The Reality Of Hillary Clinton's Candidacy For President Of The United States...

[Corey_Baker08]

Let me list a few numbers for everyone:
78 80 80 83

Those are the ages that Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be when the next president is sworn in, respectively. The next president we elect (assuming he or she serves two terms) could very well be the individual who selects four Supreme Court Justices.

Now, in a world where we’ve all seen how powerful the Supreme Court can be concerning the laws that impact all of us, who on the left wants a Republican such as Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz or Scott Walker potentially selecting four Supreme Court Justices? Listen, I know quite a few people on the left aren’t huge Hillary Clinton supporters. I personally like her, but I understand that a lot of people don’t. Even as a supporter, I know she’s far from perfect – but there’s a harsh reality that Hillary haters on the left need to face. First, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) isn’t going to run for president. I repeat, Elizabeth Warren is not going to run for president. The only way I think she might is if Clinton decided not to run. Considering that isn’t going to happen, I will repeat once again – Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run for president. And if you don’t believe me, here she is - several different times - stating that she’s not going to run for president. Besides, she’s best suited for the Senate. She’s a warrior who can get much more done fighting Republicans as a senator than she could as president. We need her voice in the Senate.

Then there are those people who want Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to run. Listen, I love Sanders, but he’s never going to be president - ever. He’ll be 75 in 2016, meaning that if he served eight years he’d be 83-years-old. Even if you get past his age, which many wouldn’t, he’s also a self-described socialist. If you really think this country is going to elect a self-described socialist to the White House, you really don’t know much about politics. Furthermore, Sanders is also best suited for the Senate – just like Elizabeth Warren. Outside of those three, it’s too late in the game for anyone to sneak in and make a big name for themselves. If someone worth electing was planning to run, they would already be a big name with a lot of momentum.

Liberals might not like hearing this, but it’s going to be Hillary Clinton or a Republican in 2016. It really breaks down to these two options: Either get on board with Hillary Clinton, even if she’s not everything you’ve dreamed of. - or – Whine and cry because Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run, become apathetic, then let Republicans win the White House in 2016; likely replace four Supreme Court Justices over the following 8 years; start a war with Iran; ruin the planet; destroy our economy again; and undo all the good that’s been done these last 6 years. Yes, it’s really that simple. The question is, would you rather have a candidate who supports 80-90 percent of what you support, or almost none of it? And spare me this, “I’ll vote for an independent because Americans need to move away from the two-party, corrupt system that’s ruining this country” nonsense.

Look, if you want to waste a vote based on principles, that’s your choice. I’m telling all of those people right now, Republicans won‘t. In fact, Republicans are hoping that’s exactly what many liberals and independents will do. The system is what it is and it’s unlikely to ever change. We’ve mostly been a two-party system since the founding of this nation, and definitely have been for the last century and a half. While some liberals will go off and pout in a corner, pointlessly carrying on about how their wasted vote is a “stance against a system they don’t support,” you know what Republicans will be doing? Voting for Republicans and destroying this country. Republicans overwhelmingly won this past November, not because they were popular or ran the better candidates, but because liberals let them win. For every liberal who didn’t cast a vote, that was essentially a vote for a Republican. The GOP thrives on lower voter turnout and a disjointed Democratic party. Hell, they count on it. So, while I understand that Hillary Clinton isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, I can promise you this much – she’s a hell of a lot better than any Republican alternative.

So to all of you who loathe her and feel that voting for her would be “selling out,” do you really want a Republican president potentially replacing four Supreme Court Justices? It all goes back to one simple fact: If liberals don’t want to get behind whomever is the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, then a Republican is going to occupy the White House after President Obama. This isn’t me trying to sensationalize anything or using hyperbole, I’m just telling you the truth. Even if we break this down to its simplest form, ignoring any mention of who is or isn’t running for president, then the question really comes down to: Who do you want potentially replacing four Supreme Court Justices in the next 8 to 10 years – a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights, health care and the separation of church and state, or a Republican who opposes all of that and then some?

[bahrbearian]

1. So there is no other Dem that can win?

[Thinkingabout]

28. Sure, get your candidate out, have them declare, the primary will determine if they can win.

[Scuba]

2. This is why, if Hillary is our candidate, I'll hold my nose real tight and vote for her.

[Martin Eden]

3. "Liberals might not like hearing this, but it’s going to be Hillary Clinton or a Republican in 2016"

Why?

Why does that have to be a foregone conclusion at this stage of the game?

Sure, I fully understand that is the consensus of the professional political prognosticators.

But they can, and have, been wrong.

And what really pisses me off is that this kind of thing becomes a self-fullfiling prophecy. Other challengers -- especially if they're deemed "too far left" -- are written off and dismissed before they've really been given a chance.

I can't help but think this is how The Powers That Be want it. There has to be an election, but they exert enormous control over who gets a real chance of winning. The corporate media incessantly repeats the offical conventional wisdom, and the dutiful sheep climb right aboard that wagon.

Look, I understand the necessity of nominating a candidate who can win the general election.

But I also understand the necessity for real change in this country, and that begins with breaking free from what we've been conditioned to believe is possible.

Elections need to be about issues, ideas, and qualifications. First and foremost, let's have a Democratic primary with a serious in-depth examination of what's really important.

The media presents us with personalities and the horse race. We need to get off that track.

[Corey_Baker08]

4. I Look Forward To A Great Democratic Primary That Will Push Hillary Further To The Left...

The point I am trying to get across is that *if* Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Nomination, for those who say I will not vote for her, these are the reasons why in my opinion you absolutely should vote for her. The context of this article can be applied to whomever wins the Democratic Nomination...

[Martin Eden]

7. I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election

But in the primary I absolutely refuse to support any candidate who voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.

If you want me to explain why, I'd be happy to.

[Corey_Baker08]

8. No Need To Explain, I Understand Completely...

I was just 16 years old when I attended the anti war rally in DC, I did not, do not and never will support the war in Iraq. Listen Im 25 years old, Im just as Liberal as anybody, but I just can't stand the thought of A Republican being elected President in 2016 and as of now it appears Hillary is our best shot at preventing that from happening.

I would love it if a Howard Dean or Al Gore or any number of people challenged Hillary in the Primary...

[Martin Eden]

10. I also attended the anti-war rally in DC March 15, 2003

I was very active in DU at the time, and there was no excuse for a US senator to be fooled by the war propaganda. I'm 57 years old and it took me longer than you to get so politically involved, so kudos to you.

Looks like we're on the same page, except I don't like to see the idea promoted that Hillary is the only Dem who can win the general election.

It is, of course, imperative that the Republican nominee LOSE.

[Novara]

16. Understandable, but....

....think about this. If enough people vote against her in the primary and someone else - quite possibly a weaker candidate - becomes the nominee, their chances against a Republican are probably going to be worse than Hillary's chances. I'm not willing to risk SCOTUS nominations on principle.

[Martin Eden]

26. I will take into consideration viability in the general election

And I am far from convinced Hillary is the only viable candidate. She has a lot of baggage and high negatives with a lot of voters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Even as HRC tacks leftward ...

many are saying they don't believe her ... so why is it important whether or not someone pushes her farther to the left? She will say what she will say ... some will believe her, others will not.

(Note, not directed to you ... just a general question)

[Martin Eden]

27. "why is it important whether or not someone pushes her farther to the left?"

Because a strong and sustained push to the left affects more than just HC and is absolutely necessary because the goalposts have been pushed so far to the right over the last few decades.

Hillary Clinton is a professional politician who knows which way the wind blows. The key to real change is to turn grassroots wind into a stronger current than $$ from the 1%. Without that we'll never get the kind of substantial change we hoped for with Obama.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Point taken. n/t

[cascadiance]

54. I think Obama could do Hillary a big favor by pulling back on pushing fast track and the TPP...

... and say he's doing so because the nation is speaking and is telling him that they don't want this legislation/treaty enacted.

If he were to do that, it would be more of a sign that he was more of the Hope and Change candidate many had elected him to be, and less someone that is going back on their word of "renegotiating free trade treaties" that he was stating before the election to make it sound like he'd try to shut many of them down then.

If he does this, perhaps more people might be inclined to believe Hillary Clinton's promises if she makes statements leaning more to the left during the election. I'm not saying she will or won't deliver on them. But if Obama pushes on TPP and gets it passed, and especially if Hillary doesn't contend that it is a bad idea to have passed it, that would really start to erode support for her campaign, as everyone will be more distrustful of the promises that Democratic candidates make, especially if she weren't subsequently to come out and note that Obama did the wrong thing in pushing this bill through. If he doesn't it will fuel the desire from many more out there to find a good populist progressive candidate to elect instead.

[Thinkingabout]

29. Do you think a candidate like Elizabeth Warren is left enough?

[cascadiance]

32. I think the important thing is that she's POPULIST enough moreso than other candidates!

THAT is the courageous stance I wish other politicians would take that stand against big money and more for the interest of the people out there.

Yes, there are many Democrats that take strong stances on social issues that we all like, and I support them on that. But I'm looking for someone who will start the revolution that will take back America from big money. Just taking non-risky stances on social issues isn't going to be enough.

Warren is smart not to be too heavily emphasizing her stances on social issues. As that is the way she will get support from many independents who are also looking for that populist, and want to see a candidate focused on that moreso than on social issues that might not attract them to voting for a Democrat otherwise.

It is hard finding real populist candidates out there, as it is hard for most politicians to work against the system now that so much has campaign money and the corruption that goes with it woven in to it.

[Thinkingabout]

34. I can see posters here wants what they call populist candidates, wants Wall Street workers

to be held accountable for actions, there are so many issues facing the US and I can't see where all of the attention can be placed on many other issues which a president has to work. As far as their ratings both Warren and Clinton are rated the same, hard core liberal.

[cascadiance]

35. But it is the populist issues that are really the most important to work on....

... to fix this broken and "rigged" (as Warren calls it) system, that few politicians have the courage to take on the machine to talk about.

I want someone at our top leadership post that has that courage to take on those issues and is not afraid to PO the Jamie Dymon's of the world and let them know that if they've committed crimes, that they ARE going to jail, rather than patting them on the back and just giving them a fine that they will write off as a business expense and have us the taxpayers pay through their tax deductions.

Yes, there are many issues that a president needs to work on, and many that both someone like Warren or Hillary can handle. But these fundamental issues that the corporatists don't want us touching are where I look at the stances of candidates to see if they will earn my support or not. Hillary hasn't shown her ability to do that just yet. THAT is the difference maker for me and many other voters in this coming election that have heard promises from many candidates like Obama, but have not had much constructive "hope and change" really delivered on.

And ratings are mostly crap, when the criteria for rating them are manipulated by this same corporate media who has vested interests in keeping the corporate elites happy just as much as those politicians that don't want to upset their campaign donation gravy train.

Whether you call it "populist" or some other name, there are a whole class of issues that we as Democrats have traditionally supported but have been pushed aside by the Third Wayers in recent decades, that need revisiting if we're going to repair this economy and the middle class that many try to promise doing but so few can deliver on.

We need someone that will put someone like a modern day Frances Perkins in key positions in their cabinet rather than someone like a Rahm Emanuel that has the blessings of the corporatist lobbyists.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Are you serious in thinking if someone like Dimon goes to jail all of the other problems

will go away? What are you going to do with infrastructure? there are ALL issues important to our citizens. Defense is very important, education, healthcare, pollution, the list goes on and on.

[cascadiance]

37. I am serious that with a rigged system you HAVE to prioritize fixing the corruption first...

Otherwise all of the other issues that you mention here are also handled in a corrupt and nonproductive fashion if the powers that be feel in any way like their well being is threatened by any legislation on them.

I'm not saying other issues aren't important. But I AM saying that unless you fix these fundamental issues of corruption, that the system will stay broken and only get worse to the point that we no longer at some point (if we don't already) have a democracy any more.

Dimon and many others going to jail that were behind a lot of the criminal activity in Wall Street that broke our economy and pushed so many of our citizens out of the middle class and in to poverty in my book is NECESSARY, and Obama's justice department lack of action on this shows how corrupt the system has become. At least Reagan had some degree of integrity in his day to go after those who committed similar crimes in the Savings and Loan crisis of his day and put them in prison. Why can't we do the same? Unless we do, this sort of abuse will continue until we get a bigger crash and an even more severe depression that we might not crawl out of like we did somewhat now (even though many people's savings have been destroyed and haven't recovered yet).

And if we don't prioritize fixing corruption, given the recent history Obama has exhibited of not prosecuting these crimes, then many Republicans will use this against us in 2016, on how we are a corrupt party that doesn't prosecute those who have bought us, and they would be RIGHT, and they might win even more elections as a result of this stupid inattention towards fixing corruption that the Democratic Party should take the lead on the way it would have in the past.

Prosecuting Dimon won't solve other problems. But making those that have corrupted the system pay with jail time would be a good start to providing these criminals a disincentive for continuing the acts of corruption they continue to be involved with now in screwing up our government now. The statute of limitations has already been crossed for some of these crimes. We can't afford to wait any longer to make some of these criminals pay for what they've done and start to fix our system.

Without fixing this, they will continue to go after the issues you mention and the following will happen:
1) kids will still go in to the heavy debt they have now which can't be handled through bankruptcy courts that the banksters profit from to keep them from getting the education they should be getting and to keep them from helping our economy much when they graduate.
2) We still won't have single payer health care to really fix our broken health care system as long as the corruptors want to keep in place the health insurance parasite companies in our health care system.
3) Pollution will become a lot worse if something like TPP passes, and companies will use the TPP courts to overturn GMO and other environmental protection laws as interfering with companies ability to make profits and compete when they have bought politicians to help them pass that TPP mess.
... and my list of how the system will be corrupted goes on and on too!

[Thinkingabout]

38. If I was out of work or was not making enough money to care for my family I would be very interested

in seeing jobs created through infrastructure repair and development of alternative power sources which helps citizens in general. Dimon would be on the backburner for me.

[cascadiance]

39. Koch Brother bribes would work against you getting alternative power source work done...

... and the military industrial complex would rather prioritize getting wars funded over infrastructure repair with their bribes, and enough congress critters, especially Republicans will hang the "debt mess" cloud over spending money on anything else, which facilitates their taking down any other spending that doesn't serve them.

You NEED to fix this corruption to get work done effectively, and we really can't wait any longer to start doing this!

[Thinkingabout]

40. I need a job first.

[cascadiance]

44. So do I... Trying to get my taxes done at the same time they wanted to interview me today...

I'm hoping that Hillary Clinton does change her position on H-1B visas so that the job situation for high tech workers will get better soon.. Maybe I can make the salary I used to 10 years ago.

[Thinkingabout]

46. At least you had a salary to have paid taxes. I don't make as much today as I did ten years ago.

[cascadiance]

47. I'm not making it today... I'm referencing the years between now and 10 years ago...

... when I did make a reasonable salary. Not many years where I've worked the full year in recent years with the tech sector's obsession with temporary contracts now.

[Thinkingabout]

48. How do you think sending Dimon and others is going to change the fact you do not have

steady employment?

[cascadiance]

52. I'm not just worried about my own situation, but the country as a whole...

... and how so many other people have it far worse than I do.

As long as Dimon and other "corruptors" feel like they can get away with their criminal acts of bribery (that seems to be made less illegal every day), we're all going to get screwed by their games. Just doing financial penalties isn't going to mean anything to them. They still have a lot to gain committing more crimes that more than pay those off, and they aren't made to pay for it in any other substantive way.

If we started putting some of them in prison, then perhaps we'd stop a lot of this crap happening, and could get politicians elected that work for people instead of money instead.

Not being employed is a subtle reminder to me how so many others are facing problems now, and reminds me that it is important to reverse this trend of screwing the 99%.

[Thinkingabout]

53. gotcha, still this is one problem, many more needs attention.

[cascadiance]

55. I won't disagree with you there!

There are a lot of problems facing us that need attention! But my feeling is that you have to look at them from a distance and figure out which problems are the root problems for most of the others and try solving those first so you can focus your energy on getting that accomplished, and then the others won't be as hard later to get fixed. If you ignore those root problems, you'll never really tackle many of the problems at all, and likely will only have bandaid solutions for many of the others that don't last.

For me the root problems are the ones that the corporate lobbyists have inflicted on us and are problems that are intentionally being ignored at their behest.

[LynneSin]

6. I heard that in 2007 too

Just saying.....

And this is not a bust on Hillary.

Just saying that we should not assume that the nomination is hers either.

[davidpdx]

12. It's not about the debating ideas and issues

It's about being told to sit down and shut up just like the OP has stated and just like many others have over the past few days. Apparently we not only have to accept that Clinton is the nominee, but that we can't question any of her stances.

It's quite a Machiavellian behavior by those who are doing so.

[Martin Eden]

15. And that's a shame

I believe the Democratic Party would have much greater electoral success if we focused on idea & issues and elevated candidates who demonstrate a thorough understanding of how government works and the strong leadership to enact the change that is so critically needed.

[Chan790]

18. I don't think they understand...

"Liberals might not like hearing this, but it’s going to be Hillary Clinton or a Republican in 2016"

ultimately means this

"It’s going to be a Republican in 2016"

as an outcome.

If Hillary is our best shot, we might as well turn over the WH to fucking Jebby now. What we actually need is Hillary to go away so we can establish one back-bencher or another as a viable candidate over the non-viable frontrunner. You know how we all laugh when the GOP is hard-pushing a front-runner in the primaries that has no chance of not being smashed in the GE?

We're doing it now with Hillary.

[QuestionAlways]

49. I agree with you, but it is what it is

and as it is now I don't see any chance of it changing. We do what we can, elect a Democrat who will appoint judges to the Supreme Court. Once they overturn Citizens United, then the possibility of real change exists.

[Martin Eden]

56. Democratic POTUS is essential, but not everything hinges on Citizens United.

Ultimately the change has to come from voting citizens who demand something better. We can't expect establishment insiders to be the change we need.

[LynneSin]

5. Here's the only number we need to know ZERO

the changes that a GOP president would be willing to replace Breyer and/or Ginsberg with a like-minded justice.

Nuff said.

[Chan790]

19. The problem is the "other" zero.

The chances that Hillary would replace Breyer and/or Ginsberg with a like-minded justice rather than a more-conservative one.

I think I've said more than enough.

We lose automatically on this front if she's the nominee. The court is moving right regardless who wins a race between Hillary and the GOP.

[LynneSin]

22. Are you kidding me.

First I'm talking general elections NOT primaries

and I think I have said in many many other posts that I have not jumped on the Hillary bandwagon, I am not on any.

But I highly doubt that a woman who has been championed by Emily's List for DECADES is going to suddenly fuck them over if she gets in the White House.

My money is on Hillary.

Maybe you should take your blinders off and look at her entire voting record. I seem to recall her being ranked like 11th as the most progressive senator during her tenure. That's pretty decent.

[Chan790]

25. You do realize that women's issues are not the only issues that matter, right?

Nor the only ones SCOTUS makes decisions on...in fact, the majority of decisions issued in any given year by SCOTUS relate to business, labor and economic policy. Hillary is conservative on those issues. Always has been, has never been apologetic about it.

It's not wrong to attack her on the realistic likelihood she's going to replace the two most liberal SCOTUS Justices with more-conservative Justices...regardless which party holds the WH SCOTUS has been moving right for years because Bill Clinton and Barack Obama consistently appointed justices more conservative the ones they were replacing as well. All I'm saying is anybody positing the need for a Democratic win on the SCOTUS basis, needs to make sure Hillary is not the nominee because there is no SCOTUS gain or even maintenance of the status-quo if she is the nominee. You can't win by losing ground.

As for "the 11th most-progressive senator", you realize that these claims are made for every frontrunner in every Democratic primary. These same people also claimed that Obama was the most liberal, Kerry was the most liberal...hell, they claimed Gore had a liberal voting record as a Senator, something that Al Gore himself disputed because he was concerned about being smeared with a "liberal" label in 2000.

The proof is in the pudding. Hillary has never met an FTA she doesn't like or a union she supports. She's not progressive or liberal. She's a founding member of the DLC.

[Thinkingabout]

31. Do you know her record or do you depend on many talking points of the GOP and even DU?

Hillary is not a one issue candidate, education, healthcare, pro-choice, wage increases, pulling back Bush tax cuts, bringing corporations back on shore, civil rights and yes women's issues.

Here is a link:

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[Chan790]

33. Yes, actually.

My personal campaign is to keep Hillary from ever being President. I actually know her record and positions probably as well as she does. Hillary is a bad choice. Bad for women, bad for workers, bad for children, bad for people that like peace, bad for the environment, bad for the economy and the working-poor. Her positions and record damn her...she's a bad candidate and a fake Democrat.

I'm not the one that implied Hillary was a one issue candidate, that was LynneSin in attempting to rebut my argument that Hillary is a terrible candidate for people worried about SCOTUS arguing by "But I highly doubt that a woman who has been championed by Emily's List for DECADES is going to suddenly fuck them over if she gets in the White House."

I countered that women's issues are not the only issues, followed by a discussion of...shock...gasp!...awe!...SCOTUS and the direction SCOTUS has taken over the past 20 years as Democrats have appointed more conservative justices to replace liberal justices.

You know, Thinkingabout, it generally helps if you follow an argument before you butt into it. Doubly so, if you can actually be on-point.

Not out of character for Hillary supporters though, they have to deflect...their candidate represents the end of legitimacy of Democratic politics if she wins the nomination. It'll be two Republicans running in the GE.

[QuestionAlways]

50. So who is your candidate, Jeb, Cruz, Walker, Mitt ? Oh, in the Democratic Primary

who do you like ? Work for them, vote for them. And if they happen to lose, all I ask is that you vote for the winner of the primary in the general election; even if it is Hillary Clinton. There are a great number of reasons to do so, starting with SCOTUS.

[LynneSin]

45. So I should keep looking backwards and possibily set my country backwards another 20-30 years

No thank you. Been there done that when we allowed Bush in the White House in 2000.

You may fool yourself into thinking that your vote is somehow so special that it would be better to just let a Republican to have the White House then to possibly allow someone like Hillary Clinton to have it.

I know that if a Republican was to get the White House that we can see the rights of so many groups denied that it might be decades before we can make these things rights. Everyday we have another nut job talking about how we should deny women their rights to make choices for their bodies or how it's ok for 'Christians' to practice Jim Crow laws in this country over random bible verses they have memorized (none of them ever actually said by Jesus). I'm not about to allow this country to be turned into a Theocracy just to satisfy my need that somehow I kept my vote pure and special.

I have said many times I'm not 100% sure about Hillary but it's posts like yours that pushes me into camp Hillary because I'm sick and tired of all this bullshit and negativety and this 'What about how she voted 12-14 years ago'. Seriously? You know what I see from the supporters of Hillary - POSITIVE PEOPLE. Obama has been far from perfect in the time that he has served but I think he has done a darn good job given the congress he has had to work with and our country is moving forward. You know what I see from Hillary supporters here at DU - I see POSITIVE PEOPLE. People who want another president who can take what Obama started and keep it rolling for another 8 years so we can hopefully see further growth with this country instead of it being cut off at the knees like it was when Bush was elected after Bill Clinton's term.

Now ask yourself this. Why for the life of God would I want to join team DOOM, GLOOM, HATE and NEGATIVITY when I see these Clinton supporters who are talking about the positive things about Hillary Clinton? Go ahead and post another hateful Hillary reply, making even closer to signing up for the Hillary campaign because you know what - I like positive people and I see absolutely NOTHING from the anti-Hillary folks right now that offers me anything positive except 8 years of Theocracy rule by the GOP.

[Buzz cook]

11. You must not remember the 2000 election.

The stakes were just as high, but the political purity crowd hated Al Gore more than the possibility of the supreme court getting stacked with corporate shills.

Appeals to reason didn't work in 2008 either. The supposed left glommed onto every anti-Clinton meme that the MSM and the right produced.
I even had a liberal that I respect tell me that Hillary was a secret right wing Christian dominionist. Why? because Clinton had said something nice about the American Prayer Breakfast people.

We need more than negative reasons in support of Clinton. Luckily she does have a record that strongly indicates that she is in fact relatively liberal. I would argue that she is effectively more liberal than Obama, though that's not saying much.

[LynneSin]

23. We have to make the country suffer in order to fix it

How many Americans have died for that one



I think we would have been much better off with Al Gore. That isn't to say that 9/11 would have never happened. I have no idea about that one and I'm no conspiracy theory. But if 9/11 had happened I do think that Gore would have stuck with the country that actually had the terrorists (Afghanistan) and he would have had a strategy WITH an exit plan so we would have been out of there in time with the UN taking over peacekeeping. And no one would have heard of ISIS today.

[Corey_Baker08]

43. Well To Be Fair I Was Only 10 Years Old In 2000...

But I do remember supporting Al Gore & watching the recount & when the SCOTUS appointed Bush President I was hooked on politics from then on...

[davidpdx]

13. More of the sit down and shut up routine

Well played sir...well played....

[Always Randy]

14. on this fact alone you are so right

it seems as though some of the followers here on DU seem to think they could stay home if HRC is the Dem candidate ---that is an awesome responsibility to let any of the GOP to have a say in SCOTUS appointments

[Chan790]

20. Could? Am. n/t

[Cosmocat]

17. She is probably the best shot,but I would save this for about a year or so

I think this is a general point to make right now in her support, that she is likely the more sure shot to win in the general and the stakes are super high.

But, I think it is important to allow people space in the primary, assuming there is any real competition.

I get the ambivalence people have toward Hill, and the way our system is, it will be good if they can throw their hat behind someone else to make a more progressive agenda push during the primary.

I have posted this here a number of times - if you aren't in love with Hillary, then get behind someone in the primary and fight like hell for them.

BUT, assuming she is the candidate, then it is time to rally and get behind her.

Let it play out. If she can't get past what little appears is out there in the primary, then she isn't winning in the general anyways.

[DFW]

21. My ideal scenario:

Somewhere in between a foregone conclusion and a fratricidal primary.

We MUST stand united once the nominee is decided. We must NOT say "it's over, deal with it," and I think even the Hillary camp knows that a completely uncontested primary allows for boredom and (a free) full media focus on the Republicans.

Anyone who doesn't realize how utterly vital it is that the next two or three Supreme Court Justices NOT be right wing reactionaries is missing something.

[LynneSin]

24. I think a great primary ensures that all the cobwebs are cleared for the general election

Because in the end the emails and Benghazi will be an 'issue.'

But if they are covered ad nauseum during the primaries (and they probably will be) then no one is going to care when the general election comes around.

Back during the Clinton-Obama primaries there was a big stink about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright and the Weather Underground, 2 'scandals' that came out towards the end of the primaries. That got a bit of stink, almost gave Hillary a chance to pull ahead but in the end Obama won.

Thing is this. McCain and Palin kept trying to use those two Scandals against Obama and couldn't make it stick. By then the public was tired of it and was ready to hear about how the candidates were going to fix the nation.

[Marrah_G]

41. The more I get told there is no other choice, the less enthusiastic I get

Democracy is supposed to be about choice.

Using the line that at least she is better then the republican might be factually correct but it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth.

We want someone to believe in, not someone who is just not as bad as the other guy. The Hillary campaign needs to stop pushing the inevitable line and start giving people a reason to want HER, not just an alternative to the republican.

[Hawaii Hiker]

42. Totally agree

And i would argue that it is not only SCOTUS, but Circuit Court and District Court nominations are important to..

President Obama has done a great job on judicial nominees, and we need a Democrat to be making judicial nominations come 1/20/17..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. This is the argument to elect a Democrat in the General Electon, not the plot of "Highlander."

I want a primary. I want to help decide who gets to run against Republicans.

We should not be saying, "There can be only one" before the first vote in the primary is taken.

[justiceischeap]

57. BTW, the source for this is:

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/reality-hillary-clinton-liberals-need-face/

and it goes beyond the 4 paragraph quote rule.