very telling.

Third-wayers want a third party. Let them go create one and gtfo of the Democratic Party

[The Second Stone]

12. Vote for whomever you think the best candidate is

I'll do the same. I'm voting for Hillary. Back in the '90s, she at least put her health plan in front of Congress at great political cost to herself and President Clinton. No one else ever took that risk for me. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/28/90s_documents_show_clinton_health_care_concerns_121765.html

It's the most important reason Republicans hate her with an unmatched fury.

The only people who hate her more than Republicans are you guys.

[CoffeeCat]

15. No one hates her...

...but many, including myself, do hate her policies.

I hate her warmongering. I hate that Robert Kagan, the king of the neocons said that he "had no problem with Hillary Clinton's foreign policy."

I hate that she takes money from Wall Street, the prison system and other moneyed special interests. She's part of the problem. Our politicians shouldn't be rented!

I hate that the Clinton Foundation appears to be a big ATM for the rich and powerful to play. While Clinton was Secretary of State, she brokered a deal in which Boeing was given a multi-million-dollar weapons deal. Later, Boeing donated 900k to the Clinton Foundation. Plenty of examples of this.

I hate that in 1996, the neocons wrote Bill Clinton a letter, asking him for war with Iraq. The letter was signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other neocon warmongers. Hillary knew back in 1996 that these bastards wanted to play war--because they asked her friggin husband for it!! ...And she STILL voted for the Iraq war when these same sociopaths wanted it again when Bush was President.

I hate how she played the worst kind of dirty politics against Obama in the 2008 primary. She played coy when asked if Obama was a Muslim. She had one of her campaign strategists bring up Obama's youth drug use. She had Bob Kerrey enter the state of Iowa (right before the caucus vote) and mock Obama, calling him, "Barack Hussein Obama." She also joined the right and attacked Obama's pastor. She repeatedly positioned Obama supporters as jaded, young fools who were bamboozled by pretty speeches.

It's not personal. It's politics. We don't know Hillary Clinton. We just know what she does.

And we don't like it.

[PADemD]

31. +1

[Karma13612]

32. +100. Eom

[Scuba]

34. + another

[99Forever]

36. Well stated. n/t

[seabeyond]

42. Many hate her and repeatedly tell us just how much. Nt.

[Live and Learn]

16. No hate here either but I do feel betrayed by her.

Hate is a waste of energy, in my opinion.

[Hekate]

19. Well said.

Thanks.

[Hepburn]

51. I don't hate her personally...

...but I loathe what she stands for. She is way too conservative. She is IMO the exact embodiment of what is wrong with our nation today: Too little, too late.

JMHO

[Jarqui]

59. Surely we can get past this insulting presumption that repeats around here like a stuck record:

"because you Sanders supporters don't love Hillary like I do, you must hate her".

The majority of Republicans who do hate her, probably hate her because she's a woman trying to be president more than her health care efforts many do not remember.

Seems to me, President Obama took quite a risk with Obamacare for people like you. But Hillary's failure is the only thing deserving of credit?

Not everyone who doesn't support Hillary, hates Hillary. I think most Dems just like and trust Bernie better.

[riversedge]

26. umm. This article is over a year and half old --no derailment yet-not can I see it happen

in the near future.

[RBInMaine]

27. Hillary is PROGRESSIVE, MEGA-QUALIFIED, BRILLIANT, and WILL MOST LIKELY be the Dem nominee.

[cantbeserious]

28. Progressive - Only In Dreams

eom

[seabeyond]

41. Fact. But you can't have that revolution without misrepresenting Clinton, can you.

[Skidmore]

55. Bingo!

And then it's iffy.

[Hepburn]

52. ^^^This!^^^

[Puglover]

53. No.

In his gratuitous usage of all caps.

[MrWendel]

30. Meh...

..........but Close.

[NCTraveler]

33. This member of the left in this country...

Will be working to get her out of the primaries victoriously.

[brooklynite]

37. Hmm. Well then you'd better get cracking...

Tell me, do you subscribe to the "the polls are rigged" theory, or the "there are secret new voters" theory? Or do you acknowledge how far behind you are?

[Cheese Sandwich]

67. It is possible the elections could be rigged with the voting machines.

I think we should go back to paper ballots. Or at least some type of system with more transparency. Maybe like getting a receipt. But then there are problems with privacy if people are able to get a receipt.

[brooklynite]

68. So the Republicans have turned over control of voting machines to Democrats?

[grasswire]

86. well.......

Republicans DO want to run against Hillary most of all.

The ads would write themselves, because of the level of corruption seen in the Foundation with her SOS position.

[longship]

38. I will support whichever Democratic candidate who gets the nomination.

That is all I want to say here, other than that I find threads like this utterly tiresome these days, no matter which candidate's benefit they are allegedly posted for.

This is utterly childish and counter to everything that DU stands for. We are not two year olds here, nor are we the GOP (who act like two year olds). So why these bullshit threads about any of our candidates?

I have no problem with supporting ones preference. But this kind of rubbish is petty and childish.

And BTW, I will very likely be voting for Bernie in the MI primary, so do not dare call me a HillaryBot (which is yet another childish problem here).

Too fucking much infantile behavior here!!!! Haven't we all learned by now that negative campaigning only drives up the party's negatives? One might argue that that would be counter to Democrats winning.

My advice:
Take a deep breath before one posts.

And stop trying to fucking divide this party!!!

[Fumesucker]

43. Threads where everyone agrees don't last long

The Interfaith Group has 42 posts in the last days, the Religion Group 1592, they are discussing basically the same thing, religion but a non-theist viewpoint is not allowed in Interfaith hence with no real conflict it is a snooze-fest.

[longship]

48. I formerly was a frequent poster in Religion.

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 10:34 AM - Edit history (2)

I was even a host for a while.

I am a lifelong atheist. However, I observed that many other atheists there were attempting to beat down any religious discussion. It became not about discussing religion at all. It was about beating up on the theists, which I think is an extremely unproductive enterprise.

Yup! I do not like religion at all. None of them. Yet I have no problem with people who believe in them. I do not care what other people believe. It is only their actions that I can judge. I suspect that most religion is benign.

My experience with that is it's more cultural than religious. People generally attend the same place of worship as their parents. I went to the Congregational church for the first 13 years of my life because my parents took me there. However, next door was a synagogue with which my church shared a parking lot. On the late Christmas Eve service in our church the Rabbi from next door would often give the sermon. And our pastor would reciprocate in the synagogue on a Hebrew holy day. That was a learning experience for me which has guided my non-belief throughout my life, even though even as a child I did not believe any of it.

Maybe that has taught me to be more ecumenical in my atheism. And maybe that is why I have had more friends in the Religion group who are believers than fellow atheists. And that is also why I rarely post there anymore. We already have an atheist group; there was no reason to turn the Religion group into a duplicate. Nevertheless, some folks cannot take that there might be folks who want a respectful dialog on such matters.

So the ecumenical hosts were kicked out and the group has turned into a dupe of the atheist group. That is why I almost no longer post there anymore. They are not as much interested in talking about religion as they are about having a food fight against the few theists who remain. Well, I don't like food fights. One would think that, given that there is already an atheist group that there could be a religion group where even atheists could discuss religion respectively. Apparently too often here on DU it has to be 24/7 warfare. I find it disgusting.

The only difference between the Atheist group and the Religion group is that theists can still post in the Religion group. However, abusive personal attacks against them remain. The Religion group has become a horrible place. How can one discuss religion with so much animosity towards the topic? And why personal attacks?

I apologize for highjacking the thread.

[seabeyond]

40. Yes, I get this is Sanders and a percentage of the left. The goal:

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Do to the Democratic Party what tea baggers did to the Republican Party. I believe Sanders has a good quote about doing just that his first run as a senator. Got quite a chuckle from that. It is also what I read in populist group on du back in May.

No thank you. Lives are at stake. I do not like the game and don't see the chuckle.

[JaneyVee]

44. Dumb.

[DCBob]

45. Pathetic.

[MineralMan]

50. Trouble with derailing things is that the

resulting disaster is really hard to clean up and recover from. The real disaster would be Republicans in control of all three branches of government. The damage that would cause would cripple any progress we desire. It would cripple it for years, if not decades.

