If Hillary's Nominated....

[Alamom]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/if-hillarys-nominated-n_b_46497.html


If Hillary's Nominated, No Progressive Third Party Voting Please

Russell Shaw
4.21.07

I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. As I have written before in this space, I find her overly shrewd, power-coveting, scripted, focus group-driven and hypocritical.

But then I look at this past week's 5-4 Supreme Court vote against "partial birth abortion." Then I hold up the ages of liberal Justices John Paul Stevens (87), and an increasingly feeble Ruth Bader Ginsburg (74) against the actuarial tables.

>

I'd love for the oath-taker to be Al Gore, or John Edwards, or Bill Richardson. But if it comes down to saving Roe, I'd settle for Hillary. With more campaign funds than her Democratic opponents, her nomination is likely. I can see where Obama will fade, Edwards may need to drop out, and Gore will stay out.

At this point in time, though, I can see a scenario that causes ideological purists on our side of the fence to do something stupid that will cause Hillary to fall short, and thus, pave the path for another anti-choice, Justice-appointng Republican to get into the White House.


Here's what I am afraid could happen, in chronological order:

1. Hillary wins the Democratic nomination for President.

2. Progressives still bearing a grudge against Hillary for her 2003 vote for the Iraq War start a strategically clueless quest for a left-wing independent nominee.

3. A left-wing alternative emerges: Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, maybe even (G-R-R-R-alph Nader again. Hell, if Henry Wallace or Barry Commonner were still alive, they'd get votes as well.

4. Enough dreamy, non-practical progressives let their anger at Hillary's 2003 Iraq vote blind them to the political realities on the ground- and thus vote for the progressive.

5. The "progressive" candidate siphons enough votes from Hillary to tilt enough states into the Republican column that a McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee, etc. takes the oath. Of course there will be conspiracy theories of "stolen elections," but all that hemming and hawing will accomplish will be to psychologically enable some of our fellow lefties who will vote for third party candidates to deflect blame.

But a lot of good that will do. I say this because of Step 6:

6. And then the fifth anti-Roe "Justice" wins confirmation, overturns Roe (if it hasn't already been accomplished by then) and then pregnant, poor women in anti-choice states go to jail or even die at the hands of back-alley abortionists.

Yes, this past week's "partial birth abortion" vote convinced me what I have already been thinking.

>

I may not trust Hillary about too many things, but I do trust her to appoint the right type of Supreme Court Justices.

[Nite Owl]

1. This is a must win

election if we don't want the courts to be right wing for decades.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Her only saving grace, except that with a democratic house/senate

the problem becomes that she might not nominate a liberal enough justice. She might falsely believe that she needs to "go to the middle" and nominate another Sandra Day O'Connor, instead of nominating two Ruth Bader Ginsbergs (or, be still my beating heart, a new William Brennan and a new Thurgood Marshall).

[earthside]

3. It Maybe a Moot Point

I personally think that the Democrats have made a great blunder in moving to what could be a virtual conclusion to the presidential nomination by the middle of February 2008.

Especiallyif Hillary wins big and wraps up the nomination that early ... and if the Republicans do the same, I predict that a third party or independent presidential candidacy will be inevitable.

Imagine Hillary and whomever the virtual GOP nominee is Guiliani? Fred Thompson? ... beating each other up for four, almost five months? The voters of this country could be absolutely sick of both of them by the time the conventions roll around in July and August.

What a temptation for a guy like Michael Bloomberg to get in as a well funded, credible "independent" candidate for president.

There maybe other multi-millionaire or billionaire conservatives and/or progressives that see the same opportunity to offer something fresh and new by June of 2008 -- and they would have plenty of time to organize a real and significant campaign.

So, if ... if the nominations of the major parties are indeed decided so very early next year, the pleadings now to support whomever the nominee is may become a rather moot point in the whirl of independent candidates. Who knows what will happen? What if Al Gore accepts a draft from the Unity '08 movement?

It could be very interesting and exciting and we could end up with an 'independent' president for the first time in over 150 years.

