Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Younger Dems, Hillary Haters, LISTEN UP!
You know the Democratic nominating contest has heated up by the increasing level of flames seen among blog commenters on the web in the last 2 weeks. We’re seeing more and more Obama supporters declare that they’ve reached a tipping point, vowing not to vote Democratic in November if HRC is the candidate. Some of this reaction is based on the changing tone of the campaign since the days preceding the WI primary and the cumulative effect HRC’s negative tactics have had in blunting Obama’s momentum. Some of you have set your focus on the possibility that HRC could end up the nominee by virtue of superdelegates casting deciding convention votes for HRC in spite of the near certainty that Obama will bring to the convention a lead in pledged delegates. Another group – the dyed in the wool Hillary haters – has been vowing from the beginning that they will never, under any circumstances, cast a vote for HRC.
Please… listen up.
This election is not only about who will head the executive branch for
the next 4-8 years. There are 2 branches
of government at stake in this election, with far more on the line beyond the
executive: the federal courts. Federal
judicial nominees are lifetime appointees and cannot be turned out of office
via a presidential election. Younger
voters will not remember the Warren
court and the enormous impact its progressive decisions have had on this
country. The Supreme Court decisions
from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s have defined and under girded our civil
liberties across the spectrum of the Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War
constitutional amendments. Consider
where we might be without the SC’s decisions on privacy, the rights of the
accused, and free speech. Consider the
crucial decisions the Court is now facing (on habeus corpus, detainee
treatment, military tribunals) and what issues we’ll be facing when, with a
Democrat in the white house, the Republicans seek to litigate policy through
the SC.
We are at a critical juncture now in the composition of the court. A quick review of the nine most powerful jurists in the land (including who appointed them, their age, and their record of opinions):
John Roberts – GWB – 53 – conservative
Samuel Alito – GWB – 57 – conservative
Clarence Thomas – GHWB – 59 – conservative
David Souter – GHWB – 68– liberal
Stepehen Breyer – Clinton
– 69 – liberal
Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – 71 – SWING
Antonin Scalia – Reagan – 71 – conservative
Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 74– liberal
John Paul Stevens – Ford – 87– liberal
The last two SC appointees (Alito and Roberts) replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing voter, and William Rehnquist, a conservative. In losing O’Connor, the conservative bloc is now just one justice removed from an outright 5-4 majority (or 6-3, depending on how Kennedy votes). At is now stands, there’s a 50-50 chance that any given close decision will go 5-4 liberal or 5-4 conservative. Now consider the age of the current justices. I believe Stevens has chosen to remain on the Court through this term so he can be replaced by a Democrat. If he is the only justice to retire with a Democrat in office next year, the composition of the court will not change. A Democrat will replace Stevens with a liberal. The same is true for Ginsburg. If both Ginsburg and Stevens retire under a Democrat, the court will continue to have 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and a swing voter.
If HRC wins the nomination and a sufficient number of
disaffected democrats sit out the 2008 election, and if McCain is the next
president, you can be certain that the composition of the Supreme Court will
change, and that it is highly likely it will move to a conservative
majority. With another young Republican
appointee on the Court, the critical questions of civil liberties and privacy
will be determined from a conservative philosophy for the next generation and
probably another generation beyond. It
could be 30 years before the last of the conservatives now on the court will
retire. If there is a Republican in
office, the conservatives will certainly obtain the 5-4 conservative majority
they have been aiming for. With HRC in
office, we can at least maintain the 4-4-1 composition of the court, and may be
able, over 8 years, to move the court to a 5-4 or 6-3 liberal majority.
What is at stake is not just whether, with HRC, there will
be a continuation of the politics of division for the next 8 years and another Clinton team in the white
house (nothing I would look forward to).
But we can prevent the creation of a long-term conservative
branch of
government, one with powers commensurate to the legislative and
executive
branches, but with no possibility for electoral change and a guarantee
of many
years of conservative decisions. The SC is the most important of the
federal appointees the next president will make, but the federal
District and Appellate judges are also critical to local and regional
judicial decisions and serve as the farm system for the SC. The future
of the entire federal judiciary is at stake this November.
I voted for Obama in February. I am very hopeful he will be the Democratic
nominee in August. I am loathe to return the Clintons to the White
house. But I will not cast a vote for
McCain or Nader or sit out the election in November if my vote will help assure that
we do not enable a conservative Supreme Court and federal judiciary for the foreseeable future.
Please… listen up, and think beyond the immediate anger and
frustration, put aside the Hillary hate, put in perspective what is at stake in
November, and cast your vote to keep the SC out of the hands of the
conservatives. We would elect McCain at our
peril. And not just for what it means in
the next 4-8 years, but what it means for the next 4-8 presidential elections.
Comments (236)
You know, sometimes people need to stand up for their principles and take the long-term view.
Do you really want to keep voting for the lesser of two evils for the rest of your life? If you do, then by all means do so... but if you don't, think long and hard about how to change things. Clearly, voting for Hillary is not a way to change things.
March 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. That's why I voted for Obama and have contributed money to his campaign. I'll fight to see him nominated. But if her isn't and HRC is on the ballot in November? I will be voting Democrat.
March 7, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem with your argument is that it excuses any of a number of crimes Hillary may or may not commit against the Democratic party during this process. At what point are there consequences?
March 8, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? So Hillary wouldn't do anything for education or women's rights or support for children or health care? She wouldn't get us out of Iraq? She wouldn't try to bring the budget closer to balance? She wouldn't deal with the mortgage crisis? She wouldn't change *anything*?
Or you mean she wouldn't "bring us all together, make us all one, unite us"? I always think of the Wendy's burger - "make me one with everything".
Anyway, I'll support Obama in the generals if he's running as a Democrat. I'm not sure I understand people's attitudes - I like the Cards but would take the Cubs over any American League team.
March 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Hillary proposes to do about the mortgage crisis would radically increase the cost of mortgages to future buyers, who would in the end pay for the foolishness and greed of current holders of mortgages taken out by those who couldn't really afford them. So once again the debts run up in the present would be passed on to the next generation.
The economy is about to go through a period of serious destruction. But that destruction, if let to run its course, will largely punish the large institutions which have behaved so corruptly. Any sort of bail out, even under Hillary's plan, will protect those institutions far more than it will help the fools who let themselves be sold mortgages beyond their means.
March 8, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying McCain is the lesser of two evils against Clinton?
Seriously?
March 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the McCain would get us out of Iraq faster than Clinton. Part of this is just the Nixon-to-China psychology and politics, but fundamentally Clinton is trapped by her pandering past vote on the AUMF.
She is corrupted on this issue, in a way that McCain - who honestly believed it was a good idea - is not.
March 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you'll just ignore what he said about bing there for 100 years. That's just ridiculous.
Sorry, but either dem will get us out of there quicker.
March 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a well-argued reminder of how important this election is.
I would only add that every single Federal Agency has been headed by incompetents and hacks over the last 8 years. They are entrenched now -- the political appointees converted to civil service jobs -- and if the Republicans get 4 or 8 more years to put their cronies and lickspittles into positions of power, the effects on our environment, our economy and our health will be devastating. It is going to take years to root these bastards out. We have to get started this Fall.
March 7, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post this after the convention. It's too fresh right now.
March 7, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I hear ya. And note that this argument has been put forward by O supporters, saying HRC is unelectable in the GE, so get behind O. I'm all for it, but feel like those who are rashly stating they will NEVER vote for HRC have more to think about than just how much we don't want to see her in the WH. I know I don't, but the SC is just too important. :-/
March 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a supporter of Obama, and I deplore Hillary's recent barrage of negative campaigning. That said, I have a great deal of respect for the argument that you make. My mother was, in the mid-seventies, a rabble rousing union organizer. She organized and led one of the first unionized shops for registered nurses in the country. In the past twenty years, she has swung so far to the right that we can no longer discuss politics without rancor and pain.
In 2000, and again in 2004 I made my simple case for voting democrat over republican, and I make it in concurrence with your opinion here. Long Term Matters. Think about our Judicial System and the Environment. I would rather see a President who will most likely come down on the liberal side in the judiciary and on the environment's side over big business.
That's it. Now, Cheney's imperial reign with his Presidential Sock Puppet has disabused notions of what an executive branch can get away with if they simply ignore one branch (legislative) of government and stuff the other branch (judicial) with politicoreligious activists. Even more reason to get behind both the eventual nominee of the Democrats (Please please not Hillary) but no matter who it is we MUST STOP the right wing ultra conservative growth within our society.
Frankly, I became an Obama supporter because I thought (and still do) that he has a better chance of beating a republican than Hillary. Hillary just brings too many anti-Hillary votes to the polls. Obama has a chance to shake things up.
Since joining the Obama campaign I have come to believe in Barack's message, and I fervently hope that we can, as a country, bring enough energy to Washington to shake the establishment a bit and see some ability to do great works. But we cannot do this if we alienate our sisters and brothers of any race, class, age or political persuasion.
Find ways to express your support for Barack in positive ways, and to counter Hillary in positive ways as well. We need to shift the debate from "Who is ready to be commander in chief?" to "Who is ready to lead this country?" Who is ready to bring people together, not in a spirit of cynicism and fear, but in a spirit of determination, grit, and hope. We must dedicate ourselves to work hard in order that sacrifices we make now will benefit our country and our children.
We must deliver our country from the disaster that the right wing bestows upon us. There will be negative attacks from reactionaries throughout our efforts and we need to prepare for them. What will we answer when we are accused of 'redistributing wealth', a typical reactionary response to progressive taxation and social and public works spending? I say that we need to be prepared to counter this with oratory decrying the Bush administration's redistribution of wealth from our country's needs for public infrastructure, education and health care into the pockets of a burgeoning defense industry.
Ah... I've begun ranting... Simple message...
Keep the faith, keep the energy, and bring it all to bear to defeat John McCain. We must win back our nation.
Ott Out
March 8, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, Chris.
You've reminded me that I need to re-direct my energy.
Many thanks.
March 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree.. maybe the Democrats should learn the cost of picking losers for nominee.. I am an independent and I think the reason democrats continue to pick awful candidates is because they don't understand the importance of picking electable candidates - not just the one who can play the democrat primary game the best. Bashing one another on critical issues only frames your candidates for the general election. How do you think Bush would have done in Florida in 2000 if the other nominee's had pointed out the social security privatization plan that he favored for the elderly in Florida? Bringing out National Security as an important issue when the republicans have McCain is fatal. If you guys can't understand that, then your party has no right to be in the white house.. good luck..
March 7, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your perspective, but this is exactly why Dems needs a pep talk right now about voting Dem in November. I don't expect the SC picture to have much influence on Independents, and think that any conservatives who might cross over and vote Obama in November would be doing so against their best (conservative) interests. We have the final slate of Dems that we have. There's no point in second guessing our ability to pick a candidate at this stage.
March 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the Democrats haven't really been picking "losers" so much as they have had their elections hijacked by Karl Rove. If you read this blog regularly, you should know about the US Attorney scandal.You should also know that many of us vet our candidates better than the the Republicans do.Apparently all you have to do to win as a Republican is to kiss George Bush on the check and give up your principles.I wouldn't call that a very high standard for electibility.
March 7, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "awful candidates"? You mean like Bush?
March 8, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely.
Which is why I will write in John Edwards.
March 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
John will be voting for the Dem nominee. I voted for him in the primary, and like him, I'm not thrilled at the leftovers, but be practical. Not pissy.
March 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
After seeing her act over the past two weeks, I'm not so certain that Hillary Rove Clinton would nominate a liberal for the SCOTUS.
How do I know she would ask McCain to recommend a judge due to his vast experience?
Maybe she'll be looking for re-election to her second term and bow to the Republicans and select a conservative for political expediency, much like she did with Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman.
I just don't trust her anymore.
March 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I don't trust Obama.
March 8, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are bad judges on the left just as there are bad judges on the right. Under Hillary's Supreme Court, get ready for any disparagement of President Hillary to be prosecuted as a hate crime. There is no advantage at all in replacing a totalitarian-leaning right with a totalitarian-leaning left. Obama and McCain both understand the fundamental American value of liberty. Hillary is the sort of leftist who clearly does not - except when it is her own, and transcends any standard of fairness or responsibility.
March 8, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting propaganda, and good luck with getting the Senate judiciary committee to consent to a totalitarian of any stripe.
March 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need some medicine to help you. This is, honestly, deranged. Where do you find anything in her history that suggests Senator Clinton plans to overthrown the US government.
March 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this election is so important, then someone needs to tell the Clintons and their supporters that. They and they alone are killing the Democrats' shot at office. Three months ago, I was extremely willing to vote for Hillary had she been the nominee. No longer.
March 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that HRC is in take-no-prisoners mode and is moving into territory where, when she loses this Dem race, she will have hurt Obama's chances for the fall. The best action is to work harder to ensure Obama is the nominee. And, in the worst case, we need to vote in our long term interests and put a Dem in office this fall. If that's still possible... It won't help if droves of Obama supporters put their anger ahead of the nation's interests and stay at home in November.
March 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. Maybe Hillary should stop campaigning for McCain.
March 7, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but I really hope Pelosi, Edwards, Gore, Richardson, etc. can talk some sense into the HRC campaign ASAP and get HRC off the ledge before she completely goes off into the deep end. Talking up McCain is just batshit crazy. ;~)
March 7, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I will vote for Hillary over McCain.
But I live in Texas. And the only way my vote has a CHANCE of even counting is if Obama wins.
March 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your vote counts and don't kid yourself that it doesn't. Look at the last two elections - too close to call, close enough to steal.
March 8, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
In short: No Democratic state will flip if Hillary is nominated.
So, you're preaching to the choir here.
March 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Dem state could easily flip for McCain if enough Dems stay at home or vote Nader. I've long thought HRC can't win in a GE, given her huge negatives, but we're going to completely destroy any chance we have if we can't bring out the Dem base.
March 7, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
GMan,
Thanks for your post. Normally I think and talk just like you do.
But after the last few days, I have to confess, I've been re-thinking the just-vote-for-the-Dem reasoning. Does it benefit us in the long run to keep rewarding this kind of behavior?
There are two things the Clintons are doing that bother me:
1) Strengthening the Republican Fear Message for the General Election If Hillary wins the nomination, she is risking her own general election campaign by providing McCain with the audio/visual spectacle of Hillary placing herself in the same (bogus, in my opinion) experience league. Fear/Security/National Defense is the sharpest sword in the Republican sheath this fall, and they'll plunge it to the hilt.
2) Jeopardizing New Interest in the Democratic Party Hints from the Clintons that they are willing to capture the nomination by seating delegates from the Michigan and Florida primaries, despite earlier mutually-agreed upon rules; or that they will use superdelegates to undermine the choice of the majority of Democratic primary voters, may destroy the momentum the Democratic Party finally has to build a new Progressive majority. (Remember, Bill Clinton never won a majority voter mandate--in 1992 nor in 1996.)
I suspect it's taken for granted that candidates get away with doing some pretty offensive, egregious stuff to each other during primaries because they count on the 'base' unifying after the nomination. It's annoying to the base -- at least a part of its members end up feeling like an abused spouse agreeing to go back to the relationship despite the bruises and indignation. But newcomers haven't necessarily resigned themselves to living with the battered spouse syndrome. They haven't cultivated that kind of loyalty yet.
And this year is unique, at least within the context of several decades' worth of elections. The Democratic Party is attracting new interest because a lot of moderates and independents are looking for a way to repudiate the Bush years and the Republican Party in general. Many of the new people are interested, in particular, in Barack Obama.
Party purists, like our friend workerbee, seem to have a dim view of these newcomers, speaking of them as if they are carpetbaggers who lack devotion to the party and therefore should not be trusted. I think it's a mistake to alienate those folks -- they may be here for the candidate right now, but there's potential to earn their loyalty -- if we let them know they're valued. Let's face it: there's no other way to significantly grow the party unless we exploit an opportunity like this.
And let's not overlook the potential length of Obama's coattails. Look, I'm a frustrated voter in one of the many 'red' states between the two coasts. Frankly, I'd like to entice a few of those independents and disenchanted Republicans to vote Dem for lots of offices, not just President. I think Obama can help us red staters turn purple and maybe even blue.
So I'm not sure what I'll do in the general election. Lately, though, I'm feeling sympathy for the anyone-but-Hillary crowd.
March 7, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good question, and if I thought there might be a way to choose neither HRC nor McCain, and make my voice heard with a substantial minority in order to send a message, I could see voting another way, even ceding the SC to the conservatives if it really meant we could change the nature of the divide in our parties and within our party. But there aren't enough voters who care so much to band together and make some kind of genuine protest that will truly get a message through. Perot's run did not get a message through to either party (though I never thought Perot's central concern was sending a clear message on the tone of politics as usual). Nader would be a possibility, but I'm pretty certain that a very small percentage would vote for him and that it certainly won't convey any message to the major parties. If I read you correctly, you'd like to see a change in how we select candidates. I would, too, though I'm a realist in thinking it's not going to happen in this election.
I agree with all the points you're making, but I'm seeing most of the responses to my post as misunderstanding my point, including yours. I am not suggesting we make HRC the nominee. I'm not suggesting anyone vote for her in the forthcoming contests. I want to see Obama as the nominee. To that end, I agree with almost all the reasons people have put forth against her becoming the nominee. But the outcry of late has been based on a hypothetical. IF HRC is the nominee, people won't vote for her. I've tried to give reasons why we should put aside our distaste and our sense of being offended and vote Dem in November. I understand the arguments that if people vote for HRC over O in the primaries, we're doomed in the fall. I'm afraid that may be true. But the only way we can have any chance to avert that doom is to pull together and oppose the Repubs in November and put a Dem in the white house.
March 8, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't misunderstand--I get your point and appreciate your efforts. I just wish we could find a way to break out of this losing pattern. Rewarding it over and over just means we'll get the same thing over and over. And yes, I realize a third party candidate for President isn't a workable solution. If we want to form a viable third party, we should start with Congressional races. Your point about the Supreme Court is absolutely right -- there's too much at stake with the office of President.
Like I said, I normally think and sound just like you. I was just giving voice to some of the (reasoned, IMO)problems with resigning ourselves to voting for Hillary. I think it's important to acknowledge and understand everything we give up when we resign ourselves to accept Hillary in order to defend the Supreme Court and the administratin of duties of the Executive Branch.
March 8, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely, and some may just feel they'd be better off with McC in office and the Clintons finished, regardless of the SC. I understand, and am grateful for those who are engaging in this discussion on the merits. Thanks.
March 8, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for bringing this up. I too am frustrated at Dems' argument that either candidate is a better option in the end than McCain. I disagree stridently. Voting for a Democrat like Clinton who plays on our fears, knows only traditional interest-group politics and is implicitly campaigning to suppress new voters doesn't make sense.
If, after years of nominating no-win candidates who get the Demos' nomination by playing traditional interest-group politics (Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, even Gore), the Democrats won't learn their lesson and nominate Hillary Clinton, then they deserve to lose and start over to learn their lesson. Under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary or any Clinton (or any Bush, for that matter), and if she's the nominee will happily vote for McCain, a man of character with whose policies I generally disagree. I'd rather have someone with integrity in the White House than one whose policies might be more like mine but who will further the corruption, cynicism, and gridlock of the past 25 years.
The Democrats need to get it, or they can forget about a huge chunk of the one-third of the population (and steadily growing at that) that's independent. Obama offers that chance, and a chance to win this November, but only because he could drive turnout through new voters and independents Hillary can't.
March 8, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully understand not voting for Clinton--I won't. But John McCain is not a man of character--so I can't say I'd vote for him either.
March 8, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm with the anyone but Obama crowd.
He hasn't defined himself as standing for anything concrete, it's all smoke and mirrors and women talking trash for him.
No Obama , no way.
March 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, the president determines the courts, so winning the presidency is crucial. But let's look at this another way.
1) Since we have to win the presidency, we cannot nominate Hillary, because almost all polls show she will lose to McCain, and so does common sense, while Obama kicks McCain's ass. Look here for details:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/26659785
2) There is also another very important branch of government at stake here: Congress. We need Dems to win in purple/red districts to keep and expand our majority in Congress, and whoever is on the top of the ballot for president will determine whether tons of new voters flock to the polls to vote Dem, and continue all the way down the ticket, or whether tons of Republicans will flock to the polls to take down Hillary, and every Dem down the ticket. The same goes for local elections. We have an Obama Effect and a Hillary Effect, so who our nominee is will not only determine whether or not we win the presidency and control the judiciary, it also determines how we do in Congress. To read more:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/26284440
So we do have a choice to make, and it needs to be smart, but you are addressing the wrong people. Hillary is tearing apart our party, and regardless of what people think of her, she will hurt the party if she is our nominee, whereas Obama will help us win big.
March 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Supreme Court scare tactic is the lamest B.S. ever.
I want everyone who thinks anyone but McCain to stop and THINK for a minute.
Who is out their praising John McCain and his lifetime of experience?
Who has compared herself favorably with McCain to the detriment of her party mate?
Who has acting more and more like Joe Lieberman (also a McCain supporter)?
Who is using the politics of fear to distinguish herself from her opponent?
OK.
Now what makes you think that Hillary Clinton will appoint judges who are materially different than John McCain would appoint?
That is a serious question? Show me one indication that she might?
Those who fear for the end of Roe v. Wade might sleep a little better. But for those of us who are also concerned about the ascendance of corporate rights over human rights, about the rights of the poor being preserved in courts of law, about sentencing that does not unfairly target certain racial groups and about restoring equality between the branches of government, there is not one thing you can point to that would indicate Hillary Clinton is better on these issues than John McCain. Hell we know Hillary Clinton is a bought and paid for creature of corporate lobbyists. Just like John McCain.
If you vote for one, you might just as well vote for the other.
Young voters actually have a functioning bullshit meter. And this argument about the Supreme Court appointments is pure B.S.
Don't be intimidated. Vote your conscience.
March 7, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. Bill was critisized for appointing moderates to the fed bench to avoid opening up a new front in his fight with congress. Hillary, who is something of a moderate, will do the same. But, McCain if he wins is going to owe his base, and is going to appoint young, fed society judges that will be on the fed bench for a long time. You cannot conflate moderate judges with the right wing activists the republicans have recently been appointing. Read some opinions, the difference is unmistakeable. Though her picks may not be ideal, they are not downright scary. That's a substantive improvement from what we've been seeing since Reagan (with some notable exceptions: Souter, Clinton appointees).
March 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
best.avatar.ever.
March 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like jed757 because of rational arguments right next to Jeff Spicoli.
March 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, now show me evidence that McCain will appoint justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade. ;~)
March 7, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, inoperable link there...
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5404
March 7, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
gman08,
It isn't that I don't value choice. I am a woman with two young daughters after all. But, Roe v. Wade is not a deal maker or deal breaker with me. What does matter is that we are in a pitched battle to save participatory democracy. Do we really have to sacrifice the democratic process to a woman's right to choose? Because that is the position I feel you are putting me in gman.
And here is my dillema. I feel that there is something deeply wrong with my country when I have a right to a safe and legal abortion but I don't have the same right to a safe and legal pregnancy. Though I understand the need for reproductive freedom to end a pregnancy, I think reproductive freedom is a much bigger issue than that. In our country, justice seems to be whatever we can pay for. Reproductive freedom must include a woman's right to have a healthy baby whether she is rich enough to afford cadillac healthe insurance or not. And again, I have seen no signs at all that Hillary Clinton will understand that any better than John McCain.
