Note to liberal Hillary-bashers

[Alamom]

Huffington Post

Martin Lewis
Note to liberal Hillary-bashers: It's The SCOTUS, Stupid!
Posted September 25, 2007 | 10:25 AM (EST)


1) I don't know who the Democratic Presidential candidate next year is going to be.


2) I don't know yet who I personally want it to be. I'm still considering. But my view really doesn't matter for the purpose of this column.

3) I DO know that I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is. If it's Dennis Kucinich or Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama or John Edwards. Or any of the other contenders. Over a Republican? There is NO debate. Nor should there be.

4) I do know that practically the only thing that can defeat the Democrats next year will be the selfish, self-destructive attitude of idealists on the left who are threatening sabotage if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

5) I have heard all the arguments and self-righteous (self-lefteous?) diatribes against Hillary on any number of topics. Corporatist... DLC... Panderer... all of that. And people who have said that there would be "no difference" between Hillary and any Republican candidate.

>


15) If you seriously believe that in regard to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices - that it makes no difference between Hillary Clinton on the one hand - and Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John McCain or even Newt Gingrich on the other hand - then you are seriously beyond redemption.

10 more points..@


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/note-to-liberal-hillaryb_b_65770.html

[mike_c]

1. "...practically the only thing that can defeat the Democrats next year..."

"...will be the selfish, self-destructive attitude of idealists on the left..."

Well, I wondered when this drivel would start. Note to democrats: if you want the left to vote for your candidates, this is NOT the way to appeal to us.

[YOY]

3. But we're all the "looney left", didn't you get the memo?

Yeah, my concers fair trade, peace and prosperity instead of the Military Industrial Complex, stopping the over outsourcing of America, and getting universal health care are all faaaaar left wing.

Yup, what a commie I am...

[jobycom]

8. He didn't say "left"

he said "the selfish, self-destructive attitude of idealists on the left..."

We are all left. Clinton is left. He's not complaining about the left, or the the idealists, he's complaining about just what he said, the selfish, self-destructive attitude that some on the left have.

If you've got that attitude, you are as evil as anyone else who votes for Bush. If you don't, you aren't. The test is simple--if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, whomever it is, you are the one he's talking about. You are empowering Satan. If you will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is, then you are on the side of good. Life is seldom about absolutes, but in this case, it is.

If Lieberman were running, that would be different.

[mike_c]

12. "You are empowering Satan."

OMFG, this just gets more and more blatant.

Mike C's Manifesto:

1. I support liberal issues, not partisan politics or political candidates, so if a candidate opposes the issues I support, that candidate does not provide the leadership I'm willing to vote for, no matter what letter they list after their name.

2. Calling me names for not goose-stepping along with democratic centrists who do not represent me or my interests is not going to make me any more sympathetic to centrist politics.

3. Satan? :rofl:

[jobycom]

22. Then you are.

Sorry, but you get two choices in November. If you aren't voting for the Democratic candidate, then you are helping the Republican. I don't give a shit what you think you are voting for, that's the reality. And it's nothing to do with partisan anything, it's just the way it boils down. Are you against the war, or for it? Or you against choice, or for it? This is real simple, brutal war. A million Iraqis are dead because some fuckups voted for Nader in New Hampshire because Gore wasn't pure enough for them.

And I'm not trying to win your vote, I'm not running for anything, so I don't have to kiss your ass. I'm just telling you flat out--if you don't vote for the Democrat in the 08 general election, you are voting for the Republicans, and you may as well be a Freeper. So I don't really give a shit what delusions you have about your own purity.

You haven't said yet that that's how you'll vote, so this may be hypothetical. I'm just sayin.

[LynneSin]

18. If I could recommend your reply I would do so 1000 times over

BTW - Lieberman is no longer a democrat so we can bash all we want!

:woohoo:

[jobycom]

24. Thanks.

I edited out a few swear words so kids could read it. :)

[Elidor]

2. Those whiney-ass lefties just won't shut up and vote for who we tell them to

They're destroying the party! They're going to sabotage Hillary! If the Dem nominee loses next year, it'll be the fault of those damned dirty hippies.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. Yeah, it's not like this is a PRIMARY or anything

Hillary Clinton is the Annointed Nominee and by god you will support her NOW or else you may as well join Team Rudy. :eyes:

[Clintonista2]

31. Actually, no, he WASN'T talking about the PRIMARY

He was talking about the GE, if you would but READ the article

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. I did read it and I felt that Clinton's inevitability was its obvious subtext

The SCOTUS argument is moot anyway. There isn't one of our candidates who won't nominate pro-choice judges. I believe many of the others would nominate less corporate-leaning ones too. Clinton I'm not so sure about. She's been bought and paid for by Big Biz.

Besides, very few people are saying they aren't going to vote for Clinton if she wins the Primary, so why the author is making this pitch now, unless it is to stump for her, I do not know.

[Greyhound]

9. Unless Nader runs, then it will still be his fault. n/t

[YOY]

4. I've taken it for years from the Pugs

You can sit and spin if you think I'll take if from you.

Go fix them from being so damn far right if you want to get a moderate in there. We're tired of being demonized for having perfectly normal left-leaning views.

[struggle4progress]

53. "Oooo! Liberals! Liberals! The problem is the liberals!" Yeah, it's gotten old

[YOY]

58. Really old.

n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Those are all very compelling reasons to support the Dem candidate

Whoever he or she may be, in the GENERAL election. The SCOTUS is extremely important and I should think that any of our fine candidates will make wise selections for it. The Huffington post suggests that we should all support Clinton NOW, lest we be helping the GOP. Excuse me, but we have primaries to select the candidate we want.

[bpeale]

7. seems to me

that there should be a lot of appeasement to those who despise her to get them to vote FOR her instead of AGAINST her. wonder what she will try to buy us with? Because she WILL have to buy us.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. I've noticed that no one ever has a positive reason to support her

I never see enthusiasm about her platform or positions from her supporters. Basically, "she's better than the Republicans" is all they have to offer. Like, duh, we already know about the Supreme Court. Sorry, but that doesn't inspire and impassion me to throw my support behind Hillary.

[Greyhound]

14. But, thanks to her corporate masters, they don't need our support,

only our vote. They can buy all the support they need.

However, even though the very sight if her fills me with revulsion, if she gets the nomination, the SCOTUS nominations will force me to vote for her.

Then I'll go home and scour myself with Borax and steel wool.

[juajen]

57. No one?

You're delusional.

[More Than A Feeling]

11. If you agree with this article that idealists have the power to defeat

the Democratic Party nominee, don't you also have to agree that it is stupid and self-destructive for you to attempt to "call their bluff" by nominating someone they hate? Funny how self-described pragmatists aren't expected to be pragmatic in this regard.:eyes:

[Greyhound]

15. Good point. n/t

[struggle4progress]

54. Lewis has written regularly for Time, a conservative outlet that has long specialized

in attempting to selectively frame the debate while pretending to be moderate and balanced

[More Than A Feeling]

55. I haven't trusted or read Time since they published that

love note to Ann Coulter.

[corkhead]

13. I am not ready to agree with you because NOW is the time to affect policy

and I AM NOT going to be taken for granted as an automatic D lever pull, especially if it is another repub-lite candidate.

Oh, and just because I have a picture of the late Joe Strummer as my avatar, don't assume I support him for president.:eyes:

[abq e streeter]

41. I wish there were people like Strummer running this country

Got my DU name from The Boss, and a pic of Marley, but Strummer was at least as great a musical hero as Bruce and Bob in my eyes (and ears).

[garybeck]

16. BullShit patrol reporting for duty!

Hello I'm a Bullshit patrol officer and have identified your item #4 as pure bullshit:

4) I do know that practically the only thing that can defeat the Democrats next year will be the selfish, self-destructive attitude of idealists on the left who are threatening sabotage if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

According to our research, there are in fact many items on the list of what can defeat the Democratic candidate next year, and several are listed above your blaming liberal democrats.

Among other factors are:

1) Election Fraud
2) Mainstream media bias
3) Fear of Terrorism
4) Dishonest campaigning

there are many more

please don't blame liberal democrats who are in fact at the top of the list of the people who are getting off their asses and trying to affect positive change in this world.

since this is your first offense you will not be cited.

thank you and have a nice day.

[Dawgs]

17. So it is about electability.

If so many people are scared that the "Hillary haters" will not vote for her and cause her to lose, why select her for the nomination?

[Lerkfish]

19. several questions

1. what do you think it accomplishes for your candidate to slash and burn all liberals in the democratic party
2. Why does a thread like this, obviously INTENDED to sow division, claim to be upset by division?
3. If you're so sure your candidate is the best one, why spend all this time in psyops against your own party?

[Elidor]

21. Very good questions

I doubt any answers will be forthcoming.

[YOY]

26. They never are

n/t

[Lerkfish]

29. you're a psychic!

what numbers should i play in the lottery?
:)

[niceypoo]

47. I see that the usual circular firing squad has been baited out of hiding again..

I will never understand why they do it to themselves, the Hillary, 'froth at the mouth,' crowd...

Rudy is counting on your vote....or your not voting..

[cascadiance]

20. NO! It's the primary now! NOW it is the "corporate influence" that is the issue STUPID!

On the issue of supreme court justices, yes, that IS an important issue. But AFTER primary season for the reasons you are giving. For Roe v. Wade, I think pretty much all Democratic candidates would nominate someone to protect them. Hardly a separating issue in the primary.

If you want to make supreme court justices an issue though, I think that many of the other candidates like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich would be MORE apt to nominate a judge that won't let the courts get owned by the supreme court and continue to worship "Court Clerk Activism" that lead to corporate personhood being regarded as "established law" when it was a case that was decided by a "court clerk" who had conflicts of interests writing the head note that was in effect that person writing corporate personhood into law for all of these corporate beholden judges since then. In my mind for the SCOTUS as well, it is about getting in someone who's NOT a corporatist.

In some respects, the supreme court has even slipped more into the hands of corporatists than it has away from supporting Roe v. Wade. At least Rehnquist dissented on cases like Boston vs. Belotti on the issue of corporate personhood. Would Roberts or Alito do that? HELL NO! You have to ask yourself that with Hillary Clinton's ties, would she nominate a "non-corporatist" candidate for the Supreme Court. One more reason for me to look elsewhere for who I will support in the primaries.

[rhett o rick]

23. Let’s get one thing straight. I am only a lefty because the system has shifted so far right.

I am looking for a candidate that will restore the Constitution and HRC has not indicated that was one of her priorities. If the Constitution isn’t restored and protected then all is lost, even if we get a half-assed health care system. I hear you saying that “Our” unitary executive would be better than theirs. Yes maybe a little.

Must I remind you that she totally betrayed us when she voted to go to war in Iraq, the single most important vote of my life time. And I did know then what I also know now, that she was wrong then when she gave her support to the BushCorp War. It was just one mistake but a huge one.

I also don’t like it when a candidate is shoved down my throat by the machine. And she is. I knew in 2004 that there would be no stopping her because she has the machine behind her. Ned Lamont tried to fight the machine and came close but no cigar.

You’d be better off explaining what she stands for than trying to scare us into supporting her.

[HughBeaumont]

25. How is the truth being "self righteous"??

I don't know, are their POSITIVES to offshoring American jobs and continuing this war beyond Bewsh's presidency?

Are their POSITIVES to ensuring the wealthy in this country STILL get whatever they want 70 million fold over the salt?

I don't know, should I VOTE for a candidate that's going to be "same shit different party", or should I work like hell to make sure she DOESN'T get the candidacy, and will it matter anyway?

Something tells me that this election is already a "done deal". If that's correct in everyone's eyes, that's fucked up.

Sorry that it's going to take Dumberica decades to figure out NOT to vote against their own interests. Don't blame this on me.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Until the nomination is done, I will support whomever I choose.

And my reasons for not supporting the others are legitimate and reasonable, and I am entitled to express them here or anywhere else. Let's save the loyalty oaths for after the primary.

[Alamom]

28. 3) I DO know that I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is.

If it's Dennis Kucinich or Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama or John Edwards. Or any of the other contenders. Over a Republican? There is NO debate. Nor should there be.


This article "is" about the General, not the Primaries.



ABAR

[superkia]

30. How about we all vote for the candidate that stands for the people...

and then we don't have to fight after the primaries. Who will represent the people the best, who will fight the corporations and corruption the best, who is standing up now and doing those things in their campaign? If a candidate wont even stand up for us during their campaign, will they support the people and fight the money and corporations once their in office? Who are the candidates that are talking spin and circles, who are the ones being very direct in what they are standing for, these are the things we should be debating. I think the problem is there are many Clinton supporters who feel like the media do and that Clinton has won. You have other people that feel she isn't the best for the people of the country and they are fighting tooth and nail against the media just giving her the election when they don't feel she will stand for them. So one side keeps rubbing it in that their candidate has won and we all need to unite after the primaries and vote for their candidate. You will never win anyone over with these tactics, too many Americans believe this election is one of the most important ones we have faced in a long time, we need to provide more reasons to vote for our candidates and educate each other so we can all feel good about our future.

So far my vote goes to Dennis Kucinich for a couple of reasons.

He will end this war for money and use political dialogs to keep us out of war.
He has spoken out about the attacks on the constitution by the government.
He is for non profit health care for all.
He stood up and said the war was about oil and NEVER voted for it.
He doesn't spit out the word terror or terrorist in every speech to keep us in fear and to boost up the terrorist industrial complex.
He has spoke out and in favor of impeachment of Dick Cheney.
He wants the patriot act repealed.
He is against NAFTA.
He answers questions directly, like any PRESIDENTIAL candidate should.

Ok, thats enough for now, I hope that everyone would join in with why they support their candidate and maybe we can get our country out of the gutter and elect the best person for the people.

[polichick]

32. What???

Do you dare to suggest that the American president should represent *GASP* the people?! :sarcasm:

[superkia]

33. I am interested in what each candidate stands for?

I hope that I will get some replies on the other candidates so I can make an informed decision on whats best for the country and my family.

[polichick]

34. The "corporate vs people" question looms large this time around...

I hope lots of voters are being as careful as you are ~ and not just buying what the mainstream media is selling!

[bigdarryl]

35. LIBERAL BASHERS I THOUGHT THIS WAS A LIBERAL SITE WHAT WE....

have rethugs and DLC types on this site

[Lerkfish]

36. we're not in Kansas anymore: this is no longer a progressive website, I'm afraid.

[Dr Fate]

39. It's no secret that DU's DLCers despise Liberals -apparently for being 100% correct on Iraq.

For the most part, they seem to disagree with anyone who opposed Bush on the war (even though the anti-Bush crowd was 100% right and his supporters were 100% wrong), or who wanted to take the GOP to task in any meaningful way (See impeachment, election fraud, Alito Filibuster, etc)or who supported the DEMOCRATIC nominee in CT, as opposed to the DLC's 3rd party pic- Joe Lieberman...

[niceypoo]

48. This is a Democratic website first and foremost

Always has been...just ask any moderator

[Lerkfish]

37. I'll repeat my questions

1. what do you think it accomplishes for your candidate to slash and burn all liberals in the democratic party
2. Why does a thread like this, obviously INTENDED to sow division, claim to be upset by division?
3. If you're so sure your candidate is the best one, why spend all this time in psyops against your own party?

[Dr Fate]

38. Where were these calls for party unity when the DLC was supporting Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party)???

I have a simple solution to the problem- dont give Hillary the nomination in the 1st place-then all we have to worry about is a few conservative DLCers attacking joining the GOP/media in disagreeing with the legit nominee and rest of the anti-war base...

[depakid]

40. If it was the SCOTUS, then why wasn't Hillary out in front leading the filibusters?

Yet another simplistic apologia, Yawn.

[Major Hogwash]

46. Exactly. Where was Hill when they stole the Constitution?

Hiding out, probably.

[superkia]

43. Read post 30, I want to hear what everyones candidates stand for.

Lets all help each other find out why we like our own candidate so we can make informed decisions on what happens to the country. I listed some of the reasons I am for Dennis Kucinich in post#30, could someone else chime and and inform me what their candidate stands for to them? Help me make the best vote I can for our future.

[defendandprotect]

44. So . . . . you're part of the "right-wing" of the Democratic Party -- ????

QUOTE I do know that practically the only thing that can defeat the Democrats next year will be the selfish, self-destructive attitude of idealists on the left who are threatening sabotage if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate. UNQUOTE

Suggesting that everyone in the Democratic Party -- or at DU, perhaps? -- should be falling in step with what the DLC wants, is, IMO, a huge mistake.

I'm not interested in any DLC candidate -- and I think that Democrats, who still have more than a year to select a president, should make their own selection --

Maybe Bobby Kennedy?
Maybe Feingold?
If they weren't "aliens," I'd certainly recommend Mary Robertson or Helen Caldicott -- !!!

The candidates running now are all self-selected -- I think WE should do the selecting --

[nealmhughes]

45. While I did greatly enjoy Martin Lewis' drag act as "Shanene", I wonder what the purpose of his post

is. Besides ranting against the "Left" which is undefined, except as being anti-DLC and anti-Clinton and of being made up of idealogues, he merely states the obvious: that a Republican SCOTUS is bad news. We figured that out in 2000 for ourselves.

Was this intended as a scare tactic for potential voters pulling another Nader, thus throwing the election to whichever Republic out-911s the other? So far there is no indication of which I am aware that there is even a serious 3rd Party candidate running to take DP votes.

One could take a reading of this essay as a jerimiahad: "You better get on board and not even attempt to stop the DLC juggernaut or else we will get 2 Alitos in 09 -- and it will be you that made it happen!!!"

Evidently ideology is as archaic as my stylus for cuneiform.

[bvar22]

51. They already KNOW

that nominating someone to the RIGHT of Nixon will NOT appeal to the majority of the Democratic Party.

It will be difficult to round up votes ON MERIT for a ProWar/AntiLABOR/ForProfit Healthcare candidate, so they are already bringing out the threats, FEAR tactics, and 24/7 Media assault. They are already setting up the excuses for Hillary's defeat.

The Corporate Wing (DLC) would prefer Hillary running and losing to a Corporate Republican, than to allow a REAL Progressive to win the Dem nomination. That's why the $Big Dollar$ CorpoMedia is donating all the Campaign Air Time to Hillary (Did you see last Sunday?), and also why the Anti-Left rhetoric has been in high gear so early in this campaign.

The WORST CASE SCENARIO for the Big Money CEOs is that a REAL Democrat wins the nomination.

[DrFunkenstein]

49. Do Strength and Experience=Change?

I noticed the tag at the bottom, I couldn't think of a more paradoxical statement.

"Strength" - as we all remember from 2004 - is a stand-in for "toughness."

Which is a stand-in for "pro-military."

Which is a stand-in for "pro-military-industrial complex."

And a stand-in for "I am unwilling to oppose war if it hurts me politically."



I suppose that's what you could call "experience."

But it sure as hell ain't change.

[illinoisprogressive]

50. If the dems are worried about the scotus than pick a real democrat and not DLC Hillary.

[bvar22]

52. True That!!

The DLC helped the Republicans put Alito & Roberts on the Bench.
In Fact, it was the "Gang of 14", made up of DLC Democrats led by former DLC Chair Joe Lieberman who torpedoed the Democratic filibuster and HELPED the Republicans put Alito & Roberts on the Supreme Court.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5080836

Hillary can DEMAND FREE Campaign Airtime from all the major (and minor) networks on a Sunday Morning, but where was she when Kerry and "The Left" were working to prevent the seating of these CorpoFacsist Unitary Executives on the Supreme Court. Was Hillary demanding face time on the networks to lead the fight against these appointments? NO.

Was she at least visible in aiding the Dem opposition? Not that I recall.

Protecting the Supreme Court is an argument AGAINST Hillary.
Why should we trust future Supreme Court appointments to the DLC?

[Trajan]

56. So far ....

The american electorate is refusing to take your advice .....

I'm at a loss to explain why ....