[karynnj]

13. If the Republicans were smart, they would nominate Bloomsberg

who has been called Gulliani without the baggage. He has done a good job in NYC - and he would get tons of moderate votes.Fortunately for us the Republicans would never nominate him.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Nope, if they were smart they'd nominate Hagel--Bloomberg is

not what I'd call "Presidential". Although I could see them running on a ticket together.

[Tom Joad]

4. She might support some abortion rights (i am not certain even about that) but she may also usher in

WWIII. That's not good for women, children, and other living things.

[rodeodance]

9. She came done hard on the decision the othre day.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

12. Advocating for the Green Party..

is not allowed here..Got it! Go to a Green Party message board.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. I am not a Green and was not advocating voting Green

I was pointing out the thinking that many voters will have if HRC is the nominee. If a Republican is going to win anyway, many people will vote Green since it will not make a difference in the election's outcome. If you truly oppose the Green Party you would not want a weak nominee. HRC would be the best thing to ever happen for the Greens. They may even be able to reach the 5% threshold with HRC due to the confluence of her DLCism and her weakness in a general election.

[mtnsnake]

18. It's too late! You already DID advocate it about an inch north of here.

You might want to get on the Ginkgo biloba right away!

[ShortnFiery]

27. If HRC is nominated, I'll quit DU because I'm going 100% Green.

Why not? IMO both HRC and the DLC are representative of merely a gentler form of Fascism than the Republicans. :scared:

[mtnsnake]

14. Take your self defeatist mentality to the Green Underground where other losers will appreciate you

Stop spreading the seeds of apathy why dont you green boy!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Was I responsible for the apathy and low Democratic turnout in 1994?

Oh wait that was...

[mtnsnake]

17. Whatever apathy there was I wouldn't be surprised if you played a hand in it!

Glad you asked.

[rinsd]

28. "apathy and low Democratic turnout in 1994"

Hillary Clinton was responsible for that?

It had nothing to do with a focused, unified, on message GOP and a Democrat party plagued by scandals that saw humilation for some of its long time stalwarts?

[KingFlorez]

20. Why do you think they could win?

A lot of Republicans hate Guiliani and would sit it out and no one outside of Tennessee really knows who Fred Thompson is. Hillary would beat both of them easily.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. They hate HRC more and would turn out in droves to vote against her

You are right about many wingers hating Giuliani but HRC would negate that built-in Democratic advantage against him. The other problem with him, though, is his popularity with swing voters. The things that make him unpopular among some conservatives are what are his strengths among swing voters.

As far as Thompson goes, you are right. No one knows him yet he is still ahead of HRC (In contrast, Edwards beats him by 14 and Obama by 12...http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/2008DemocraticPresidentialMatchups.htm). Why? Because a substantial share of the population would simply vote for anyone over HRC. She is disliked that much. Polls find that at least 45% and as much as 52% of people would not even consider voting for her! That is why even little-known ultraconservative Sam Brownback is within 5 points of her right now...

[Tom Joad]

6. The problem is hardly those who vote other than Democrat, but those

who feel unmoved even to vote at all. The nominee is responsible for motivating people.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. HRC will motivate many people to vote...

Unfortunately, 99% of those people will be conservatives...

[havocmom]

10. a-yup

If Hillary is nominated, I will probably wander off and become a hermit.

[rodeodance]

8. If--then I will support her---door to door whatever it takes!

[Donna Zen]

11. Blame games are always messy

Of course, there's always the possibility that we nominate someone else.

I've noticed that in the coverage of the republican and Democratic races for the primary, the pundits generally qualify the republican side with words something like: "but so-and-so isn't acceptable to the base." That is never said about the Democratic side. If anything is mentioned about the Dem. base's unhappiness with Sen. Clinton's possible nomination, the reporter refers to the far-left or the anti-war far-left. First, how far-left does one have to be to disagree with the Iraq War, or bad trade policies?

Let's not play the blame game. Let's avoid it all together. How about the party (think about all those super-delegates and the money machine) supporting someone who reflects the base's thinking. You may think that is Sen. Clinton, but since I attend my Dem. County and State meetings, I disagree. Maybe it is time for the Democrats to pay attention to their base. Now there's a thought.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will advocate/work/vote for her

Most people don't have the superior and in-depth insight that we Solonic DUers have -- to the Great Unwashed masses, Hillary is a liberal, and would be the first woman in office. So if HRC is a focus-group-and-poll-driven politician, in that case, s'alright.

This is a long-term fight. I would prefer Al Gore or Barack Obama, but whoever wins the Democratic Party nomination gets my vote.

We can get fussy after we've put the GOP out of power.

--p!

[zulchzulu]

22. What did Bill Clinton do to stop partial birth abortion legislation?

Not much...

Granted, if Senator Clinton got the nomination (she won't), it would be a no-brainer to vote mostly against the Repugs... voting for Nader is pretty pointless.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Interesting scenario, but I doubt Obama will "fade"--the more he talks,

the better I like him, and I'm sure a lot of folks will feel the same way. He is not a bubble that will burst. There is substance to the man, and that will certainly be evident in coming months and in debate. If Hillary is the nominee, I will support her, and hope for the best. The SCOTUS appointments do hang in the balance here, lest any disgusted 3rd-party type voters forget that.

[LaPera]

25. I will trust all Democrat's nominees to the court...........Not just Hillary's

[MadHound]

26. Then perhaps this needs to be taken into account,

And Hillary shouldn't get the nod:shrug:

Sorry, but for the anti-war left, voting for Hillary is going to be a moral anethma. Sure, she might appoint a better SC justice, but quite frankly with the 5-4 tilt already in place(no thanks to the Dems who kept their powder dry:eyes:), most won't see the SC issue as urgent anymore. But they will see the fact that Hillary has already stated she'll be keeping some troops in Iraq, and she is a pro corporate shill, and yes, they will go third party.

You may not agree with this mindset, but it is a growing one. The left is looking at our political mess and coming to the conclusion that yes, there is really very little difference between the two. Both are bought off by the same corporations, the majority of the public, the middle and poor classes have suffered under both, so why bother playing this good cop/bad cop game. In addition, there is some serious latent anger issues on the left, derived from the fact that while the center and right wing of the Democratic party is catered too and rewarded with legislation that addresses their pet issues, the left gets no such care and feeding. Instead our issues are ignored, our cries go unheard, yet like clockwork, every four years the party comes our and demands their due, namely our vote. In fact it is more than a demand, it is a command, given under veiled threats, and if somebody dares to speak out against this inequity and the high handedness of this practice, they are excortiated and shouted down(let's see if that happens here).

If you want the left's vote the party must do one of two things. Either don't give the nod to Hillary, which would be preferable. But failing that, then the party absolutely must take up one of the left's pet causes and make it their, make it law. Something like UHC would do the trick, a reward for the left's hard work and votes over the years.

But to simply stand there and demand our vote, using the tactics of fearmongering and veiled threats of bullying won't make Hillary anymore attractive. In fact you will probably just drive the left away even more. We're like any other segment of the party, we need our care and feeding, something that hasn't been done for decades. Do that and you have our votes. Give the nod to Hillary, and continue with the same ol' same ol' bully boy tactics and you will lose. It's that simple.

[Tellurian]

29. If the Left had kept their noses out of Gore's business

and told Nader to get lost, we wouldn't be in this mess, now would we?

Following the Left is no different than following the Right!

[MadHound]

31. Another fine example of highhandness from the Democratic party

And the members thereof. A Hillary supporter no less. Ah yes, the left should just shut up, fall in line, and expect nothing:eyes:

And you wonder why people are leaving the party in droves.

The Democratic party is a coalition party, made up of members from the left, right and middle. In such coalition parties, each particular group needs its own care and feeding. The moderate and conservative Democrats have certainly gotten their, as have the corporate Democrats and the monied Democrats. But those of us on the left have been neglected for years and decades now. The left has traditionally been the base of the party, the ones who get out, beat the street and do the heavy, door to door, call by call, street by street lifting in the party. Yet when it comes to passing out the goodies, the left gets left behind, year in, year out. What, are we a party only of the well heeled, well monied and well connected? Why should the priorities of the right and center matter more than those of the left?