Yes, I know she is for universal coverage. But so far, she has not shown the kind of synthetic thinking that would lead me to believe she sees her judicial appointments as being connected to anything other than preserving Roe v. Wade. And you know what else? She has made some statements in the past about abortion rights...remember the safe, legal, and rare controversy of a few years back? How do you know that she won't be willing to sacrifice Roe in order to get her appointments past Republican resistance?
You don't know that. In fact, all evidence tells us that is exactly what she would do. But go ahead and trust her to do the right thing. You can't. You already know what she is and how she caves in to Republican pressure.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Voting for Hillary Clinton after watching her in action over this last six years is the definition of insanity.
March 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should note that I raised Roe v. Wade because it's a well-known example of the kind of case that divides conservatives from liberals and in which a conservative Court may move to overturn a well-established liberal precedent. (I'm not a single-issue pro-choice voter, but it's among the issues that are deal-breakers for me.)
Beyond Roe, the entire concept of a "right to privacy," language which is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or amendments, is under fire from the right. So just this one case has far-reaching implications. There are many more examples of liberal precedents at risk and, given the power of the Court, should be among our considerations when we vote in November. The executive branch sets the pieces on the board when it comes to the judicial branch, and I am suggesting we don't allow a Republican that prerogative. The Congress is also key, in playing the pieces and, while I tend to agree that having HRC rather than Obama at the top of the ticket will not be nearly as helpful to Dems in retaining or taking seats, if Dems en masse stay home, the consequences for the Congress could also be very negative.
March 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the pro-choice position is the only differentiation between McCain and Clinton, then isn't the decision easy?
March 7, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The composition of the SC is important, with ramifications on a scale of decades.
But the future of the Democratic party is also important, with ramifications also on a scale of decades. Look at how the Republican party has deteriorated, because they openly trickle down economics (i.e., tax cuts for the rich, and screw the poor), openly embraced warmongering, openly embraced the politics of fear, openly embraced torture, etc. etc.
And one reason they've been careening down that slippery slope is that Republican voters kept supporting terrible candidates, partly on the basis of the importance of shifting the SC to the right.
Was it worth it for them, do you think? Degenerating to the point of Bush/Cheney, a multi-trillion dollar war taking thousands of American lives for no good reason, an economy in shambles, torture being openly embraced, civil rights being eroded, John "100 years" McCain on the horizon? And all to get Roberts and Scalito on the SC?
Letting the SC considerations override the importance of having the Democratic party move forward in a good direction isn't sound long-term thinking at all.
If you like what the Democratic nominee stands for, vote for them. If you think it would send the party down the shitter, then don't. Whatever you reward, that's what you're going to get more of.
March 7, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fundamentally flawed argument. It's not necessarily true that Repubs voted for W just to ensure they would yield conservative appointees on the SC. Even if it were true that Repubs voted on the basis of the SC, they had no opportunity to consider what a disaster his administration would be because they had no way to predict 9/11, its aftermath, and how W would perform (or, how badly he would bungle everything). To suggest that by voting to protect the SC against a conservative majority, Dems would be inviting disaster in a presidency is to assume that we have foreknowledge of an impending disaster. We don't have any such foreknowledge. But we can predict with a good deal of confidence that John Paul Stevens will be retiring (or will die) in the next four years.
My fundamental point of departure is that HRC's probable performance on the issues that are important to Dems will be far preferable to what we could expect from McCain. If you really don't think HRC's policies are acceptable, then you probably shouldn't be supporting Obama either. And that's not something I particularly want to hash out in this thread, but I find it hard to believe that Dems could confuse their best interests on the issues with their distaste for the person who would support those issues. I support Obama because I want to see a Dem in office AND I want to see a new measure of dignity and decency in the WH. But as a second choice, I won't be voting to enable McCain and the certain change in composition of the SC to a full-on conservative majority.
March 7, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's difficult to predict human behavior, but isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say that Hillary's policies are not so different from Obama's? Now I happen to think Obama has superior judgment; and I happen to think that Hillary does not.
In the event of a disaster, I believe Obama would outperform Hillary. And I also believe that an interconnected world does not require saber rattling as Hillary is wont to do and Obama is not wont to do.
See how that works? And, yes, things may have to get worse before they get better. That is the sad conclusion I have arrived at after decades of this crap--briefly lighted for two years with the arrival of the Clintons. That light whiffed out in 1994.
March 8, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
GMan, I think you are right on. As has been recounted countless times by others on this site, I went into this election excited about both Obama and Clinton, developed a slight preference for Obama, and now have become completely disgusted by Clinton. A couple months ago I was trying to talk some Republican friends out of their irrational hatred for her. Now I have what I would describe as a rational loathing.
But, as a lawyer with an appreciation for the impact the fed judiciary has on our lives, I begrudgingly would have to pony up in November and vote for her. The stakes are too great to sit this out. Principle and "long term change" over an immediate threat is what led some poor souls to vote for Nader in 2000. Let's not replicate that result.
Now, that being said, the Clintons should fully appreciate the importance of the the fed judiciary and SCOTUS in particular and that in the next 4 years at minimum one new justice will be appointed to the Court (Stevens is closing in on 90). So why on earth is she pursuing a desparate plan to gain the nomination by smearing the dem front-runner so as to scare superdels to her camp, thus usurping the will of the voters (i.e. disenfranchisement). Her plan has little chance of success but, even if it does bring her the nomination, her party will have been splintered by the means with which she has pursued her ends. What her plan is sure to do, no matter if it succeeds, is to help McCain (especially when she directly compliments his bona fides for the job). Thus, though we dems need to vote for whomever is our candidate in the fall, I think for the time being it is Hillary, not the rank and file, that needs to be focusing on the importance of the fed judiciary and acting accordingly. Ugh, so frustrating.
March 7, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely... I'm at a loss over how HRC thinks her latest behavior or tactics will help her win the nomination or the general election. But I think that topic's been pretty well hashed out here recently.
March 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama should take his money and his base and start a Third Party. That would be far more helpful than sitting out the election or voting for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.
March 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama didn't want to box, he shouldn't have stepped in the ring. It's politics - this is how it's played - when it's not being played harder. Hillary's been slandered for 16 years now - just part of her experience.
Hillary can royally screw McCain in November. She voted for AUMF taking a tough line against Hussein. But didn't support the occupation and especially not the surge. McCain's horribly vulnerable there, but not so much to Obama. She's framed it exactly right for herself - she is an elder statesman (but not ancient, like McCain). Poll after poll has shown that voters discriminate against old age before race and gender. Reagan batted the question away. McCain is doubtfully so smooth.
Hillary also set herself up well on Social Security - just leave it alone, fix it when we're serious. McCain wants to private, Obama wants to "tweak" - it's going to be hard to explain the two, vs. "Leave it the hell alone".
March 7, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, that wasn't the point I was making. I certainly have an opinion on who we should pick as our nominee, and am highly doubtful HRC can win in the GE, but I'm addressing the contingency, IF HRC gets the nomination. As Dems we should do everything we can to prevent McCain from winning.
A) I don't buy that McCain will have very effective coat tails in the general. Conservatives could be sitting out this November b/c of their animosity for McCain. B> If worse comes to worst and McCain wins, we have another chance in 2012 to change Congress. Not so the SC once the next justice appointed is a conservative. We're going to hurt for way longer than 2 Congressional election cycles. Yep, in legal terms, what I'm doing is called arguing the alternative. It is fully legit to assert one proposition (we should elect O in order to protect the Court) while at the same time taking another, potentially contradictory, but equally effective tact in support of the argument (vote for HRC is she is the nominee in order to protect the SC).One doesn't have to love HRC to support the notion that it is imperative that we keep the Repubs from appointing another justice to the SC in the near future.
March 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly enough in the polling I've seen, it's the Clinton supporters who need to be told to rally behind Obama the nominee - not the Obama supporters.
As many as 1/4 of Clinton supporters (in recent polls) have said they won't support Obama, while only about 10-15% of Obama supporters say they wouldn't support Hillary.
So - while I see your overall point - Democrats must rally around our eventual nominee - perhaps you should target it more appropriately - at the Clinton supporters?
Especially as the likelihood that Obama will be our nominee is far higher.
Please note that these polls were taken before the Clinton campaign's recent "trash Obama" tack....
Her recent behavior - in particular the tacit embrace of McCain - is even making me (someone who has NEVER missed a vote) want to skip it in the fall if she is the nominee...
March 7, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. I'm reacting to the recent rash of exploding heads we've been seeing among pissed off Obama supporters in the last week. I completely understand the anger and frustration, but I agree that both sides should be thinking about this in the fall.
March 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, give it a rest. We were the loyal Democrats.
it's your hypocrite traitor Hillary who is trumpeting how wonderful McCain is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsxKw
She's committing fratricide, not us.
If you cared about the Supreme Court or anything else in this country, you would tell that TRAITOR to quit.
From this point forward:
A vote for HRC = a vote for McCain
March 7, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"One doesn't have to love HRC to support the notion that it is imperative that we keep the Repubs from appointing another justice to the SC in the near future."
This is wrong.
The message now is clear:
If you want the Dems to win in November, vote for Obama, send money to Obama, write the MSM, write the DNC, and push this to a conclusion.
If you want McCain to pick the supreme court, keep writing this nonsense about unity behind the theif-traitor.
You know, it is a fact, that a clear HRC loss will end this and help our chances. That is the post you should be writing, instead of apologetics.
Like I said, from this day forward:
A vote for HRC = A vote for McCain
March 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Luck with this, Rees.
:)
Admirable try, for sure.
March 7, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny that a post from a self-proclaimed Obama supporter would get a thrashing like this, when I'm basically just suggesting we don't let our emotions get the better of us. Viewed as a Rorschach test for how the 2 candidates' supporters comport themselves, I'm sorry to say that my fellow O supporters are not doing very well. ;~)
March 7, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think its because it always hurts more when the knives come from behind than from the front. GMan, I agree with your rationale 100%. The prospects associated with the alternative of another 4 years of a Republican White House is brutal.
I think we are seeing the mirror-image of what is happening on the Republican side with hard right-wingers like Coulter and Limbaugh saying that they'd rather vote for Hillary rather than McCain because of the fear of a "true" revolution that might usher in a long-lasting progressive revolution.
But in the end, I don't believe for a second that those two would ever vote for Hillary, even if they truly hate McCain as much as they say would -- but the Republicans don't have a Ross Perot mucking up the works this time around, and Darth Nader has decided to don his dark helmet to yet again to suck off liberal lifeblood.
March 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said on this board many times that I absolutely will not rewards Clinton's behavior by voting for her...
But, last night the same thing occurred to me that you posted here - what about the judges. Not just the judges, but Congress, as well. We need every Democrat out voting, because every single House of Representatives seat is up for grabs in November.
So, I will ... VERY... VERY... grudgingly hold my nose and vote for her. This will probably be the most distasteful vote I have ever cast, if she goes to the GE. But I can't dismiss its long-term effects on Congress and the courts.
March 7, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, sometimes one must hold their nose in lieu of cutting it off.
Welcome to the sucky-but-rational world.
:)
March 7, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about we dont let Clinton Steal the election.
March 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't there three branches of government at stake in this election? Or are we just assuming we'll have control of Congress? Or are you saying Congress is useless? :D
p.s: I think 'fall in line' arguments are a waste of time. Most Democrats will continue to vote for the nominee of the party. But I think its silly to expect new voters (those brought into the process for the first time in 2008) to stick with party if their candidate fails to win the nominating contest.
March 7, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sorry to say that my fellow O supporters are not doing very well. ;~)"
As a Democrat, I am saying your post is premature.
If you want the Democrats to win, HRC must be stopped. It's that simple.
If she carries on, she will destroy our chances. If she steals the race, blacks will stay home and the Dems will lose. I assume you do understand the depth of feeling of seeing the first black nominee in American history DISENFRANCHISE by dirty tactics. The history of America is about disenfranchising blacks. This is Jim Crow writ large. Blacks will not vote, and you can write off any states with large black populations. And frankly, many blacks already feel seriously alienated by a DNC which takes them for granted. This will seal the deal -- they'll be gone for a long time. And so will the DNC.
So, losing on delegates and stealing the nomination = a loss.
Since HRC can't win in the remaining votes, either HRC quits or is made to quit, or the Dems will lose.
Any true Democrat should be asking themselves if allowing HRC to continue her scorched earth strategy is worth the price: President McCain.
This is insane. This needs to end. She will destroy your party. Mark my words.
March 7, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I have no argument with that reasoning, and I can only hope that whatever transpires it happens on a rational basis. Suppose HRC ends up with the largest popular vote. The SDs are not obligated to vote one way or the other, and it's possible they could succumb to the popular vote argument and move their support the HRC.
It's politics, observer2, and there is a rational calculation to be made at the end of the day. "So, losing on delegates ... = a loss" for Obama = a Dem in the WH if we stand behind the Party.
I agree that a stolen election will be a cause for something akin to revolution, but the rules are what they are, and if somehow, heaven forbid, the SDs give HRC enough votes to get the nomination, it will not have been in contravention of Party rules. I'll find it distasteful and abhorrent, but I won't turn my back on the Party or the issues that are of vital importance to us.
Let me be clear, should HRC do something illegal to get the nomination, all bets are off. But if she gets there by virtue of turning public support and, by extension, SD support in her favor, and if the Dem party legitimately nominates her, I will vote for her. I can't stand the tactics she's using right now, but there's nothing I can do about it except to give my ardent support to Obama through the convention. I will, but I'm also prepared for the worst.
March 7, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said earlier, the electorate is more likely to run on and deal with an unsatisfactory Congress, via the voting booth, that is just not possible with the judiciary. Once appointed, we have them until they resign, die, or are impeached. And the suggestion to not sit out the election this November if HRC leads the ticket helps the party overall, as I would assume committed Dems would vote for the Dem candidate for Congress on the ballot.
But that's precisely why it's important for newer voters -- newer Dems, at least -- to take this into account. A party supporter, in line with the bulk of the party platform, should understand how important the presidential power of judicial appointments is with respect to the party's ideals. If a new or young Dem thinks it's best to sit out the election because their preferred primary candidate didn't win, then they have the wrong idea of what party identification means. I don't expect Independents to be susceptible to Dem party talking points. Younger voters may not be aware of just how much rides on electing a Dem this fall (including the Congress and SC).
March 7, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply |