BREAKING: Eric Holder endorses Hillary

It's where a majority of progressives are. Great place to be.

Refused to go after both Wall Street and BP. Pure corporate POS who fits well with Hillary.

When we gave him BP's dirty documents and asked for their probation to be revoked (BP was on probation for their 2005 Texas City plant explosion that killed 15 and injured thiusands) after the Deepwater Horizon debacle. Holder let them off of probation EARLY instead!!!

I love a good romance.

That's right. Anyone with a private sector background is suspect and corrupt. Heck, Bernie's last private sector gig was the occassional carpentry job in Northern Vermont in the early '70's, in between unempolyment stints. That's why he's the expert.

That's right. Anyone with a private sector background is suspect and corrupt. Heck, Bernie's last private sector gig was the occassional carpentry job in Northern Vermont in the early '70's, in between unempolyment stints. That's why he's the expert.

Once is enough. No sense making the same ignorant comment twice.

Cell phone. Easy to dup, and delete function does not work. Does he have private sector experience I don't know about?

News to me. He was basically the corporatist political shield against criticism that Obama wasn't doing enough against abusive police departments.

A key to determine whether he was liked or not, can be found in the usage of terms like, "corporatist shield" ... those of us that see/are affected by more than economics, tend not to place such emphasis on those boogey man terms.

Dude was a stooge for racist police departments and hedge fund managers.

His clients at Covington and Burling are... you get one guess. That's right, multinational corporations (including Halliburton).

are found among the Black community for his Civil Rights work AND his TAKING ON the racist police departments (see: Ferguson and Cleveland, before that).



Wow ... you have AG Holder's client list? Or, do you just NOT know how law firms operate; particularly, with respect to their partners.

I'm like -huh? Whaaaaaaat?

has done. Many of us feel that we will never know the full potential from these men because of Republican interference and yet, in spite of all of that, they did alot.

For people who keep their eyeballs pinned to Black Twitter for anything that embarrasses Hillary no matter how banal and pretend so much to care about the black vote, it's kind of hilarious that so many here don't seem to know this.

it wasn't only republican interference that obstructed President Obama and AG Holder from reaching their full potential. We witness so much on this board.

And Payton Manning was the Quarterback for the Colts for years; but when he suited up for Denver, he played his heart out. Job/career choices are a political statement only on the internet.

Maybe you can answer: Which high-level executives, banking or otherwise, should he have "gone after" and for what?

Holder has this history dating back to 2000.

And it is because Holder had a history of not wanting to prosecute institutions that might effect the economy that dates back to at least 2000. He was the inspiration for the phrase "too big to jail".

failing to criminally prosecute an institution, where doing so would likely bring about a global banking collapse, is very different from failing to prosecute banking executives.

"too big to jail" is a sound bite that has little relevance in the real world, despite its inaccuracy.

That's what the FDIC is for. If the people with the big money past that limit lose their shirts it's hard for me to feel sorry for them. If they have that much money they should be informed enough to know they're past their limit.
I have my money in a Credit Union and those would survive because they don't make high risk investments while the Big Banks do. When the banking crash happened, ONE Credit Union collapsed. ONE. You're one strong black man, don't you support strong local institutions?

A bank ... just like it wasn't just A bank collapsing in 1929. And, FDIC would be no where near what would be necessary to restore global banking security.



Absolutely! I am a strong advocate of breaking up the big banks and boring banking that's why I have most of our money in a local credit union and a (relatively small) regional bank ... both organizations, I know the Presidents/CEOs, personally.

But, I know enough about banking to know that wherever my money is parked, it is at risk (even with FDIC and the credit union equivalent) should one of the big boys go down. And, I like eating every day.

He was good on civil rights issues and social justice. He should be complimented for that. And for his previoius record in the justice system.

But he also previously worked in private corporate law defending big banks and otehr large corporations. He was not so good on enforcing true accountability in the corporate and financial sectors. And that also DOES affect everyone.

The fact that he eased back over to a big bucks job the corporate/financial law sector after he left the administration is too much of a reflection of the cronyism and elitism that bothers many about the current state of the Democratic Party and its leadership.

And, that is the strength of his endorsement.



And Patton Manning was a hell of a Quarterback for Indianapolis ... before he was a hell of a Quarterback for Denver. And, each game he played his heart out against his former team.

Again, a job choice is ONLY a political statement on the internet.



Again, ignoring the near billion dollars in civil prosecutions and settlements that he extracted, WHO could/should he have prosecuted criminally, and for WHAT?



Do you have any idea what AG Holder is doing in private practice? Do you have any idea how law firms work ... particularly, partners in law firms.

I would suggest that much of the "reflection of the cronyism and elitism that bothers many about the current state of the Democratic Party and its leadership" is borne of paranoia and ignorance ... perception is NOT reality, especially when the perceiver is prone to seeing conspiracy and graft under every rock.

Or did you have to wait until the AG's office sided with the police when cases came to the supreme court?

No Surprise... Who is the next "Establishment" Shill to be dredged up. The more the merrier... Just serves to solidify her Corporate Friendly image in the eyes of the American people... Exactly why she will not defeat Bernie for the nomination in the end... Look for a blowout for Bernie Iowa and NH!

I doubt he's some kind of huge hero to many here.

Seems many in the Obama Administration are either heading to help Clinton on the ground or endorsing her.

Great news. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you in advance.


Respectfully,
DSB

And take that for what it's worth… Holder was a joke from the get go. I think even Hillary might be saying, "Who?"

I will have to respectfully demur from your assessment that the first African American Attorney General in the history of the republic was a joke.


Thank you in advance.


Respectfully,
DSB

Why in Gods name are you going down that path? Holders failure to go after banking criminal acts ( see record settlements) and not taking a stand against the Bush Admin torture program is part of the reason I thought he was not cut out for the job. Remember, the AG is not be holding to the whim of the president. The position is one of independence and can act as he sees fit within the law.

Didn't the Justice Department find no wrongdoing in the case or refuse to prosecute?

Granted, I too thought more should have been done but I would have gone all the way up and gone after Gov. Nixon.

If you don't believe Attorney General Holder acquitted himself admirably during his tenure there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Thank you in advance.


Respectfully,
DSB

And that's okay. Best wishes to you.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/holder-calls-updated-fair-housing-lending-laws
..."Under Holder, the Civil Rights Division has racked up the most hate crime convictions in more than a decade as the FBI and Civil Rights Division began actively investigating and prosecuting hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity with the implementation of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

And during a Lambda Legal reception in June, Holder took aim at the Boy Scouts of America’s remaining ban on gay Scout leaders, comparing it to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and describing it as “a relic of an age of prejudice and insufficient understanding.”

According to Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, Holder’s record is unmatched. “Some Attorneys General wait for history, others make history happen. Attorney General Holder made history for the LGBT community,” Griffin said in a statement. “He was our Robert F. Kennedy, lightening the burden of every American who faces legal discrimination and social oppression. We owe him a profound debt of gratitude for his legacy of advocacy and service.”

Sorry this is all a joke to you.

Went from a job as an upper crust lawyer protecting the interests of big corporations and big banks to AJ position, then back to the big money corridors of corporate power.

He is too typical of the elitist revolving door and oligarchical tendency of the establishment Democratic Party.

And because of that, my first instinct was to laugh.

"That will change nothing" in homogeneous states like Iowa and New Hampshire but it might change a lot in heterogeneous states like Florida, California, Texas, New York, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, et cetera.... Actually everywhere but Iowa and New Hampshire.

Yeah, that's gotta be it.

will affect that segment of the populace that values/valued AG Holder's stellar civil rights work?

I expect his endorsement will do little to sway uncommitted voters of any genome. His unpopularity may be more pronounced in some communities.

If you believe the first African American Attorney General in the history of the republic will have no effect on those with a similar "genome" there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.





Respectfully,
DSB

Killer Mike? ... Now, that there is a "game-changer"!

I am not going to begrudge anybody an endorsement but the myriad posts touting it as a game changer among some with a certain genome struck me as fanciful as those with that genome could be so easily swayed by an entertainer.

Celebrity endorsements are fun but I don't support Hillary because she was endorsed by Bon Jovi and Lena Dunham.

...we'll fix it!"

nor is it an endorsement that's going to help Hillary's "progressive image"

stoking a "progressive image" ... much more, for most Democratic voters.

There is much more to effectively campaigning than 'stoking' a progressive "image" as you put it
so well, in Hillary's case.

a) Having a decades-long consistently progressive substance is much more important.
b) Having a proven track record of pulling Independents and even GOP voters into your camp
because they've grown to respect a candidate's honesty, integrity, directness, capacity to stay
true to their unwavering commitment to policies that clearly benefit 95% of their constituency,
and not just a handful of wealthy and/or corporate financial backers.
c) Having a capacity to communicate respectfully yet convincingly to audiences well-known to
be fundamentally 'opposed' to much of what you stand for, as Bernie demonstrated at Liberty
University, and to do this without pandering.

Yes, there is much much more effective campaigning than simply appearing to be 'progressive'
when it's convenient, while claiming to also be "moderate" when that's convenient.

Wonder how she picked up that one?

And they wonder why there's a "grassroots rebellion?"

Talk about tone-deaf!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

The guy who wouldn't investigate and CRIMINALLY prosecute her TOP DONORS!

But then, no one seems to be able to identify WHO should have been prosecuted and for WHAT.

It is indeed a mystery, wrapped in an enigma.

Greed and/or stupidity are not crimes in these United States, at least, not yet.

to defend the indefensible. Are you special?

I seem to, now, be a "a special kind of person" because I understand what is required to criminally prosecute people in America.

That has nothing to do with "defend(ing) the indefensible"; but rather, being fact driven.

However, there was once I time, on DU, where I was just a regular poster ... because facts mattered.

ETA: I noticed you did not answer the question ... Prosecute WHO for What? From what I've seen, the only Donor where a criminal case could have been brought was Jamie Dimon, for violating The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (for signing an inaccurate disclosure form).

the Clinton campaigns deliberate mischaracterization of the Sanders Medicare for All Single Payer Plan...how do those kind of "facts" drive you? Do "facts" matter all the time, or just when convenient?

and his ability to criminally prosecute the bankers ... what are you talking about?

eom

Does Sanders' Medicare for All Healthcare plan, that turns out to be still under development, NOT call for all the iterations of healthcare plans, i.e., Obamacare, the CHIP program, Medicare, and private insurance plans, into a single national program that will be turned over to the Governors to administer?

Would that NOT change the character of the afore-mentioned healthcare programs?

While I support Medicare for All, largely because collapsing of the plans into a single, national program is a great idea, as it expands savings through efficiencies of scale and removing duplicative serves ... but , turning it over to the states IS a BIG problem, as Kentucky, Arizona and all the other states that resisted the ACA, should demonstrate.

to implement it as they can for ACA then you are quite wrong on that point.

of social safety net programming?

Answer: because it takes NATIONAL programs and puts them in the hands of Governors to administer.

Cut it ouwwt! Yer killin' me.

Thank you in advance.



Respectfully,
DSB

For the win!

Former Attorney General Eric Holder is endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, giving her a boost that could prove important in Southern states where black voters have strong influence


By BILL BARROW, Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — As she works to maintain an advantage among African-American voters in her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton has secured an endorsement from the nation's first black attorney general.

The Clinton campaign announced Eric Holder's support in a statement to the Associated Press.

Holder, who served as President Barack Obama's top law enforcement appointee for more than five years, said Clinton "is the candidate that we need in the White House" to continue "the progress of President Obama."

The former attorney general will campaign for Clinton in an upcoming swing to South Carolina, accompanying her to a state Democratic Party dinner Saturday and a Sunday debate sponsored by NBC News and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Holder's statement cited a list of policy areas that Clinton has highlighted in her battle against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, including several that resonate strongly among black voters.

African-American voters favor Clinton by a wide margin according to preference polls, and they will likely make up a majority of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina's Feb. 27 primary and potentially in other Southern primaries that follow in March.


http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-13/clinton-gets-nod-from-former-attorney-general-eric-holder

by and large don't care about.

don't share your sentiment.

Or maybe not

(or at least his "cool kids" supporters) as being tone-deaf on racial issues.

http://www.thenation.com/article/eric-holders-voting-rights-legacy/

..."When Eric Holder took over the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division, known as the crown jewel of the agency, was in shambles. Conservative political appointees in the Bush administration had forced out well-respected section chiefs. Longtime career lawyers left in droves, replaced by partisan hacks. Civil rights enforcement was virtually non-existent.

Holder made restoring the credibility of the Civil Rights Division a leading cause. “In the last eight years, vital federal laws designed to protect rights in the workplace, the housing market, and the voting booth have languished,” he said at his confirmation hearing. “Improper political hiring has undermined this important mission. That must change. And I intend to make this a priority as attorney general.”

Enforcing the Voting Rights Act became a key priority for Holder’s Justice Department. In 2012, it successfully challenged Texas’s voter ID law, South Carolina’s voter ID law, and Florida’s cutbacks to early voting under the VRA.
...........

