"Vote for Hillary or else!"

[JackRiddler]

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

(Clarification: Based on how many people around here are talking today, that's the mentality we will see expressed if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic Party nominee for president in 2016. Some in fact have already begun to say that Clinton is both inevitable and necessary as the candidate, so the rest of us should accept it.)

This is the way of thinking that got the Republican House elected in 2010. The genuine popular movement that had been so successful in electing Obama in 2008 was directed to go home and watch on TV while the policy reins were suddenly handed over to neoliberal class warriors like Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers (old miscreants of vacuous power politics who had not been forefronted during the campaign). Under Geithner's management the bailout of the banks directly responsible for the economic crash was completed, so that they were made more powerful than ever, while foreclosures of underwater homeowners proceeded apace. Incredibly a primary criminal from the Bush regime's aggressive war on Iraq (Robert Gates, who oversaw "the surge," former Iran-Contra criminal) was kept on as secretary of war.

The Democratic administration in power no longer presented a distinctive alternative to the destructive policies of the Bush regime, but actually adopted and worked to evolve many of these, including the perpetual global war and, as we have since discovered, warrantless mass surveillance of the American people. In its relations with the left the 2010 Democratic election campaign abandoned positive programmatic messaging for rote threats that if the other guys won it would be much worse. Despite Democratic control of the Congress, major policy initiatives were watered down to woo Republicans, even though the latter maintained a no-compromise front that absurdly painted a pro-industry health insurance reform act and a laughably ineffective attempt to re-impose regulation on the criminal banking sector as the advent of Stalinism.

A vacuum was created for the Tea Party Republican astroturfing operation to profile itself as something "revolutionary," the only real "movement" happening. Not surprisingly, this intentional move to the right, coupled with the expectation of obedience among voting clienteles as though they belong to the Democratic Party as a matter of its privilege, failed to mobilize the Democratic left but also failed to inspire the independent voter with the thought that there were clear alternatives from which to choose. A self-made disaster followed for the Democrats at the midterm polls, although this was also a product of gerrymandering (as the Democratic share of the vote nationwide was actually equal to the Republican).

Perhaps a similar scenario is now being set up by those who support the well-known champion of neoliberalism and "humanitarian" imperialist wars, Hillary Clinton, as the candidate in 2016. Given the awesome scale of the real ecological, economic and political crises confronting the world (almost none of which are being addressed in the predominant US political discourse with its obsessive focus on personal trivialities) we need imaginative and bold alternatives. Yet a lazy political cadre wish to present yet another dynastic avatar who was a stale act, right wing in spirit and void of ideas, already back when she first rose to prominence in the 1990s.

[Scuba]

1. Kick

[brooklynite]

2. Nobody has said "Vote for Hillary or else..."

Nobody has said "she's inevitable"

What people HAVE said is that:

1) she's likely to run
2) there would be a lot of support in the Party if she did
3) she would be a strong candidate
4) she would be good Democratic President, and NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT than the alternatives.

Opponents are welcome to disagree; they're welcome to hope for alternatives (nb - WORKING to get those alternatives might be a good idea, considering that supporters of Hillary -- not "TPTB" -- are getting organized now); they're entitled to criticize her positions and propose different ones.

But, when DEMOCRATIC critics claim they WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, that is what I would argue is the equivalent of the Tea Party: ideologues who would reject a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-progressive taxation, pro-safety net, pro immigration, pro-health care Democrat who was perfectly acceptable eight years ago in favor of an elusive, ideologically pure alternative. That kind of thinking got the GOP Todd Akin, Christine O'Donnell and the stellar Presidential field in 2008.

This is not not my site, but may I suggest that such talk might also be construed as discouraging support for the Democratic nominee, which in my interpretation would be a violation of the TOS.

Personally, if Hillary runs, I'll support her. If she doesn't run, I'll work for Brian Schweitzer (don't know if he'll meet your standards either). I'll support whomever the nominee is. And I won't lay awake nights worrying that a bunch of people grousing behind their keyboards are going to have much of an influence on the election. See you at the polls in November 2016.

[SheilaT]

35. A lot of folks here have said

Hillary is the only possible Democratic candidate for President three years from now. I'm not going to bother to go back and see how many have actually used the word "inevitable" but it's been clearly the word intended.

[Demo_Chris]

112. Many have, and more will. That's the game...

You either vote for the corporate candidate our party nominates or the corporate candidate from the other party will win. Both candidates are, of course, wholey owned by the exact same corporations and both will do exactly what those corporations want on every major issue, but it's fun to pretend that there is a massive difference.

[Cryptoad]

3. Ummmmmm,,,,

seems the far Right and the far left have something in common,,,,,,,ANARCHY!
Maybe yall should join forces!

[socialist_n_TN]

11. Ah anarchy! The favorite scare word of the rulers ........

The only thing worse is "communist". That's probably next.

[RC]

19. "communist" got kinda overworked a couple of generations ago.

The replacement is "socialism" for being the boogieman. Even among many we call "Democrats".
3rd Way, DLC and other assorted DINO's, have sheep's wool covering wolf's bodies.

[Cryptoad]

96. Back when,,,,,

traitors ran off to communist countries for asylum ..... funny how things go around, heh?

[RC]

97. Seeing how Snowden is not a traitor, but did his duty according to the oath he took to uphold the

Constitution, that doesn't quite fit.
He did all of us a favor by exposing the real evil doers. The way we treat those that expose the wrong doing of our government, he had no choice but to do what he did. His options were limited because of extradition treaties.

[Cryptoad]

98. Funnny,,,

That is exactly the same thing the Tea Party says!

[RC]

99. So you agree we should have no privacy from government snooping?

That the unconstitutional (4th Amendment, read it.) spying and storing of everyone's electronic communications is OK with you? That it is OK for the government to lie about it, to hide what they are doing, even to Congress, which is supposed to have oversight?
That is what you are telling everyone with your dated talking point.
Has it ever dawned on you that even the tea baggers have limits and want some privacy too? The tea baggers are being spied on too, just like you and I. NSA doesn't care. All of the 99% are mostly the same to them.


Edited to add:
Start your education here -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017137853

[Cryptoad]

103. Yet,,,,,

just like the Tea Party, no evidence of any illegal actions have been submitted . Just more Speculation and conjecture!

edit addition: btw I believe every person has the right to live in world without nuclear weapons,,, but I am also aware that those days are gone and will never return,,,,, just as the days of complete privacy.

[RC]

107. So, no amount of proof will convince you?

Got it.

Have you tried paying attention? That quite often works. Or don't you want to know what our government is doing to us, with our own money.

What is this for, if it is just Speculation and conjecture?
http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

[MNBrewer]

59. Please note that "hard-line communists" are banned per the terms of service

whatever THOSE are I have no idea.

[zeemike]

4. Frankly I think if Hillery runs

The GOP will take the presidency again. And we will wonder what happened...well some of us will.
But we will see, because the party machine has decided and they will get what they want.

[brooklynite]

6. It must be nice to blame "The Party" or "TPTB" for every candidate you don't like

Certainly removes any responsibility for doing the hard work to get your preferred choice nominated.

In case you forgot, five years ago we had an open contest, with two qualified candidates getting nearly 17 million votes each, some less successful candidates getting fewer, and......Dennis Kucinich getting virtually none. How exactly did THEY sway this outcome?

[zeemike]

13. They did it with a trojan horse.

That was what Obama was, and I fell for it...he said everything I wanted to hear and I voted for him the second time because I actually believed things would change when he no longer needed to run for election.
I did get fooled again...and I suspect they will try the same thing again...but this time with the intent to elect the GOP because it is their turn and they must rehabilitate the Bush name.
But the process is only open if you have millions of dollars and you must kiss some PTB ass to get that much money.

[Progressive dog]

34. You voted for Obama because you thought he had

spent four years running a scam on you and would become a different President if reelected.
Now you realize that he was the guy who had been President for four years and that makes you mad.
I understood that part, but I'm still trying to figure out who you think "they" are.

[zeemike]

44. Yes that is about it.

I believed all the shit you folks told us...how he could do nothing because of the GOP and once he no longer needed to win an election he would do something for us...yep I bought it and was fooled again...shame on me.
And now you are telling us it is all good and we should STFU about it and go along with the program because bad cop is waiting to get us...sorry but I no longer believe.

You want a list of people?...Just look at who is who on Wall Street or in the social circle in DC...and pick a name.

[sharp_stick]

47. Boy aren't you a sucker

I mean it's always "you folks" that are at fault for stuff that pisses me off isn't it.

I love being able to blame everything on "you folks" when they dragged me to the voting booth and watched as I was forced to vote for that guy.

[zeemike]

49. Well I can admit to being a sucker.

And it is healing for me to do that...some people hate that but not me.
Yep I bought the snake oil and drank it up and no one forced me to do either of those things...and I have no problem admitting I was a fool...

[hfojvt]

56. but there was not really a choice either time

In 2007-8 it was Obama or Hillary or McCain. Two of those are known to suck, so why not take a chance on the 3rd one? it's really the only choice you have.

Although as I look at it now, it seems to me that Obama sucked worse than Hillary would have. I had my doubts from the beginning, but I will not scour my journal to prove that, but jumped on the hope bangwagon anyway.

In 2012, it was Obama or Romney. I did not get fooled in 2012, I just didn't have a primary choice.

Although when it comes to my main complaint - ATRA, Obama was NOT the only one who betrayed me. Elizabeth Warren did too. A Senator-elect, she sat silently by while Obama and Congress gave permanent tax cuts to the rich. She did not say anything while it happened. She was AWOL in the battle. So was progressive caucus member and Senator-elect Tammy Baldwin. So was Al Franken. So was Sherrod Brown. So was Sheldon Whitehouse. So was Bernie Sanders. So were Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson.

So, in the end, was Paul Krugman. He started praising the betrayal from day 1. Then again, so did about 90% of DU. It seemed that very few could see the Emperor had no clothes. And with a noise machine drowning him out, the little boy proclaiming the Emperor naked is just jeered or ignored.

[zeemike]

58. jeered or ignored about sums it up

Very few like being shown that they were fooled...and that is why most scammers get away with the crime because people don't like to admit that they were scammed.

[Progressive dog]

93. "I believed all the shit you folks told us".

Get a grip. You even had the gall to elaborate on why you are a sucker. You can't really be that gullible, can you?
If you have a persecution complex there are people who claim to be able to help.

[zeemike]

95. Well I guess the difference between us is

that I can recognize when I have been suckered in and you perhaps can, but will never admit it.

[Progressive dog]

109. " I can recognize when I have been suckered in"

Sure you can, sure you can.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

60. Rehabilitating the Bush name

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 01:08 AM - Edit history (1)

The news media are already trying to do that. For example, ABC News has been busily reporting on the wonderful things Junior has been doing in Africa, and essentially treating him as an elder statesman, in much the same way that Richard Nixon was revered in the media after his Watergate malfeasance had all but faded from memory.

