Note to liberal Hillary-bashers: It's The SCOTUS, Stupid!

[Zandor]

...

The Supreme Court Of The United States.

9) Starting January 2009 there will be a four-year period where SIX of the Supreme Court members will be in their 70s, 80s and 90s.

10) FOUR of those six are dependable guardians of our rights. And the fifth is a swing voter.

11) The two oldest Supreme Court Justices will be 92 and 79 respectively by the end of the next Presidential term. And those two are John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

12) If you want to know why you MUST support WHOEVER the Democratic candidate is - then just study the actuarial tables on life expectancy.

13) The simple fact is that there is a very high probability that the next president may appoint at least two new Supreme Court Justices. And probably more. And the laws of statistics say that the first two justices to be replaced will be two of the most dependable votes for decency.

14) If you seriously believe that it makes no difference in how this nation is governed over the next 30 years if those two justices are conservative or liberal - then there is no hope for your soul or sanity.

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.

16) It doesn't matter WHAT you may dislike about Hillary Clinton - or whoever the Democratic candidate is. If you have any regard for the future of this nation - you will remember this.

It's the SCOTUS, stupid.

'nuff said. Case over. Dismissed.

...

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


On edit: To clarify, this is directed at those saying they would not support Hillary in the general election, if nominated.

It is not meant to imply she has the nomination sewed up.

[HughBeaumont]

1. I'm sorry, has she won the nomination?

[Zandor]

4. Not yet

This is for the benefit of those suggesting they would not support her in the general.

[Robson]

41. I agree with your OP....but

I agree with you on your main point.

But realistically speaking if it comes down to Hillary being crowned as the Democratic candidate you'll have plenty of Democrats that will stay home in frustration, and plenty of Republicans that will come out to vote against her. That's the outcome of her nomination that the DNC had better be considering. She is polarizing.

Frankly I see Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, or Obama as superior candidates that would bring out more Democrats to the polls AND not rally the Repubs against them.

Hillary has been annointed by the elite powers that be in the media, the Democratic Party, and Wall Street. She's a proven good ole tried and true NYC girl to the rich elite. She'll continue to ensure that the multi-national corps and capitalists get to outsource the middle class of our country to third world status.

Larry Kudlow and his ilk will grudgingly approve her. What we REALLY need is a President that will change direction of the pendulum and that Kudlow and his ilk truly despise.

[blondeatlast]

59. That's precisely why she's being pushed so hard--and she generates lots of cash for the GOP.

Up until yesterday, I could have voted with her in the GE with no qualms (not in the primes, however).

If she is the nominee (and I don't believe she will be, honestly), I will struggle, but still probably stay a yellow dog. But damn, it might be the hardest thing I've ever done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. I did that for difi

I truly held my nose...

But I don't think I can do that twice...

I just shudder, and reality is in another era Senator Clinton would have been a MODERATE Republican

Hell, Bill was probably the best moderate republican president this country has had since Ike

I'm talking from a policy perspective here and what Moderate Republicans stood for before they were mostly run out of the GOP

I am saying this as a STUDENT of history.

Hell Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive.

this is why party allegiances can at times be misleading

[Robson]

117. I so much agree

To be honest I don't ever vote a party line, I vote for individual candidates. As far as I'm concerned both parties have been KORPORATIZED which is a huge threat to our republic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. Bingo why I am an independent

and at this pace, if she gets the nod... I will vote third party

[bvar22]

152. I would LOVE to vote for another Trust Buster!

*

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. Me too

Teddy where are you when we need you!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

[frylock]

157. i refuse to cast another vote for dino feinstein..

I can only promise two votes for the dems; Barbara Boxer and whoever is running in CA52.

[blondeatlast]

5. Only in the lapdog media, Karl Rove, and the OPs mind.

I won't say I won't vote for her if she gets the nod YET, but she lost any possibility of my primary vote yesterday.

And for not showing up, so did Obama.

[HughBeaumont]

17. She's lost all possibility of ANY vote with me, even before the Kyl/LIEberman debacle.

No pro-job-offshorers for me, thanks.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

Sorry, Hil. We don't forget so easily no matter HOW many sides of her mouth she talks out of regarding outsourcing.

[0007]

30. I'll second that! And for the first time in many moons I may just

sit this one out if Hillary is the main rat in the race. I'm super anger at the blood and treasure that is being pissed off without the slightest squabble.

Mike Gravel gave 'em their 'road map' last night, on how to stop the war.