This cause was personal to Holder. His sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, was one of two African-American students to integrate the University of Alabama in 1963. “I so wish Vivian had lived to see this moment,” Holder said in Selma after Obama’s election. ....." (more at link)

In the words of a (former and much revered) "Pillar of DU" (before he self-deleted the post) ... "If you don't understand that Income inequality is THE problem; then, YOU are the problem!"

Frankly, one of the big problems today is this artificial separation of economic and social justice (including racial justice).

Instead of holistically linking them together (as I would argue MLK did, especially in his latter life) they have been separated into artificial distinctions.

Among otherr effects, that conveniently makes it possible to distract attention from the conjunction of social/economic justice by separating some real concerns from other real concerns.

It also separates loyalties, rather than promoting unity to promote all aspects of justice in the big picture.

Holder was good in parts of the whole picture, but not so good on the other elements.

And yet, some seem to only have a part with one side of this artificial separation ... Holder's legacy is inconsequential garbage because he didn't "jail the bankers" (for what, no one seems to be able to articulate) ... despite ALL he has done on the civil rights front.



You would be more convincing/sincere (to me, at least), if you had posted this, and the other stuff) in response any of the other posts in this thread impugning AG Holder's legacy. I hope you will take a moment to reflect on the comment and history (at least of the left, including DU).

I haven't the time here to explain all that I have observed and what is behind that statement. Would be too long winded, even for me.

But I will say that over the decades since the 1960's, we have been divided into "camps" and we have allowed issues to be distorted. It has brought us to a point where instead of a population that pushes for the best interests of everyone (from a liberal/progressive perspective), we focus on narrow interests while ignoring or avoiding the Big Picture that connects them all together.

And that has resulted in enabling a completely lopsided system of wealth and power, and enabled an unchallenged oligarchy to form.

Holder represents that. He was great in the sense of civil rights and related matters. But being in a position of having to go after the corporate and financial interests he worked for (and returned to) is part of that separation of values and interests I am referring to.

In real world terms, if he had been appointed/hired to head a civil rights division within the DOJ or something like that, he would have been deserving of praise. No hesitency about that.

But as a corporate attorney who worked (and returned to) the elite level of a corrupt system as the top cop of all Justice at a time when the economy had been looted and was in danger of crashing...well, not so much.

That may sound picky, but it reflects the need to balance the scales of who is represented in the halls of power. He is just one example of why we need a more consistent commitment to basic progressive/liberal reform of our overall system that doesn't advance the cause of social/economic justice with one hand, while reinforcing an abusive system on the other.

as exhibited here:



You say this, comfortable sitting in the space where the "big picture" will do little to benefit PoC and other others, while dismissing it as "narrow interests"; but, ignoring the perspective that the "big picture" that benefit you greatly, is a "narrow interest" for most outside of your group.

You are just re-hashing the "social justice/civil rights is divisive; but, economic justice is unifying" canard.

It's not a unique point to me. A variation oif it has been bewildering and perplexing Democrats for years. (What's the Matter with Kansas? for example)

And frankly, I resent your assumption that my views reflect some comfortable perch in which I can throw the concerns of POC under the bus because it doesn't affect me.

That's total bullshit on your part because you know nothing about me or why I believe the way I do.

How about, even if we disagree, we agree that I won't question your motives and life experiences and you don't question mine?

And then, you go into the oligarch thing ... But one can't help to notice, that the "narrow interest" vs "big picture" argument ONLY has the social justice/civil rights matter as the "narrow interest"; while, the economic thing is ALWAYS the "big picture."

I'm sorry if you don't like what you see when I hold up the mirror.

I've always respected you and your opinions, even when I haven't agree with them.

However, I do not respect your dismissiveness and false assumptions on this.

I have merely repeated what you have written AND put it into the context of what you have done in this OP.

I do respect you overall. And also because I think what you are talking about reflects a bigger problem and difference of perceptions that drives needless division these days.

"But one can't help to notice, that the "narrow interest" vs "big picture" argument ONLY has the social justice/civil rights matter as the "narrow interest"; while, the economic thing is ALWAYS the "big picture.".......I'm sorry if you don't like what you see when I hold up the mirror. "

That's a distortion. There ARE issues that affect more people than others. People have individual priorities as to what affects them personally. That's called being human.

As a male, for example, I have nothing at stake whether all women are able to receive pap smears regardless of their income. It's totally irrelevant to me on a personal level. Doesn't affect me whatsoever.

BUT I do care about it and believe it is important on a visceral level because 1) It affects the women in my life, 2) It affects all women, and i care about that as a basic sense of decency, compassion and fairness and 3) It is one aspect of the larger issue of universal access to affordable healthcare.

Is universal healthcare a social or economic issue? Is access to women's healthcare a "social issues" a "special interest women's issue"? Those are ridiculous distinctions.

If I say I am against the domination of healthcare by private corporate interests, am I being myopic from my "comfortable perch" and only caring about an esoteric "economic issue" that doesn't affect everyone? Or only caring about it because I want to beat up corporate America out of socialist spite? Or just angling for cheaper healthcare for myself? Bullshit. That's a false dichotomy on so many levels.

The same can apply to many other issues. The behavior of cops, for example. Yes that disproportionately affects people of color, and that is an important "racial issue." .....But criminal justice reform in a larger sense is an important issue for everyone. Anyone be in a traffic stop and be subjected to inappropriate actions by a cop. That happens to white people too. So it is both a racial issue but also an element of a larger issue of social justice for everyone. Dealing with one aspect of it is part of dealing with the whole issue.

Economic issues are tied to many social issues and vice versa.

It is ridiculous to say that wages is a narrow interest that only affects a certain segment of the population . It affects the quality of life and the ability to pay for the basics and raise a family under decent conditions for EVERYONE at all income levels (except the upper echelons). And if wages are driven down by concentrations of economic power, corporate greed and immorality, Wall St. pressures and manipulations -- that is not just some silly issue that can be talked about from a "comfortable perch" of affluent white liberals. (And FYI my own economic perch is not very comfortable.)

Monopolistic corporate control of the media, is not some obscure issue that doesn't affect everyone. It does. It is, among other things, an issue that affects the ability of minorities to have their voices heard in the mainstream media and participate in the larger political conversation.

We should be able to collectively walk and chew gum at the same time. I have my priorities on issues, as do you, and that person over there. But priorities do NOT have to be the same as division. That is a circular firing squad.

and tell me again, how I have distorted your words.

Either I misused it or you are looking for reasons to be iffended.

If you prefer, substitute the words certain, some, specific, particular, individual....and you can also apply thst to the other issues of economic inequality and corporate power.

Or more simply, IMO he was very good on some issues and not so good on others.

posts such as this are plain ... how else is one to interpret the word, "narrow" or "certain" or "individual" or any other word you would have me substitute, especially in contrast to your , "Big picture" descriptor of economic interests?



But this NEVER occurs on DU ... which is my exact point.



Now, here ... we can agree. But, I suspect we differ on the importance/priority with respect to those issues where he is very good and not so good.

I remember this story about his slimy past regarding human rights:

the endorsement won't amount to a hill of beans.

Or maybe not





Respectfully,
DSB

Meh.

Clinton still outpaces Sanders across all demographic subgroups of Democrats — most notably, non-whites (92 percent favorable) and liberals, with whom 88 percent rate Clinton positively and 74 percent say the same of Sanders. But Clinton's advantage in favorable ratings is clearest among moderate and conservative Democrats, among whom 80 percent give Clinton favorable marks but only 41 percent rate Sanders positively.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/
Love is the ultimate security,

"can't hurt". She's welcome to him.

How right you are.


Respectfully,
DSB

Respectfully.

ANYONE who endorses Hillary Clinton is evil or stupid.

Just look at how they treated one of the current Cabinet secretaries, who by all accounts is one of the smartest and nicest guys in politics, just because he endorsed her the other day.

It seems that no one is immune from this treatment - at least no one who doesn't endorse Bernie Sanders.

The worst thing he ever did was to not quit sooner.

If anybody cared about endorsements of this type, Holders endorsement would cost her votes.

have paid Holder off not to endorse her publicly.

Make room for Holder.

Whoa..... who'd a thunk?

.....the banksters butts to do that?

No surprise there!How many bankers did he jail?

[link:http:// http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/25/attornery-general-eric-holder-chiquita|

on full display...

It's so dumb and counter productive it's actually incredibly funny.

Every one is on the "he should'a jailed the bankers" tip; but, no one can point to who he should have jailed and for what?

Nobody was hit by that mess more than black folks. The subprime mortgage fiasco was just one bite of the enchilada and it hit poor, older black folks the hardest.

And yet, I can still recognize the good that this man did for lots of other people. But that's because I'm not eaten up inside with hatred and think that only the issues I think are important actually are.

But, sadly, I know ... and so did AG Holder ... that greed and/or stupidity aren't crimes in these United States.

Two lovers of Wall Street.