You want to derail something? Really? If that's how you feel, you're convincing me even more not to support any candidate you support. And there it is. I want a Democrat in the White House, and I'll work really hard to pound the spikes you pull from the rails to try to prevent any derailment.

[seabeyond]

54. We are well on our way, but we are not out of the mess of Bushco yet.

Can you imagine giving them the Supreme Court for the next two decades?

[MineralMan]

60. No, I cant imagine that.

I also can't understand why people don't understand the risks of this kind of "derailing" nonsense.

I realize that there are some misguided people who believe that the country can't recover unless it descends into the abyss, but that's a misbegotten idea that only leads to suffering, misery and death for more people than anyone can imagine.

That kind of rhetoric is anathema to me. I will fight it with all of the energy available to me.

We need to elect a Democrat as President, through a massive GOTV campaign that will also return control of the Senate to the Democratic Party and switch as many House seats as possible. If people want something to do that will help this country, that is the thing they can do that will have the most powerful results.

"Derailing" Clinton isn't useful. If she gets the nomination, as I'm sure she will, working to elect her will be useful in the long-range goals we all share.

[seabeyond]

73. Because they are not "in the face", directly affected, in a life and death way. Supreme Court isn't

significant to them. But, if it is our women and girls, that are faced with back alley abortions, life and death, even imprisonment for miscarriages, it matters a bit more.

Short sited. Self absorbed. There are any number of reasons someone may bulk at voting Democratic to save lives when they want to destroy the Democratic party for their own self interests. I gotta get Sanders own words, and his excitement with his first congressional run as an independent, solely to cause havoc to the Democratic party and see if he could affect the election.

When I get home tonight, I will see if I can find it. It seems he is on a similar quest and has found his populist group that cheers exactly that, to alls detriment.

[ibegurpard]

76. You are guaranteeing what you fear

By running a candidate with such high negatives and enormous track record of selling out the working class.
You are not going to be able to mass-market your way into turning her into something she's not.

[seabeyond]

83. Not true. Yours are only supposition and counters fact.

[Fawke Em]

80. Useful?

To the 1 percent, but not to us working stiffs.

And what people on this thread are trying to tell you is that if she's the nominee, the GOTV will go in the toilet. The right hates her, the left doesn't trust her and independents don't care about her.

[MineralMan]

81. Actually, it won't. The real "base" of the party will be out there

doing GOTV as always. Those who help are part of that "base." Those who don't aren't. It's that simple.

[grasswire]

87. Don't you get it yet?

Hillary is not going to win a GE. Not gonna happen. Millions of people will come out of the woodwork to vote AGAINST her. Millions of others who might vote Democratic will stay home because they won't support her corruption.

And so voting for her thinking it will bring a liberal court is simply a fantasy.

[seabeyond]

88. Don't you get it yet? Pure hero worship fantasy!

[Cheese Sandwich]

65. Keep it up and you'll end up with a republican privatizing your asteroids Verne.

[pengu]

61. I agree, if Clinton wins the primary the election is already over

[JoePhilly]

62. "The Left" should have gotten started about 4 years ago.

Instead, they spent the last 4 years whining about Obama.

In 2020, they'll probably be calling for a primary of Hillary.

[Cheese Sandwich]

64. What you mean like a primary challenger for Obama 4 years ago?

[JoePhilly]

66. Yea, that was time well spent wasn't it?

[Cheese Sandwich]

70. I actually don't know what you are talking about

sorry

[JoePhilly]

71. Maybe you were not on DU at the time.

[Cheese Sandwich]

92. Probably not

[LonePirate]

78. An editorial from March 2014? Really?

[Thinkingabout]

79. Derail Hillary in the primaries, I believe I have read post in the last six months about the

DNC giving the primaries to Hillary and those who expect Sanders to win, the determination will be determined in the primaries, will not be given to anyone but the winner of the primaries and the delegate count in the convention. Derail, we are not derailing any candidate, we will go by democracy and not derailing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Indeed. K&R

[Enthusiast]

84. Kicked and recommended!

[Buzz cook]

91. After Obama, Clinton is a step to the left.

After the supposed left forced a DINO on us in 2008, I don't see any reason to believe their rhetoric in 2015.

Sanders is not the sweet baby jesus any more than Obama was.