General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If HRC is nominated WITHOUT a primary challenge: [View all]Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In a Democratic adminstration, Democratic voters are supposed to be able to count, if nothing else, on at least never LOSING ground.
I'm as pro-choice as you are, but throwing poor women under the bus, throwing working-class women out of jobs with globalization, and occasionally throwing some women into the freaking gas chamber weren't worth ONE Supreme Court justice and the grudging, nominal protection of reproductive rights(something Bill and Hillary never really cared about anyway, because if they had they wouldn't have accepted the argument that women who seek abortions should, in fact, be treated like wretched sinners).
Besides, we never had to be as far to the ugly right as we were in '92 and '96. The country wasn't demanding that Dems be just as pro-Wall Street and anti-99% as the GOP.
And there's no public demand now for Obama's trade pact proposal or for letting Wall Street brokers strut around like gods who walk the earth.
Nor is there any reason to believe that any HRC Supreme Court nominee would ever stand with the people against Wall Street, Pro-business Dems NEVER nominate anyone to the court that does things like that. She'd probably nominate a corporate lawyer who just happens to be slightly pro-choice.
We can win WITHOUT leaving the majority behind and out in the cold. We can win with a grassroots, people's campaign.
Big checks from bankers isn't the only way to protect choice.
We can win AND keep our party's soul.
What do we have to lose from trying?