Wish the candidates had gotten together last night and hosed down that Tim Russert guy.

[ananda]

Pretty much, yes.

Hillary has been annointed by the press
and the propaganda machine.

She's way too Dino for me, but better than
any Reep.

[Richard Steele]

2. And Hillary is the only Dem who won't pack the court with Fascists?

Pull the other one- it's got bells on.

[Demit]

3. No, not nuff said. As the first poster noted, she hasn't won the nomination yet.

And there are other worthy Democratic candidates. It's the primary election, stupid.

[Zandor]

9. For those that say they won't vote for her in the general n/t

[Demit]

42. Aren't you jumping the gun, then, by berating people so far in advance?

Your post serves no purpose. Except to remind us of how certain candidates are shoved down our throats from the beginning. I get it from the media, I don't appreciate it on DU.

[Zandor]

43. A harsh headline

but the point is important.

[Raster]

93. You.Made.Your.Point.

Now give it a rest. And next time I want a lecture, I'll seek out someone with the cred to do so. Thanks for playing.

[BulletproofLandshark]

6. I trust the other Democratic candidates to appoint liberal justices as well.

Why should one assume differently?

[dflprincess]

20. I trust the other Democratic candidates to appoint justices who would be more liberal than those

Clinton would appoint. - I'd expect her to go for corporate friendly types.

[BulletproofLandshark]

55. I agree

I was just letting the OP know that a Clinton presidency isn't the only way to keep more RW lunatics from becoming part of the court.

[Robson]

108. I certainly trust Hillary to appoint justices that will ensure continued rule by CORPORATE masters

Hillary will not disappoint her Wall St masters and will ensure that policies are maintained so her wealthy elitist friends will continue to gain and rule. Remember it was her husband that approved NAFTA.

It's one reason why I'd like to see a POTUS that has made a career out of doing battle with corporate elitists. I'm not saying we need an aggressive anti-business government...but we do need a reversal in the direction of the pendulum that has hurt the opportunities for the lower and middle class of this country, while it has made the ultra rich minority rich beyond their imagination.

[cascadiance]

169. Yes, we need SCOTUS judges that will overturn "court clerk activist" corporate personhood!

In my book, Hillary is the worst option to pick a justice for that purpose!

[ourbluenation]

49. because some here will stay home rather than vote for Clinton in the general...

and a no vote, is a vote for the GOP. and if the GOP gets in the scotus will be far right for at least a generation. Row will overturned for sure.

[oasis]

98. Exactly right. Five additional recommends for your post.(eom)

[ourbluenation]

138. it's all about the strategery....

I have a friend who's gay and pissed off at the dems for not doing enough to champion gay rights. He's frustrated and rightly so. I'm frustrated too. His answer? He joined the greens.

Way to go - that'll show em.

In reality, if you don't vote for a candidate who actually has a shot (in the generals that is) you get nadared. You get peroted. The GOP should buy you a beer. They WANT you stay home. They WANT you to vote 3rd party. IT'S A VOTE FOR THEM and their backwards, hayseed, traditionalists policies.

The dems may not be approaching my friends concerns at the speed he'd like, but they sure as hell aren't pulling things backwards like the gop would like to. The arch of justice has it's own timetable and in the end the dems are the only ones who have a real shot at bringing about equal rights for ALL americans.

I'm all for making personal statements with a third party vote, but as rhandi rhodes says, now is not the time. Too much at stake. If for nothing else, the SCOTUS appointments.

[blondeatlast]

168. It shouldn't be, but electability counts when I vote in the primes.

It's about 1/3 of my decision.

[ourbluenation]

176. i hear ya. I've been voting for over 20 years and half the time it's a factor for me too. n/t

[frylock]

161. row (sic) isn't going anywhere..

The thought of overturning Roe v. Wade is what keeps bringing the rubes to the polls to vote R.

[ourbluenation]

166. I used to think that, now I'm not so sure. Saw constitutional law prof Toobin

on the teevee talking about his new book called "the nine". It's about the SCOTUS...anywho - he makes a pretty good case that it will def be overturned if we have the doomsday scenario.

[Zandor]

51. Assuming Hillary wins the nomination n/t

[Junkdrawer]

7. Damn good reason to nominate anyone but Hillary...

She WON'T be allowed to win the General Election. That's why the Corporate Media is pushing her so hard now.

[truedelphi]

13. Plus I am not all that impressed with the supposed

Libs on the SCOTUS - they were the ones ruling harshly on such issues as medical marijuana and eminent domain over working class home owner.

[blondeatlast]

18. YES. It astonishes me that media-savvy DUers don't get this.

She's a convenient target for generating RRR donations as they've already laid the groundwork years ago.

That's why she's being pushed by the corporates.

[Junkdrawer]

23. If they can get us to believe we nominated Hillary...

they can get us to believe just about anything.

"Oh, Clinton had a huge lead until the "Rose Law Firm" ads appeared. Then her lead evaporated."

[BurtWorm]

8. Is she any better qualified to nominate judges than the other candidates?

I don't think so.

[ecstatic]

14. I think this thread addresses the "not even if Clinton is the nom" voters nt

[Zandor]

16. Exactly

I have edited the OP to reflect that.

[BurtWorm]

40. I thik it's premature to talk about her as the nominee.

I hope she isn't the nominee. I'll figure out if I'll vote for her if she gets there, but not before.

[ecstatic]

10. Thanks for this much needed reminder

More repuglican picks could set women and minorities back decades, if not centuries.

[movonne]

Who's to say who she will put in...I just can't trust her anymore...

[AlCzervik]

11. Wow thank God you posted that, most of us were clueless about the

court. You're a real treasure.

[againes654]

12. Don't call me a basher and then call me stupid!!!!!!

I won't vote for Hilliary in the primaries, and after her vote yesterday, I won't vote for her in the GE. I won't vote repuke either. I just won't effin vote. I will not be a party to what I see happening. I will not look back in 3 years and wonder why I voted for her. It won't be my fault.

[Zandor]

19. Spoiling for another GOP president?

That's what you'll be contributing to.

[againes654]

35. Think what you want.

I have made up my mind. IMHO Hilliary will loose to the repukes anyway, my one effin vote won't make a difference except I can sleep at night knowing I had nothing to do with it. People are so convinced that this election is a lock for the Dems, but I am not so sure. The repuke support of Hilliary really makes me question her.

[Zandor]

39. "The repuke support of Hilliary " ???

One of the arguements against her is she will motivate the GOP base. They despise her most.

[againes654]

50. Whatever

you are obviously beyond debating with. I have seen you start several threads in what I believe is an attempt to start a flame war. Well you got me for a minute, but I won't argue with you anymore..stupid.

[Richard Steele]

36. The only chance the GOP has in '08 is if they're running against Hillary.

That's why they've been pushing the "inevitable Hillary"
BS down our throats for 3 years now.

Why do you expect us to think that nominating the
MOST DISLIKED woman in the USA is a good idea, let
alone a winning strategy?

I know why the GOP wants us to think it- what's
YOUR reason?

[blondeatlast]

84. Exactly. I've put no one on Ignore, but I'm beginning to think we all should

maybe ignore (using the DU tool) the most rabid HC supporters and let them preach to the choir.

I can't even consider her as a viable prime candidate anymore, and if she does manage to somehow win the nod, I am going to have an enormous decision to make at the polling booth.

[Zandor]

104. We need dialog

Ignore isn't the answer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Check your OP

then tell me about dialogue

[blondeatlast]

119. That "'nuff said" doesn't seem to invite dialog, does it? nt

[Zandor]

131. Okay okay

it's harsh. The point of the article is more important.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. Why you are getting the reactiion you are getting

I have to wonder, are you on the volunteer roll?

If you are... 'splains a lot

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. Nope

[Richard Steele]

105. "Ignore" lets...

...bad folks spread their BS without opposition. I don't use it.

[monktonman]

44. Hold on now

first you start your thread calling people "liberal" hill inc. bashers
and now your trying to tell me that if I dont vote for her in the GE I'm spoiling
for a puke president.
What the hell? sounds an awful lot like the fear mongering we've put up with for the past six years
and I'm not gonna stand for it.
If she gets the nomination, fine, I'm cool with that but I'm not gonna vote for her.
Thats not to say I wont vote at all, just not for her.
Who the hell are you to bash the rest of us when we dont agree? Seems like all I here from
Hilco people on DU is bash, bash, fear, fear. give it a rest.
instead of talking down to everyone else, how about naming three things she's done that merits
even consideration for my vote.
Hint: marrying Bill Clinton is not one of those things. Neither is some hypothetical situation about the SCOTUS.

I've challenged you to a duel.

[Zandor]

56. I didn't write the headline

Though I agree with the article's reasoning.

[monktonman]

78. ok my bad. How about the spoiling for a GOP prez part?

you wrote that didnt you?
And what about those three things I asked about?
Come on, convince me. I want to make the correct choice but she is such a turn-off
(not a sexual reference - hold your fire ladies) to me.
Please clarify this and help me WANT to vote for her as I react badly to fear.
I have no more flight left in me. Now I leave it up to the other half......

[Richard Steele]

81. And you didn't answer his question. Why am I not surprised by that?

nm

[Marr]

136. I've yet to read an actual answer to that question. n/t

[Marr]

128. Hillary supporters are the ones spoiling for another GOP president.

Don't blame another DLC loss on the liberal wing of the party. If Clinton manages to get the nomination with all the help she's had from the corporate media, then her inevitable loss should be laid at the feet of her supporters-- period.

If your voting base won't support your chosen candidate, you've chosen the wrong god damn candidate or you're in the wrong party.

[Zandor]

139. Is Kucinich more electable? n/t

[Marr]

143. See- now here's something interesting:

I agree with Kucinich on the issues more than I agree with any other candidate.

However, I know that much of the party does not agree with me. I would even assume that, were Kucinich to get the nomination, he would lose the support of alot of people on the right side of the party, and likely lose the general election as a result.

But that's not what I hear from the people at the other extreme. The people on the right end of the party say, "vote for our candidate or we will lose and we'll blame you".

Face it- you're as far from the center of the party as Kucinich is. You're on the right edge of the party, he's on the left. Maybe you should be the one preparing to compromise, eh?

[frylock]

162. kerry was more electable..

and even though he won the vote, he should have cleaned up. It should never have been close enough to steal.

[LibDemAlways]

15. The Supreme Court is an excellent reason for

nominating the most electable Democratic candidate. Not sure yet who that is, but still hoping Gore decides it's his year.

[Zandor]

22. Hillary is most electable IMO

But I would support about any Democratic canidate over the GOP nominee.

[charlie]

27. Waitaminute!

"about any Democratic canidate(sic)"??!!

What in the hey do you mean ABOUT, son?

[charlie]

82. HEY! YOU!

Again, explain that "about any" qualifier. If you're going to reserve for yourself the privilege you'd deny the rest of us, I'd like to know which Democrat is so heinous even you won't vote for him/her. And why. Name names!

(Stepping out for a while, back soon. Looking forward to your list)

[Zandor]

115. The current major candiates are fine

I was alluding to a hypothetical where a nominee (not forseeable at this point) was too far out of the box.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Name names

Who among the NINE running is too far out there for yer taste?

[charlie]

153. FUCK THAT!

You come swooping in here, thread after thread, with the temerity to tell us what to do, how this board should be run...

GIVE US THE NAMES OF ANY DEMOCRATS YOU WOULDN'T VOTE FOR!

NAMES!!!

You unbelievably FLAMING HYPOCRITE.

[LibDemAlways]

151. Why? She won't win a single Southern state. Close to

half the country doesn't much care for her, and won't vote for her under any circumstances. From what I see here on DU she's not exactly the darling of Progessive Dems either. Tell me how she's more electable than Edwards.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. Zandor, you do realize you're doing Hillary no favors, right?

I suspect you do.

After this post last night I can't believe anymore that you're actually supporting her.

I Support Kyl-Lieberman Along with Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1916350

[AlCzervik]

25. the op's posts are really about the op---like you really care he/supports

Liebermans amendment. Like you don't know about the Supreme Court, like you just arrived on earth yesterday.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

72. I suspect you're correct. n/t

[Zandor]

28. ???

That post was in defense of Hillary's vote.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

69. Wrong audience for your method.

If you really are attempting to sell Hillary here, then you're clueless as to how to how marketing works.

Let's just hope you don't rely on such for your living. You'd starve.

[blondeatlast]

24. SCOTUS is an enormous issue, indeed. and if Clinton gets the nod , I will have a major struggle come

ED 2008.

Until then, I don't have to worry about it as she has decidely LOST my vote yesterday.

[Zandor]

32. Fair enough

I hope you continue to keep this in mind should she be nominated.

[blondeatlast]

38. It was my main issue in 2004, there';s little worry of that. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Didn't know the elections were held already

damn when did I miss the Primary?

[TahitiNut]

29. The GOTV 'skills' of those who call others "stupid" leave something to be desired.

Broad brush insults and disdain - such entrenched animosity does nothing but repel me. Sorry ... I won't associate with such a mob mentality.

[Zandor]

33. A harsh headline

Yet a very valid point.

[TahitiNut]

37. There is NOTHING "valid" about using the word 'liberal' as an epithet!

Nothing! The clear and unambiguous tone is one of insult and offense ... NOT discussion. It's this thinly-veiled condescension that EARNS a certain constituency the nomination of "Republican-lite" since the rhetoric is Coulter-esque ... the kind that makes Limbaugh get a woody.

[IndianaJones]

48. do you read what people say about moderate or conservative here? nt.

[TahitiNut]

60. What part of

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals" is confusing to you?

:eyes:

[IndianaJones]

66. what part of the vast majority here are no where near progressive just because they say so...

is confusing to you?

[YOY]

70. Vast majority here?

Jesus, where the hell are you from??? It takes a kind of "special person" to talk to TahitiNut like that.

[IndianaJones]

73. what does where I'm from have to do with it? I read this forum. nt.

[YOY]

88. Not very well apparently

n/t

[IndianaJones]

95. no, very well...rampant homophobia, racism, elitism, hypocrisy. Glad I'm not a "liberal".

Good luck with the online persona though.

[YOY]

103. There's rampant homophobia, racism...here???

I mean on occasion someone will say something stupid without thinking but "den of elitism"??? You really don't read anything here, do you? You're just here to troll.

You aren't a "liberal" or "progressive" if you've read history books about what we refer to ourselves as. You're not even a "moderate" spouting crap like you are. You're a "conservative". There's another party for that you know. Go there. Fix them. We're all out of need for "fixing". The only thing we need here are more balls.

[IndianaJones]

110. if it makes you feel better to claim you are progressive here, that is your right.

we minorities can actually read now.

good day.

[YOY]

114. Can I see what "minority" you are???

Can you see what "minority" I am?

Spare my your bs about how I just insulted a "minority".

Good day yourself. Don't let the doornob hit your ass on your way back to FreeRepublic.

[IndianaJones]

116. I don't have to see, to be honest. later. nt.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[IndianaJones]

112. the manner in which you act while claiming that label? yes...glad.

later.

[YOY]

181. Much later

Fascist.

[blondeatlast]

75. He just discovered his latent liberalism--like he just discovered

a profound fondness for animals over the Michael Vick thing.

Hey, IJ--INGRID ROCKS! :rofl:

[YOY]

77. Self Delete

[blondeatlast]

67. Gosh, where'd that come from? Is that some unwritten posting protocol?

:sarcasm:

[TahitiNut]

86. (lol) Strange, isn't it? We have folks who seem to believe

... it's OK to be a neocon as long as they claim to be "Democrats" ... and, even more strangely, it's somehow WRONG to be a liberal if the person isn't a proclaimed partisan Democrat.

We're "Through the (fucking) Looking Glass" on DU when such a perversion is permitted to persist.

This is the LAST place I expect to see the 'acceptable' use of the term "liberal" as an epithet!!

FUCK THAT SHIT!

[AlCzervik]

87. i thought i was taking crazypill this week, this forum has taken a decided

right turn this week.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

130. It's not the majority of DU, though

It's only a few posters that are posting this tripe. They just feel like more due to the volume and content of their posts. Like mosquitoes, a couple can feel like a swarm.

[YOY]

92. Amen TahitiNut

Behind you all the way!

[Zandor]

123. Talk to Huffington Post

The headline is thiers.

My focus is on the arguement put forth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. And once again this is the kind of pushing of a candidate

by the media BEFORE the primaries that we are all objecting to.

Get it now son

or do you need me to spell it out?

[TahitiNut]

149. You posted it WITHOUT quotation marks. You posted it. On DU. Not Huffington.

So I'll "talk to" whomever damned well I see responsible ... and that's YOU ... and NOT to some external source.

The "argument" is simplistic bullshit and has NOTHING to do with SHillary specifically. It's an appeal to terror, terror, terror ... propagandistic bullshit. As has been amply-stated, almost EVERY Democratic candidate of the eight would do as good ore better job of nominating people to SCOTUS. Period.

The attempt to conflate alleged electability and SCOTUS selection is a propagandistic shell game - intellectual dishonesty.

[charlie]

155. Fuggedaboutit, TN

It turns out there ARE Dems that Boy Genius wouldn't vote for -- follow the subthread from #22. Happily for him, he's "okay" with the 9 candidates. How's that for pure chutzpah and boneheaded ignorance?

[TahitiNut]

156. Hypocrisy is clearly 'about' more prevalent among conservatives.

:evilgrin:

[charlie]

158. Being a pissant liberal

I can't help but believe my lyin' eyes. I need new glasses or something.

[rinsd]

31. This has been posted in GD-P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3547520

[Zandor]

34. Good!

The more exposure the better!

[backscatter712]

45. Good points. The difference between the primaries and the general election:

In the primaries, you vote your conscience. Pick the candidate that fits you best and vote for him.

In the general election, the goal is to keep the biggest asshole from being elected. That asshole will certainly be a Republican. So you hold your nose and vote for the Democrat, even if he/she isn't ideal.

edit: unBushed my grammar...

[cascadiance]

76. Another reason some of the DLC folks won't support instant runoff voting...

... which would liberate us from picking "against" the biggest threat, and allow us to vote in order of preference those we do like and not feel like we are going to "Ralph Nader" someone.

I have my doubts on whether Hillary would want to help this get put into our election laws.

[Marr]

46. Why do Hillary supporters keep making this argument?

We haven't even had the primaries yet, and every other Democratic candidate would be certain to make similar SC appointments.

So why suppor her NOW?

*Edit*

On review, I see this is a response to people promising not to vote for her in the general election if she wins the nomination. I see what you're saying now, though I think it's only an even better reason to vote against her in the primaries.

Clinton doesn't have a chance in the general election. That's why the corporate media has been hard selling her candidacy for years. She's the only one that *can* lose. I'm blown away by the fact that so many DUers seem to have been completely suckered by this.

[MethuenProgressive]

65. To convince the DU HillHate Cult to vote for her if she's nominated.

DU is hardly representative of the voting public, but if the scores of members squealing daily that they'd rather see a Republican win than vote for Clinton in the General translates into real numbers they'll get what exactly what they want - a Republican victory. That way they can all delight by posting 'I told you she couldn't win!' to all their Internet boards.
I'll say it again: The only way the GOP can beat Clinton is with help from Democrats.

[Marr]

80. Hillary Clinton cannot win the general election.

If she gets the nomination, she is going to lose-- and it won't be the fault of the liberal wing of the party. It will once again be the fault of the DLC, corporate wing of the party.

I really just don't understand how anyone could think Hillary Clinton has a shot at winning a national election when John Kerry couldn't. Hillary Clinton will deal with all the same positioning problems as Kerry, and she'll invigorate the right-wing base like nothing else could.

[MethuenProgressive]

99. Like it or not, that's what the GOP likes to hear.

"I really just don't understand how anyone could think Hillary Clinton has a shot at winning a national election when John Kerry couldn't."

Because she'll fight back, and she won't be handicapped with a milquetoast VP candidate.

[Marr]

118. That's why they're promoting her, yes.

She's the only one that can lose. She's the only candidate (right or left) that can get the GOP's disillusioned base out to the polls. All of the other candidates are just as likely to fight back as Hillary Clinton, so again I'm left wondering what the upshot is with Hillary.

I know the GOP wants her to win the candidacy, I know the DLC wants her, I know the corporate media wants her. And I understand the motivations of all these groups. I don't understand why an actual Democrat would support her, and in fact I haven't met a single person who does.

[MethuenProgressive]

124. The GOP is counting on people like you, no offense.

They want you to stay home in the general if she's nominated.
It's sad to hear years of GOP propaganda being re-typed over and over by people claiming to be "actual" Democrats.
Stay home, feeling good about yourself, and enjoy the GOP victory in 08.

[Marr]

137. Of course they are. That's why they pushing for Clinton to win the nomination.

And they're counting on people like you to push an impossible candidate through the nomination process. Someone who will so repel her own voting base that the GOP can win.

Look-- if your chosen candidate cannot win the support of her own base, then you are backing the wrong candidate. It's that simple. It's not the fault of the voters, it's the fault of the candidate and the apparatus that put her there.

[MethuenProgressive]

140. "It's not the fault of the voters" Is that a Nader quote?

The only way the GOP beats Clinton is if Democrats help them.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so willing to see that happen, considering you're an "actual" Democrat?

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. No that is not a Nader quote

in case you wonder though, her nomination has been pushed by FIXED NEWS starting the day after the November 06 elections

You explain this one to me.

[MethuenProgressive]

145. Explain your delusion? Sorry, I'm not licensed.

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. What that her nomination has been pushed by FOX

news since the day after the Nov 06 elections as innevitable is a fact

So once again explain why FOX and other RIGHT WING GOP OPERATIVES want her as the nominee?

[Marr]

148. It's not a Nader quote, no.

It's just a fact.

You're saying that if your candidate doesn't have the support of her own base, it's the voter's fault. Not hers, not her supporters... but the voters. I gotcha.

[oasis]

125. "Clinton has no chance in the general election". More "Inside the DU Bubble" blather. Take a look

at the U.S.national polls the next time you visit our planet.

[Marr]

150. The corporate media has been hard selling her candidacy for a long time now.

She'll lose if she gets the nomination.

[Botany]

47. The President picks people for the SCOTUS

Thank you I never knew that.

[AlCzervik]

52. i know right?

i'm not even sure how i got here today.
;-)

[frylock]

163. you learn something new here everyday..

this place is so informative!

[DefenseLawyer]

53. If Hilary has the best chance,

not just A chance, but the BEST chance to win a general election then I really know nothing at all about politics.

[Marr]

63. Exactly- I'd say she has no chance, personally, but

even if she has *a* chance, it's certainly not better than that of the other candidates. That'd be fine if she were just amazingly progressive, but the fact is that she's also the most right-wing choice. So where's the upshot?

Hillary supporters want to risk everything for a chance to gain nothing. I just don't get it.

[DefenseLawyer]

90. Not only is she the most right wing of the candidates

The bigger problem is that 30% of the electorate hates her. Not just that they prefer Republicans or they have some questions about her, they hate her. I'm not saying that is right, it is just a fact. She has been so demonized and the visceral reaction of the right is so strong, she is the one candidate that would be able to mobilize an otherwise demoralized Republican base. It isn't an accident that Fox News and Newt and Kristol and Buchanan and on down the list are constantly reinforcing the strength of Hilary as our nominee.

[blondeatlast]

54. Kind of a sneaky edit. Just sayin.' nt

[AlCzervik]

57. ike plagiarizing, getting caught and then conveniently editing?

i agree, darn sneaky.

[blondeatlast]

62. Yep. nt

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

61. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Zandor]

74. It is my party

And I'm supporting the likely nominee with this post.

What are you doing?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

96. Debating. It's what we do. It doesn't always go the OPs way.

Just so you know.

And let me repeat--what a clever, sneaky edit. I respect, but don't admire it.

[Zandor]

102. I'd like a debate on this

Not blind and unreasoned flaming.

My edit was not sneaky - I even designated "on edit". I wanted to clarify.

[blondeatlast]

121. "Case over. Dismissed.?" I missed that one at Model UN. nt

[Zandor]

126. Don't be so sensitive

You realize the SCOTUS is the point.

[blondeatlast]

134. No, it's ONE of the points. So is the slaughter in Iraq, the first strike YOU support in Iran,

health care, poverty, foreign relations, education, outsourcing, immigration...

If this were easy, none of us would be here.

[mdmc]

68. ditto for right wing HRC bashers

Please don't let HRC chose TSCOTUS.

[Swamp Rat]

71. LOLOLOL!!!!!

[MadHound]

79. Let's see here, if Hillary gets the nod

You are willing to continue sacrificing thousands of lives in Iraq all so that you can possibly pack the SCOTUS, which by the by wouldn't need packing if the Congressional Dems hadn't decided to keep their powder dry.

Willing to trade the lives of thousands for possibly four SCOTUS appointments.

Hell of a set of priorities there.

[blondeatlast]

101. You forgot Iran. But I guarantee that the OP didn't,

since he's been pimping for a first strike on my SIL's country since the day he arrived.

[OzarkDem]

85. Begging the question?

Why do you assume that Hillary is the only Democrat who can win?

[Zandor]

91. Read my comment at the end of the OP n/t

[roguevalley]

100. here, here.

[cali]

94. Get over yourself. nt

[Fading Captain]

97. What's wrong with a nominee who can deliver the Supreme Court

And work for American workers, the environment, civil rights and peace.

[blondeatlast]

107. American workers? Do tell, what has she done for them? Has she written, co-sponsored,

or proposed any specific worker friendly legislation (make that AMERICAN worker friendly).

Votes are easy and I don't care to hear about those.

[Fading Captain]

170. You misunderstand

I am no fan of hillary at all.
I want a Democratic President who cares about the worker and the supreme court.

[blondeatlast]

175. My apologies. I was kind of bewildered as I've read many of your other posts. nt

[blondeatlast]

164. "deliver the Supreme Court?" SCOTUS isn't supposed to be political. nt

[ShortnFiery]

106. B.S. HRC will NOT return Habeas Corpus nor lighten Corporations' stranglehold on our govt.

You should know, at this point - The *true enemy* to our Constitution is NOW "The Unitary Executive." Either Party!

A Unitary Executive equates to Monarchy - to add insult to injury, if HRC wins, we are supporting DYNASTIES. :puke: No way!

[blondeatlast]

113. She lost me completely yesterday. I'm still uncommitted and she was

never at the top of my list, but I cannot support her now.

[mod mom]

120. Exactly which is why we need someone besides a DLCer to be our candidate!

[blondeatlast]

127. "'nuff said. Case over. Dismissed."

Funny, I didn't learn that tactic in Debate, did you?

[HERVEPA]

129. Is so. Is not. Is so. Is not. Won't support her. Will support her.

Now you need not view any other entry in this thread.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

142. It's the war. It has been the war since 9/11. I'll leave out the "stupid".

Bush is a 2 term president because of the war. The Democrats won in '06 because of the war. The congress is now rated below Bush by the citizenry because they won't do anything to stop the goddam war.

The "top" candidates are singing the "Peace with honor" tune by refusing to stop the war.

While we who want the war stopped aren't buying the "someday" and "maybe" and "it depends" crappola or Hillary's determination to prove how "tough" she is by advocating for another war.

She won't get my vote.

[Dr Fate]

146. I would rather nominate someone else to pick those Judges. Someone Liberal n/t

n/t

[charlie]

159. Thread OVER

Zandor won't support a Democrat that's "too far out of the box" over a Republican.

Hectoring hypocrite.

[robinlynne]

160. Zandor, since you're so big on the general election, let's talk about this in a year, ok?

We have a lot to do till then.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

165. This Thread Sheds More Heat Than Light

That being said I will support the nominee of our party, whomever he or she might be , as most of my family and I have been doing since FDR ran against Wendell Wilkie...

I will do nothing to help the GOP by action or inaction...In fact I would rather die...

[Vincardog]

167. Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for us, but it is the policies stupid. HRC does not

do anything to advance my progressive liberal populist positions. Why should I support her?

[rhett o rick]

171. IMHO if HRC wins the nomination, then the system, nothing personal against her

is in such bad shape that I don't think it will matter after that. I do not see her as saving democracy. I hope I am wrong, I was once before.

[rhett o rick]

172. Let me get this straight, if Lieberman happened to win the Democratic

nomination, you would vote for him? Not all Democrats deserve our vote. If the system gets so messed up that we are voting the best of evils for President, I don't think it will matter.

[blondeatlast]

174. Indeed he would.

He is the one DUer I can name who is on record as supporting a military strike on Iran; unequivocally supporting Kyl?Lieberman.

[rhett o rick]

173. Which is better a sprint to fascism or a slow jog? I think a sprint might be best.

A slow jog would be like the frog in the hot water. Raise the temp slowly and the frog hardly notices the change in temp. But raise the temp too fast and the frog will jump out. HRC hasn't made the restoration of democracy a top priority.

[uppityperson]

177. That is about the only reason I would vote for her IF she gets the nomination.

Not to imply she has the nomination sewed up here, but didn't you also say "The Drumbeat of Victory is in the Air for our Hillary"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3554478&mesg_id=3555244

[HeraldSquare212]

178. So you'd trade continued and perhaps a new war

for the Supreme Court? Secure our own rights while taking life and limb from others?

[oasis]

179. New war? Stop dreaming up stuff. SCOTUS is reality and it must be addressed. (n/t)

[Raffi Ella]

180. Yes,thank you for the post.

This is what is so distressing about the anti-Clinton absolutes running around D.U.

I wish people would look at the big picture here.We have a two party system,like it or not that is our reality!If you value Democracy then you will 1)VOTE and 2)Vote for the Democratic nominee .Period!

I understand peoples frustration and anger,I do!I'm surprised I haven't had a heart attack over the last few years as I've spent it in a constant state of anxiety and rage but I know everything can't be my way or just the way I like it or want it to be.

The '08 election is TOO important to sit out or to work against the Demcoratic Party.Whoever gets the Democratic nom,needs D.U.s support and their vote.




:bluebox: