HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cab67 » Journal
Page: 1

cab67

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jul 24, 2013, 01:10 PM
Number of posts: 1,421

Journal Archives

OK - so what if it's Hillary in 2016?

I've followed a number of posts on DU concerning whether Hillary Clinton would be a good Democratic nominee in 2016. To my dismay, I see quite a few people - progressives, like me - who claim to see little difference between Clinton and most of the likely Republican candidates. She's corporatist and doesn't have the best interests of the average person in mind.

This may be true. To borrow from Molly Ivins' comment about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton is not my kind of Democrat.

I'm not going to try to predict what will happen in 2016. I would like to see Elizabeth Warren run, but she says she isn't. Someone like Bernie Sanders would be awesome. I have no idea who will get the nomination. But let''s assume Hillary Clinton is the nominee. If so, I would hope that all of us calling ourselves progressives would campaign vigorously for her nomination.

To those who think Clinton is no different from a Republican, I have two words: Supreme Court.

By 2020, four of the currently-serving justices will be in their 80's. There's a reasonable chance some or all will have left the court by the end of the next presidential administration. And if that person serves a second term in the White House, she or he will probably deal with additional vacancies.

Bill Clinton, for all of his triangulation and capitulation to Republican policies, gave us Ginsburg and Breyer. Obama, who has also governed more like a Republican than I would like, has given us Sotomayor and Kagan. Compare these with the clowns seated by the Bushes, and you quickly see how much of a difference having a Democrat - even moderate Democrat - in the White House makes.

Why not vote for a third-party candidate, you ask? Why not vote Green, or support an independent run by someone like Sanders? Because that would ensure a Republican victory.

I understand the counterargument - things won't get better unless there's a viable progressive on the ticket. But right now, that's not the world we live in. Our government is currently based on the balance of power of two parties. A parliamentary system, with multiple parties building coalitions, has its benefits - but we don't have one, and we won't for the foreseeable future.

The conservative members of the Supreme Court have done far more damage than any Republican-led house of congress. Declining to vote for a Democrat - even one we would prefer not be on the ticket - will help ensure more Scalias and Alitos on the Supreme Court.

Anyway, that's my opinion, which is worth what you pay for it. I want a progressive president, and we should work our asses off to nominate one. But given a choice between a corporatist who will nominate good supreme court justices and one who will not, I'm going with the former.

OK - so what if it's Hillary in 2016?

I've followed a number of posts on DU concerning whether Hillary Clinton would be a good Democratic nominee in 2016. To my dismay, I see quite a few people - progressives, like me - who claim to see little difference between Clinton and most of the likely Republican candidates. She's corporatist and doesn't have the best interests of the average person in mind.

This may be true. To borrow from Molly Ivins' comment about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton is not my kind of Democrat.

I'm not going to try to predict what will happen in 2016. I would like to see Elizabeth Warren run, but she says she isn't. Someone like Bernie Sanders would be awesome. I have no idea who will get the nomination. But let''s assume Hillary Clinton is the nominee. If so, I would hope that all of us calling ourselves progressives would campaign vigorously for her nomination.

To those who think Clinton is no different from a Republican, I have two words: Supreme Court.

By 2020, four of the currently-serving justices will be in their 80's. There's a reasonable chance some or all will have left the court by the end of the next presidential administration. And if that person serves a second term in the White House, she or he will probably deal with additional vacancies.

Bill Clinton, for all of his triangulation and capitulation to Republican policies, gave us Ginsburg and Breyer. Obama, who has also governed more like a Republican than I would like, has given us Sotomayor and Kagan. Compare these with the clowns seated by the Bushes, and you quickly see how much of a difference having a Democrat - even moderate Democrat - in the White House makes.

Why not vote for a third-party candidate, you ask? Why not vote Green, or support an independent run by someone like Sanders? Because that would ensure a Republican victory.

I understand the counterargument - things won't get better unless there's a viable progressive on the ticket. But right now, that's not the world we live in. Our government is currently based on the balance of power of two parties. A parliamentary system, with multiple parties building coalitions, has its benefits - but we don't have one, and we won't for the foreseeable future.

The conservative members of the Supreme Court have done far more damage than any Republican-led house of congress. Declining to vote for a Democrat - even one we would prefer not be on the ticket - will help ensure more Scalias and Alitos on the Supreme Court.

Anyway, that's my opinion, which is worth what you pay for it. I want a progressive president, but having a reasonable Supreme Court that doesn't embarrass the country abroad is at least equally important.
Go to Page: 1