[zeemike]

64. Well I don't watch TV but that does not surprise me.

And I predict we will see more of this, and in fact democrats will help and tell us that he was not so bad after all...
And welcome to DU...

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

110. I don't watch much TV myself anymore

It's become such a wasteland, and the evening news now is little more than propaganda. I try to avoid it, but when I am at a relative's house it is sometimes on and I am just dumbfounded by the awfulness of it all. That ABC News would try to rehabilitate the Bush name for his "good deeds" in Africa, while ignoring the horrors he wrought on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, makes me want to And its Terror! Terror! Terror! segments were nearly too much to stomach

Anyway, thanks for the welcome

[cascadiance]

87. Actually two "vote sinks" for us on the left. Edwards was also in this category too...

He sucked up the votes from people like me who liked his more definitive progressive campaign messages than either Obama or Hillary were coming out with. I still feel that the PTB knew about his personal liabilities early on and perhaps even begged him to stay in so that he could draw all of our votes away from someone that might challenge either Obama or Hillary (like Kucinich, who I would have voted for if Edwards were out of the race earlier and we knew what was going on).

I believe that there was intent in having all three of the top candidates be ones that either have you vote for their identity if they were viable (a man of color or a woman), or if you voted for their positions on issues you'd get roped in to vote for someone who ultimately was less viable than someone like Kucinich in the end.

[zeemike]

88. You are probably right

I know I got sucked into Obama because I just could not believe a black man would sell us out...but of course that is silly...black people are no different than white people.

And the game is rigged, and they do know how to play us one against the other and wind up getting what they want....the have billions to spend in PR to make sure we don't get someone that will shake up the status quo.

[hfojvt]

54. I guarantee they will

although I think Hillary will win.

But in terms of economics - Hillary IS a Republican. A moderate Republican, to be sure, but still a Republican.

Oh, like Obama she will talk about the middle class, but in the end, her "middle class" just like it was in 2007, will be those making $100,000 to $400,000 a year. Anybody not in that group will just get trickle down.

To me, those are Republican economic policies no matter how much it is now Democratic politicians promoting them.

So, yeah, if she runs, Republicans win even if they lose and we the people lose even if Democrats win.

[zeemike]

55. You are right it is a win win for them

And a lose lose for us no matter who wins the election.
But she is the GOP choice to run against...because they already have ammunition to use against her, all they need to do is recycle it...and there biggest fear is someone new, that has a populist message (like Obama had) but that they don't control.

[L0oniX]

102. They will blame the left instead of blaming themselves for foisting Clinton on the party.

They only want the left's votes ...not their influence.

[zeemike]

108. That's how I see it too.

The third way democrats want to control the party and use the left.
In much the same way as the 1% uses the Tea Party and Fundamentalist christian.

[Gman]

5. I guess if Hillary runs its going to get very ugly around here again

Maybe worse than it did in 08.

[eShirl]

15. ugh... I was so relieved when that mostly subsided

I'm so not looking forward to a repeat experience.

[NorthCarolina]

23. People are sick and tired of putting faith in

DLC Third-Way Democrats, then watching as the same pro-corporate, anti-worker, conservative policies are doled out, beefed up, and expanded. The Clinton's are devout DLC Democrats, as such Hillary would not bring the progressive change Democratic voters had hoped for in Obama's first term.

Hillary will of course run as a progressive, will be pushed in the MSM as a strong "Progressive" and probably even "Liberal" candidate, and she will say some words that "appear" to be in line with progressive thought, but crafted as to be easily converted to "you only heard what you wanted to hear" spiel after the fact. The progressive contenders, should there be any, will of course be feverishly ridiculed in the media and on sites like this as "not realistic", "no chance of winning", "agreed with Ron Paul on ending the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so therefore is a Paul-Bot", etc., we know the routine.

In the end, between the MSM, new voter suppression rules, the Diebold factor, the corporate interests will no doubt prevail (as if there is really any choice), and we will continue on our present path of fleecing whats left of the middle class in order to further fatten the pockets of our "elite" class. Hell, we'll probably even squeeze the poor a bit more...a penny squeezed out of a destitute family, is a penny earned...or something like that.

You will be deluged with talk of things like Hillary's magnanimous turn about on LGBT equality, and other social evidence of her truly progressive roots! Of course there will be little to no discussion entertained regarding her fiscal policy interests. Attempts at discussion of her DLC upbrining will be met by taunts of "the old DLC boogeyman thing again LOL", or "ummm...the DLC has been disbanded for a while now, afraid of ghosts", etc., accompanied with several "blue links" to articles painting Hillary in a grand and glorious light as a kind shepherd of the people.

Run as a Progressive, govern as a conservative. We've seen it all before, we will see it again, and there is little that can be done to stop it.

[woo me with science]

46. Nailed it. Perfectly.

Yes, this is the script. We all know it by heart by now.

[L0oniX]

104. DLC = Dino Leadership Council. Pretenders to liberal progressives. n/t

[Ford_Prefect]

7. I am sick and tired of the Saint Hillary rhetoric.

Those who feel she is the ONLY candidate worthy of the job are like the fear mongering right: afraid to consider the possibility that the entire democratic process is much more complicated than the preferred-brand soap-opera alternative.

The whole point of the Democratic party is to include a wide range of ideas and communities in the process of governance. When we take short-cuts in this process the lack of dialogue about those ideas and the isolation of some of those communities produces a narrowed vision of what the county thinks and what it needs.

With respect, Hillary has her point of view and this resonates with many voters. She also has a political legacy tied to much of the current corporatist regime. She is certainly a powerful and articulate candidate.

However she is not the only choice available and it seems to me that it is far too early to declare her the obvious winner. That assumption mimics in a very dangerous way the path the GOP has taken.

I would think that the very fact that the GOP has all but declared her to be the next Democratic candidate would be very good reason to consider alternatives.

[NorthCarolina]

25. BUT

Hillary's corporatist view is the only one that will be entertained by the party. For folks like us longing for real progressive change, she will of course RUN as a progressive...so you'll have that at least during the primaries and even into the general. The fiscal conservative won't be sprung until after the election. But hey, she came out in favor of LGBT equality recently....what a progressive right! Can I get a high-five on that? Hillary, progressive?

[HereSince1628]

8. Her lead in name recognition over other announced primary contenders is gianormous

Surely everyone recognizes such a lead makes the outcomes of 2016 primaries so obvious as to be a waste of time and treasure.

[JackRiddler]

9. As was already the case in 2008.

[HereSince1628]

14. Yep

[RC]

22. We have to vote for the name we reconize, reguardless of the realities we know will then happen

if we do.

Name recondition is NO reason for voting for someone. Todd Akin, anyone? Everyone still recognizes his name.

[cascadiance]

86. Uhh.... Clinton's lead over Warren is ANYTHING BUT "gianormous" in latest poll...

Corporate Media keeps trying to pound "the inevitable", when a newcomer like Warren is already in the top 3 on the list of candidates even this early on. I'd bet that Obama was probably lower in comparable polls in 2005.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/06/why-you-shouldnt-underestimate-elizabeth-warren/

I realize that she's not "announced" yet, but I think its very strategic for her to NOT announce just yet this early in her senate career.

[HereSince1628]

89. I'm sure your serious, but this post doesn't Warren that.

[EuroGame]

10. As of today

She is the best bet. Obama many times famously said: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (Voltaire). You see, I see nobody in today's democratic field (save Biden), that could have a solid (50+%) chance of winning in 2016. Not even Biden has such good chances, but has the name recognition. You have to not compare democratic candidates to republican candidates based on a personal level and merit, but on the gigantic money dark satanic machine the Republicans have. As such, you need a candidate thats 'head and shoulders' above anything they can muster. This brings us to Hillary Clinton. A very well known politician, mostly likes, and yes, another primer: a female. (ps, that 'vast right wing conspieracy will pummel Biden just as much, perhaps even more than Clinton)

If America's political system was normal and fair, you could indeed run any Warren or O'Malley etc. But in a crooked, rotten to the core political system, you need indeed a person who is qualified and has fairly good policies, but who is also a 'rock star'. This is what the republican machine has forced upon the American democracy, ever since that third rate actor Reagan.

So in effect, I would like a woman like Warren as your president, but I want to remain logical and pragmatic also. If Clinton can win, go for it. Even if she may be a bit more hawkish on foreign policy etc. You need to look at the big picture. Let's say another 8 years of democratic rule at her hands. That would destroy a gigantic amount of republican talking points: economic wise, taxes wise, health care wise, and yes, foreign policy wise. It will pretty much remove the veil from the republican party, letting it stand naked, with a tiny piece of manhood.

In all, this will force the entire political spectrum more toward the middle, where it rightly belongs, after having been hijacked for almost 3 decades by the reich wing.

After those 8 hypothetical years, no sane republican will dare question universal health care, marriage equality, AND even good middle class politics. While they will probably remain skewed toward the rich, gigantic tax cuts for the rich won't be anywhere near politically possible anymore.

8 years of Clinton will pretty much be a continuation of Obama. More oversight and regulations, normal and sane judges, probably expanded health care, more policies toward helping the poor, education and infrastructure, and less greed and 1% douchebaggery.

Christie on the other hand, while seemingly a 'rino', will probably try to undo much of Obama's gains, even if to a lesser extent than a Romney presidency would have.

So, Warren would be great, but highly improbable seen how the reich wing machine has made pretty much anyone who isn't a rock star electable to democrats.

But after 8 years of Clinton (hopefully), much of the reich wing will be toast, along with demographic changes etc. Democrats will be cemented as a 21st century party, and the Republicans will have been forced to adapt, and people will be looking at those idiot tea party ralliers of the 2009/2016 times as complete idiots who kept buying bullets to keep shooting their own toes of. The entire spectrum will more towards a more sane center of gravity. Vote Hillary 2016!

[JackRiddler]

12. She's inevitable! She's the only chance! (Exhibit A)

[Cryptoad]

50. Nah

the GOP can not get a moderate candidate passed the Convention. Almost any Democrat could win this.

[JackRiddler]

61. Exactly. The other hilarity is...

the idea that a figure as over-familiar and as tarnished as Clinton is a stronger candidate than someone new and exciting. Puh-leaz!!!

[eShirl]

17. "8 years of Clinton will pretty much be a continuation of Obama. "

On that point, I have no doubt!

[JackRiddler]

20. "5 years of Obama have pretty much been a continuation of _____."

With important exceptions, of course. But the movements into technototalitarianism, feudal capitalism and ecological holocaust have not been arrested in the least; corporate profit and empire still take precedence over human rights, democracy and other arcane modernist values.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Voltaire also said 'Don't let the good be used as a cudgle to beat the Perfect into

submission'. Voltaire was an enemy of mediocrity.

[on point]

16. I see a pattern on DU. Push Push Hillary. Poll she fails. Whine. Push Push Poll Fail Whine

It seems there is a concerted astro turf effort to 'prepare the ground' for her announcement and it isn't going well because the Dem Establishment just doesn't listen or get it.

WE ARE THROUGH WITH FAKE THIRD WAY DLC DEMS!

The PTB need to get behind some real center to center left dems (not right win corporate tools) if they want backing and excitement from the rank and file.

This is not just me. I have to say people I know around me are quite fed up and are even talking general strike. That's how fed up they are with how things are continually moving IN THE WRONG DIRECTION to the right.

[Myrina]

27. Well said!

[brooklynite]

39. So, you'd prefer a "Real" Third Way, DLC Dem?

Seriously calling someone twice elected to the US Senate from New York, who got 17 million votes in the 1008 Presidential Primary "fake" is juvenile.

[FiveGoodMen]

63. It's juvenile to say that a winning politician can be a fake?

Non sequitur much?

[brooklynite]

65. No, it's juvenile to suggest that a politicians who won...

...two Senate races in 2000 and 2006 and 21 States in the 2008 Presidential Primary is fake.

Or do you think Democratic voters are that stupid?

[FiveGoodMen]

66. Given the number on this site who continue to support America's betrayers

...it's wolves in Democrats clothing...

I'd say that, yes, Democratic voters can be that stupid.

[brooklynite]

67. Congrats...you probably just insulted half the people here.

[FiveGoodMen]

68. I care about my country and it's Bill of Rights

I care about continued freedom and Democracy.

I don't really care about your feelings.

[antigop]

42. pattern includes calling people "haters/bashers" who are against DLC/Third Way Dems

nt

[L0oniX]

105. The Dem party has and is morphing into what the right was. Clinton will help that to continue. n/t

[Madmiddle]

18. Sorry to say, but

I would not vote for her. The problem with Mrs. Clinton, if history recalls, she was married to the guy that deregulated banks, that is a huge part of the problem with banks and their predatory nature todate. She is very much a centrist. Right now America needs somebody that will fight for the left, and far left. We need a socialist leaning president that understands that America works best when the left is able to legislate and move MAINSTREET forward. Wall streeters will soon either rule as royalty if not stopped or fold up and become as the rest of us, struggling. So, I will look for a candidate that is not mainstream, and will actually fight for American mainstreet. Hillary will simply be more of the same.

[Cheviteau]

52. Can you do me a

favor and point to one speech or utterance where Pres. Clinton pushed or advocated for bank deregulation? Your perception of history on that score is skewed. Yes, deregulation came about in his term, but you should study the means and methods of how it happened. Some of your "Liberal" democrats in the Senate advocated for Wall Street in that fiasco.

[dreamnightwind]

69. Of course that isn't the third way MO

The Republicans come straight out and advocate for destructive policies. The third way Dems generally don't, they publicly stake out a safe position slightly to the left of the Republicans, and appoint people to implement the policies that are wanted by the 1%. Larry Summers, enough said.

[bvar22]

75. Bill Clinton SIGNED it.

Here we are, surrounded by still-smoldering financial wreckage, and almost everyone in Washington is falling over themselves to repeat exactly the same kinds of actions that got us into this mess. Last time around it was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, introduced by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm and enthusiastically signed by President Clinton in the presence of Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

http://blog.ourfuture.org/20120323/The_Dumbest_Bipartisan_Move_Since_Repealing_Glass-Steagall

He doesn't look too unhappy here at the signing of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, does he?

....and just LOOK how HAPPY he made all those old, RICH, White Guys!

[JackRiddler]

83. Speeches and utterances don't count for much.

He was president, with veto power equivalent to 2/3+1 of both houses of Congress. While I can remember a lot of palaver about how we needed a "bridge to the 21st Century" that was all neoliberal technofetishist code, it doesn't matter. Because I can point you to something a lot more important than his speeches: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill deregulating banking and ending the Glass-Steagal limits that had been in place since 1934, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which basically banned regulation on derivatives, also NAFTA on "fast track" and a number of other key "free trade" agreements. All signed by Clinton, no gun to his head necessary. (Not to mention the Welfare "reform," highly repressive mandatory sentencing crime laws that helped cause prison inmate numbers to skyrocket more in the Clinton admin than under any other US govt, etc. etc.)

[demwing]

21. Oh Jesus Christ in a trashcan, with your thread.

[coldmountain]

24. GOP war on women makes Hillary inevitable

[BrainDrain]

30. Sorry, gotta call BS on that one.

[Lisa D]

29. It's like there's an alternate world on DU

and every once in a while a post appears that makes no sense.

I love the trashcan! Thanks admins!!

[JackRiddler]

31. Thanks for the kick before you hid it.

Don't be a stranger, now!

[Bette Noir]

26. Draft Jeff Merkley. That is all.

[BrainDrain]

28. Hillary should take a walk......

away from the nomination. Actually, as good progressives we should hustle her along as fast as her feet will go. If you want to nominate a woman Take a hard look at Liz Warren. That is what a progressive looks like.

Hillary is an old school "it's my turn" kinda politician.

We need that like we need a hole in the head.

Not sorry, think I will pass.

[JackRiddler]

32. The problem with "her turn" is that it's our lives...

For eight years!

[JoePhilly]

33. Another anti-Hillary OP with no alternatives

... presented.

Becoming a theme around here.

Reminds me of the "we need to primary Obama" nonsense threads.

[BrainDrain]

38. The idea I believe,

is to take the air out of the "Hillary or else" meme before it gain any traction. Which IMHO, is a very good idea. If you don't like the lack of alternatives, then by all means feel free to suggestion one or two. I have. Now it's your turn.

Hillary is not only "likely to run", she is more than "inevitable". Remember 2007 when she said, "I will be president."? Well she won't make that mistake again. Which is why the whole "inevitable" meme is being downplayed.

I will repeat myself, HRC is an old school, "it's my turn" politician. I got news for you, NO ONE gets to be president because "it's their turn". Period. End. Of. Discussion.

So lets point her to the nearest exit and I really don't mind if the door hits her on the way out.

[JoePhilly]

41. Not until an alternative appears

who could win the general election.

No one in the GOP can beat her.

So any alternative will have to demonstrate that they are as unbeatable in the general election as she is. And I won't participate on any effort to chase her off without such an alternative.

And her successful time as SOS makes her even stronger this time.

[LWolf]

53. At this point in time,

with an inauguration just last January, we don't need to push candidates for '16. We've got a couple of years to look around at all of the Democrats out there before deciding on great alternatives.

The only reason HRC is getting push-back now is that some seem to think that it's already primary season. It's not. Some are offended by the too-early campaigning for another status-quo candidate.

When primary season rolls around, there will be alternatives. And all of those alternatives will be higher on my ranked list than HRC.

She, and any other DLC/centrist/New Democrat/3rd way neo-liberal will not be on my table of considerations at all.

[L0oniX]

106. Promoting Hillary like there is no alternative is also becoming a theme around here.

In fact those that are promoting Hillary do not want an alternative. Thanks for making that more evident.

[tridim]

37. If it's anything like 2007-08, count me out.

Simply stated, PUMA's are assholes.

They drove me away from Sen. Clinton during that primary. I will never forgive them for what they did.

[1ProudAtheist]

40. Had There Been More Pro-Hiilary

Support in 2008, (I am proud to say that am one of the few) we as Democrats, would not be in the bind that we now find ourselves in. Had Hillary went on to win the nomination in 2008, she would have also easily won the general, and, because of the way that The Big Dog was treated by the Dinglegrinch led Congress during his last term, would have used the power of control of Congress and The White House to enact far superior legislative victories than Obama did. She would have been more of an "Iron Maiden" leader, and not tried to compromise every act with the McConnell led opposition party. She would have ramrodded through an agenda that would have undone most of the most shameful acts of The Village Idiot's reign of Nazi terror that led to the ultimate downfall of our once great nation. She would have ended the 2 wars, closed Gittmo, ceased all of the Black Ops rendition and detention, and above all else, she would have demanded a system of socialized medicine to replace our for profit exploitation of the pain and suffering of the masses.

Sure, we would have a divisive government, but get real, what do we currently have, and what do we have to show for it besides lost opportunities and unfulfilled promises? Yes, Obama has done some wonderful things, but lets all face reality here, he has essentially sold out to corporate greed and corrupt power in defiance of those of us to whom he promised hope and change. We have little hope of any change in all reality. Recent revelations have shown just how much of past illegal actions have been continued and expanded, and how little this administration has changed from the previous one. Power is a strong tool, and it corrupts. The actions of our current president since the last election have shown his true colors. Not ever having to face voters again, he is now free to seek his true path, and I for one, am not the least little bit overjoyed with that choice. We have essentially elected a moderate Puke as our President. His policies are far closer to The Village Idiot than they are to The Big Dog, and although his personal choices are much better, the end result is a country in turmoil, and a political party void of any true leadership right now.

What this country really needs, is someone like Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, or possibly even Elizabeth Warren, to step up to the plate and take control of the Democratic Party before the start of the next election cycle so that the rank and file can have a real icon to coalesce behind before we implode while trying to stand up for a right wing agenda that promotes unending global warfare, unholy corporate profit, the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare, an East German style police state, and more right wing appointees to important governmental positions.

[DonCoquixote]

78. er,and you know this HOW?

How was someone who worked with Tata going to stop outsourcing? Will the ex walmart exece push for higher wages?

How would someone who, as SOS got into another war with Libya, who pushed for one with Syria, who threatened to "OBLITERATE Iran" suddenly change into a progressive peacenik with a different Mid eats policy?

and we both know her program was not "socialized medicine", Obama's first mistake was imitating the individual mandate, that he campaigned against!

It sounds like you want Hillary to be something other than what she has shown herself to be. Admittedly, some Obama voters have that same issue. We both know we NEED a liberal, someone who is to the left of Bill Clinton, because the bleeding was been so bad. But the truth is, neither Obama nor Hillary are or were liberals in the FDR sense. Both of them are Euro style technocrats who think politics is a chess game, when, post Citizens united, it is a street fight. When Billionaires can shovel money to people that would not even be elected dogcatcher, there is no reason for the new GOP to listen, or even try to be competent. Neither Hillary nor Obama will know how to deal with the normalization of insanity. The only reason Bill made it is because, after being caught lying, he turned to the very same leftist he tried to sell down the river. If that did not happen, this book explains how, long before Obama, he was ready and willing to destroy Social Security.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pact-Clinton-Gingrich-Generation/dp/0195322789

Like I said, if, AFTER THE PRIMARY, Hillary is left standing, I will vote for her. Frankly, if Lucifer was the one the primaries picked, I would vote for Lucifer, simply because I have already seen what the GOP machine can do with a "compassionate conservative."At least with Lucifer, you can look and see where the corruption comes from, as opposed to a bunch of Billionaire's back rooms that might not even be in the United States. That does not mean that, in 2013, some of us might say "enough with the coronation ceremony!"

[EuroGame]

43. Come on people...

I understand she isn't the perfect candidate.

You Americans have to understand you're like a little reborn child. Or a child that's managed to escape hell. He can't immediately be a grown man again. 'remember your roots', in this case means, you came from almost fascist like governments, to much more acceptable governments. And she would be a contiuation again. I know FDR would be perfect right now, and would be electable, if ever since him and Truman, you kept electing such presidents. The fact is you didn't! You had Nixons, Reagans, and Bush's. This means your entire political spectrum, and indeed all three branches of government have at one time been hijacked and pushed extremely to the right. Meaning in this world, anno 2013, in the US, a person such as Kucinich or Merkley CANNOT be elected. When that thick skulls of some of you accepts that fact, and really just understands that it's Bush 3 vs Clinton, YOU might slow down a bit and tone your voice down. If it were a different reality I'd say go for the most left (US standards, not our standards) candidate and get him elected.

Truth is.. NOT HAPPENING, yet!. So would you like a Clinton, who nominates normal judges, who continues investing (even if just a tiny bit more) into education, infra and health care, or would you like a Republican (doesn't matter who, it's the machine), who not only cuts, but GUTS many of the 'public, socialist' institutions you still have crumbs left of. That is the question, the rest is just noise. I swear you would think people on this site have experience and more intelligence.

I WANT somehting, but I won't get it. So give me second best or third best. Don't give me the exact opposite! The single most important thing for you people is to make a D president in january 2017. Even if it would be that rat mole Liebermann. (kidding, better to have Stalin, at least he has the interest of his own country in mind, not another country)

[mick063]

45. Can't pull the lever for Hillary

Can't bring myself to do it.


It's on you Iowa, if you want another Democratic soldier.

[Proud Public Servant]

48. The place for a fight is the primary

I'm a Hillary skeptic; I admire some of what she's done and stands for (especially around global gender issues) but she still strikes me as a DLC corporatists of the sort that would have been more than welcome in the GOP until relatively recently. I don't believe she will even TRY to regulate the banks, raise corporate taxes, cut military spending, or reduce the scope of the national security state. She is not my candidate.

But the time to hash that out is the primaries. We will very soon be reaching the point in the anoint-Hillary drumbeat where Democrats will be urged to stay out of the primaries so that they don't "damage" Hillary before the general. And that will be nonsense. We need a progressive voice in the primaries to speak loudly and proudly to the values that used to be at the heart of the Democratic party, before the corporatists and Clintonistas got a hold of it. Someone who speaks for the people, not the corporations; the many, not the few; the Walmart worker, not the Walmart board member.

Maybe that will be Elizabeth Warren. Maybe it'll be Sherrod Brown. Maybe, like Bradley in 2000, someone will come out of retirement just to invigorate the debate (you listening, Russ Feingold?). Whoever it is will have my ear, my time, my money, my vote.

In the primary.

But when it's all over, I'll vote for our candidate. That's why I joined the Democratic Underground: because I'm a Democrat. Fixing the party -- and it does need to be fixed; the money-changers need to be chased from the temple -- is something we need to work on. But it's my party, and that's why I'm here. Can't imagine why anyone would join this particular board (as opposed to the many other progressive forums on the net) if s/he didn't feel the same way.

[hfojvt]

51. assimilate or be destroyed

I do not think 2010 was all that you describe.

Although some Democrats were discouraged, I think it had more to do with Republicans being fired up.

Another thing was that the President and the Democrats main accomplishment from 2008-10 was Obamacare, a big gooey mess plopped down on the American voters' plate to a main response of "bleah, what is in this? I don't want to eat it"

In a speech at a DFA training session, Howard Dean said that failing to pass something would be disastrous like in 1994, and that was my assessment too. But it also seemed like passing something was disastrous as well.

I thought my own message would sell with the voters, it was, simply enough.

1. We are in a Republican recession - a huge one that began in 2008 when Bush was still President
2. The Republicans in Congress are not representing the bottom 80%, they are representing the top 5%.
3. Reaganomics, an experiment begun in 1981, has failed. As evidenced by these three graphs, one of them a prediction of a dystopian future if we stay on the path the Republican politicians want us to go down. http://www.koch2congress.com/5.html

As it turned out though, I could not even sell this message to Democratic voters - I lost the primary.

[Waiting For Everyman]

57. Hillary would not win a general election.

People here seem to forget that a significant chunk of the public HATES her. Remember the Hillary-led health care fiasco? Hillary would not automatically have the same popularity that Bill had. That is a fact.

Of the remaining people who like her, or tolerate her, many of those have Clinton/Bush fatigue. People are sick of them. Even Barbara Bush doesn't want another Bush, and the Clintons are the same on the Dem side.

That's realism. We need somebody else.

[Proud Public Servant]

62. That's not realism. That's nonsense

Hillary actually got slightly more Democratic primary votes than Obama did in 2008. Moreover, it was Hillary, not Obama, who carried most of the blue states.

If you start with Obama's 2012 map, it's hard to see what he took that Hillary's going to lose. That depends on the GOP nominee, of course, but remember that Obama could have lost Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and still won in 2012.

Hillary could well lose because of some unforeseen event -- but based on the map, party demographics, the GOP's current strategy (doubling down on whites, especially older and working-class whites, with whom Hillary actually polls well), her current popularity, and her likely opponents, she's sitting pretty. If in 2012 Obama won 332-206, I'd put Hillary in 2016 at 281-257 at worst, 347-191 at best.

THAT'S realism.

[JackRiddler]

71. Same calculations will apply to other Democrats...

Perhaps someone who didn't vote for aggressive war on Iraq, and who has not effectively advocated it on Iran. Someone lacking the rest of the Clinton baggage.