But apparently that is all that matters, sadly. Probably because money, all that money that the right, center and corporate Dems donate. Manpower doesn't matter, nor does our votes and loyalty. So we have reached the point where favors and issues are addressed on the basis of money. Sad, truly. But what is sadder yet is when the left wing of the party demands recognition, we are told to sit down, shut up, keep our noses out of everybody's business, and vote how we're told, even when it is against our morals and self interests.

So do you really blame those who look elsewhere to get their demands heard? Do you really expect a whipped dog to stick around for more beatings? Yet the party acts suprised and angered when the left wing of the party does just that. Well, again, if you wish for the support of the left wing, you've got to provide at least some care and feeding to them. Toss us a bone! UHC, Out of Iraq NOW, that sort of thing. FDR, one of the greatest presidents, much less Democrats, had the common sense to do this, why don't our party leaders do the same now?

Money uber alles, that's what it's all about now.

So if Hillary gets the nod, and the left deserts in droves, don't act all suprised and outraged. You know what needs to be done, you know what will happen if that doesn't get done, so your shock and anger will be faux emotions and entirely unwarranted.

This is a coalition party, you've got to give a little to get a little.

[Tellurian]

35. Oh, yeah...the wing of the Demo Party that gave us Nader!

No-thanks! going door to door, YOU gave US Bush..
So, save the delusional sarcasm and feigned outrage, tuck it under your pillow at night and DREAM ON!

[MadHound]

36. Another fine example, a classic attitude that pervades the party now

"No, we're not going to do anything for the left, but the party wants your hard work, blood, sweat, tears, cash, oh yeah, and your vote. But don't
think you're going to get anything for it, nosireebob. We've got to pay all those fine corporate maste. . .oops, I mean donors back." :eyes:

Yup, there it is, what the Democratic party has become for the left wing, a demanding, abusive tyrant who thinks that it deserves items that it
doesn't earn, like our vote. Gee, whatever did happen to earning those votes? Did it go out of fashion when the party discovered they could buy
votes instead with all of that corporate money?

Oh, and for your information, it wasn't the left wing of the party that lost the '00 election. Even the great DLC god Al From was honest enough to recognize that: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919> Gee, looks like a fair number of conservatives were voting for Nader also:shrug: Throw in the fact that 30% of Nader voters wouldn't have voted at all if Nader wasn't in the race, combined with the number of independents, etc who voted for Nader, and your supposed desertion by the left wing of the Democratic party looks rather more like the left wing actually stayed with Gore. But then again, party members aren't about facts when it comes to the left. They much prefer to demonize them, bully them, and scapegoat them.

Case in point, your post above. I dare to call the party on the carpet for its treatment of the left wing of the party, and instead of wishing to compromise or discuss things rationally, you, like the rest of the party, attack with falsehoods and bullshit. Typical.

And you wonder why the left continues to seriously consider leaving the party each and every election. What's suprising to me is that the left has actually stuck around this long. Of course I'm suprised at myself, since I also have stuck around for thirty five years. Nothing like being taken for granted.

[MGKrebs]

41. I might suggest that your juxtaposition of "the party" and "the nominee" are part of the problem.

Presidential politics are a unique event. The attention, the money, the conflict... all are substantially different than any other "party" activity. Many, many people participate in presidential politics who do not participate in politics, or activism for that matter, in any other way. I don't think it is fair to freely substitute those concepts.

If we, the grassroots, have not yet sufficiently prepared the voters for a truly progressive candidate yet, then we should recognize that our role for THIS election is limited, and take the next best option. Sticking to an idealistic position in an arena dominated by mainstream-ism is a risky situation... and it is not just your life at risk.

We have much work to do to restore a truly progressive society. We are under-funded, 20 years behind, and a lot less focused than our opponents, but our principles are virtuous and we will eventually prevail. Support progressive congresspeople, state legislators, activist organizations, and community leaders and eventually we will have a constituency that will nominate the progressive presidential candidate that most of us want.

Sometimes a base hit is all you need to win the game that clinches the pennant, whereas going for the home run risks a strikeout, dooming the team to another failed season. Except this is not a sport.

You probably buy stuff made in China even though it hurts jobs here, and you probably drive a car even though it contributes to global warming... these are calculated risks you take balancing your needs, your community's needs, and global needs. Politics is no different. We devalue ourselves when we drastically limit our field of view.

[MadHound]

42. I'm taking the long, historical view on this

I cut my teeth with McGovern back in the day. The candidate whom nobody thought would get the nod. We worked our asses off, "prepared the voters" and got the man on the ballot. The trouble is that we got knifed in the back by the conservative, moderate and corporate wing of the party, withholding money, endorsements, material and manpower. In my local area, a region of about twenty counties, the local McGovern campaign met with the state Democratic party to merge our operations, get funding, etc. etc. We were flat out told that we were on our own, that the party would only be out there to support the rest of the slate, but was not going to lift a finger to help McGovern, even though he was at the top of the ticket. These good ol' boys, the backroom power brokers were pissed that their boy Muskie didn't get the nod, and in retaliation hamstrung their very own candidate. And this wasn't an isolated incident, this happened in state after state across the country.

That was the high point of the left wing of the Democratic party. After '72 there was a systematic effort to demonize and marginalize the left wing of the party. Dukakis, though nowhere near as liberal as McGovern, had the perception of being liberal, at least more liberal than normal. Again, he was hung out to dry by his own party, not nearly to the extent that McGovern was, but enough that it cost him any hope for winning the election.

Since then, the DLC and corporate Dems have taken over the party, ruling with an iron fist and tolerating no dissent, especially from the left. While the moderate and conservative wings of the party have gotten perks, and their candidates have gotten party support, the left wing was ignored and demonized, as were its candidates.

The grassroots have indeed "prepared the voters", have done so for the past thirty five years. Yet we continue to face an enemy that is as bad as the 'Pugs, the hostility of our own party. Until that changes, until the party decides that it should re-embrace its left wing, the party will continue to hemmorage voters as the left either leaves or sits out in total disgust. My question is how many failed elections will the Dems tolerate before they realize that they need the left wing?

[MGKrebs]

43. How many elections? Until the left wing becomes the mainstream.

National candidates MUST appeal to at least 50% of those who vote in order to win. It's simple math. If the pandering to the middle pisses off the left wing, then the left wing needs to move the middle to the left.

It's two different battles to me. Groups like the DLC are all about elections. They don't really care too much about ideology or trying to defend a principle. They just identify where most of the votes are and craft a message to appeal to those voters.

The other battle is for the hearts and minds of the voters, not just their "superficial" vote. Progressive activists have to convince voters that progressive values are good and worthwhile BETWEEN elections, so that when elections do come around, the candidates who run will have to adopt progressive positions in order to win. I think it is unlikely that this will happen suddenly at the presidential campaign level. That is the last brick, the final piece. Before then, many local and state races will have been won by progressive candidates. As long as progressives are fighting to win elections on a (currently) non-mainstream ideology against an opponent going after votes, we will usually lose.

That's not to say we shouldn't support progressive candidates wherever they are, but I just don't think we can expect the struggle to begin and end with elections. There is a lot of other work that has to take place, and abandoning the more progressive of two candidates for a fringe third party candidate is, well, ill advised I think, and I've done it in the past, to my regret.

[AtomicKitten]

30. I'm looking at the Supreme Court --

and I will work my ass off for whoever gets the nod.

[Cameron27]

32. Exactly.

Packing the court with more RW zealots:scared:

[AtomicKitten]

33. I wish people understood that Supreme Court appointments

are more important than which Dem in particular wins the White House.

[Cameron27]

34. I wish they did too.

I'm voting Democratic if I have to put a clothspin on my nose. Too much to lose for some assumed vision of purity.

[salin]

37. While I don't think that she is "the best" - she is better than anything the GOP offers.

If she gets the nomination, I will support her.

[mmonk]

38. I hate that word "purist".

Especially since those that use it the most in our party structure are the ones that say the "liberal" progressives are no longer welcome in the party structure.

[skipos]

39. Hillary supporters should recognize that she her nomination will upset many Dems

MUCH more than the nomination of any other current candidate. She's go my vote if she is nominated, but I think we will have a hard time getting her elected.

[Colobo]

40. If Hillary is nominated, then Rudy or Romney actually have a good chance of winning

[NewYorkerfromMass]

44. disagree

they are both lightweights compared to her.