[Proud Public Servant]

73. I agree and

have said so in other threads, including one I started on Monday. I'm not saying we don't have to work but, given our structural and demographic advantages, the sad state of GOP popularity, and their very flawed bench (including Christie), I can't believe how many people here believe that only Hillary can win.

[JackRiddler]

76. I don't believe they really believe that.

The best chance for Clinton at this point is to create an impression that only she can win the general. If that impression goes away, so does most of her appeal to the majority of Democratic primary voters. So this stuff you're seeing about her strength (and her inevitability) is partisan talking points, not credible.

[Agschmid]

74. An article on her popularity (its from May 2013)...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/predictable-decline-in-hillary-clintons-popularity/?_r=0

[libodem]

82. She is very a polarizing

Figure. It will energize the the other side to flock to the polls in the general election. They are praying we will push Hillary for the next 3 years. They would love nothing more.


The Kochs are probably shoveling tons to cash into 'Ready for Hillary' fund.


It makes me feel like I've walked under a falling 2 ton bolder. I already hate the momentum, the dread and the inevitable crushing noises. I hate being forced into doing anything. I always hated authority. And I've always been rebellious. I feel cornered, trapped, and suffocated.

YOU CAN'T MAKE ME LIKE THIS.

[dreamnightwind]

70. Excellent OP

Thanks, I pretty much agree with all of it, and I really hope we can come up with a workable alternative before it is too late in the process. This discussion advances that possibility. Our only hope is the primaries. We absolutely has to find a way to get into the game. It's always difficult, the money is always against us, and the money is very hard to beat, but it is possible.

Though I am pretty far left, I realize that much of the country is not. So I don't think it really has to be someone from the left, they could be more centered on the left-right spectrum.

It needs to be someone who is not aligned with the forces of empire, private prisons, private schools, surveillance state, drones, militarization in general, hiring workers in the least-regulated poorest nations, Wall Street, etc. And they need to be 100% committed to taking on climate change, which is likely to take this whole ship down if the capitalists have their way.

Are those left-right? I don't think they necessarily are, they are more top-bottom, and if a candidate representing the downtrodden masses can find a way to get their message out, there are enough people in this country that aren't doing well, who agree with the above, that such a candidate could very well succeed without the backing of the establishment. And ideologically, such a candidate would be a natural fit for what Democrats are supposed to be all about, which is helping the little guy more than the greedy CEOs who are busy helping themselves.

In the general election, such a candidate would represent a clear alternative to the Republican they are up against, which is a good thing.

[JackRiddler]

72. There is much "left" that would be popular.

Americans would support universal single-payer health care, a guarantee for Social Security, and very probably a roll-back of the empire and an end to the war on drugs.

As you say:

It needs to be someone who is not aligned with the forces of empire, private prisons, private schools, surveillance state, drones, militarization in general, hiring workers in the least-regulated poorest nations, Wall Street, etc. And they need to be 100% committed to taking on climate change, which is likely to take this whole ship down if the capitalists have their way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. Vote for whomever you want in the primary. In the general, vote for the nominee or else. n/t

[Zorra]

79. This OP is a perfect example of one of the reasons I love DU. Bravo. nt

[JackRiddler]

85. Ooooh, thank you so much!

[Howler]

80. no way in hell

Will I ever vote for Hillary Clinton

[99Forever]

81. I will NOT vote for Clinton...

... or any other Turd Way DINO.

If the Democratic Party wants my vote, they will HAVE to run STRONGLY progressive candidates for every office I vote on, and I WILL vote. It isn't even open to an argument.

[Le Taz Hot]

84. We need to start looking for other candidates NOW.

And keep competitors alive so THE REST OF THE COUNTRY has a chance to vote and nominate the people they want, not just the ONE that The Party Bosses has deemed "viable." We keep them alive by making sure they have a presence in all 50 states and NOT give up after South Carolina.

[brooklynite]

94. Well, Clinton's supporters (not "The Party Bosses") are already getting organized...

(I've already been approached for support). If you want someone different, I suggest you get organized now; it's a pleasant fiction that candidates don't need to worry until 2015, and since the people you're likely thinking of aren't planning to run, you'll need extra time to convince them. Let us know how it works out.

[B Calm]

90. Egads man, the election is a long way off. .

[JackRiddler]

92. Her DU campaign has already started

Or maybe it's just her fans. Either way.

[justiceischeap]

91. Is she running? nt

[Eddie Haskell]

100. Anyone who votes for Clinton is voting for the status quo.

[L0oniX]

101. This will piss off the other worshippers.

The left got thrown under the bus and now they are expected to come to the big tent circus again because there is no other choice. Fuck that! Even if they were to promise their first born male child I doubt the Dems are going to get many lefties under the big tent. We learned that the tent comes down after the show. If you want lefty votes then you better come up with a "real" left leaning Dem candidate ....one that doesn't say one thing during a campaign and then do another after the election.

[AtomicKitten]

111. Okay. Else it is.

[sabrina 1]

113. Well, I was questioned very suspiciously right here on DU re Hillary and what my political intention

for 2016 might be. The tone of the interrogation was disturbing. It had the feeling of being interrogated in a Police station as a suspect in a crime.

If this is their strategy, they can forget getting anyone on board other than the most extreme Partisans. The sheer tone deaf attitude towards people's genuine concerns and the push to simply ram through another candidate the people will again be told is 'better than Republicans' may have worked for the past two elections, but they need to listen carefully right now, even the most dedicated Democrats from birth are beginning to express real doubts about the direction their party is headed in.

I will support who I think is best for this country. I will never, ever, no way ever support anyone who voted for Bush's devastating, murderous war in Iraq. Too much seriously bad judgement apparent in those who did so.