Thanks.

Because in spite of some who hate Hillary, the SC is the most important issue of the next election

I'm very certain the Democrats can still do better than Clinton.

This Primary is going to be nasty. If skinner wants to boost revenue, he ought to ditch disgustingus and start selling asbestos underwear. It'll be money hand over fist!

Been there, done that and still have the scars to prove it.

whatever I can to prevent a court full of thomas and scalias. For those who think it won't matter, I have comfort in the fact that most Democrats DO KNOW WHAT THE STAKES are and will support the Democratic nominee. Those so-called Democrats who don't are irrelevant.

Until the dems lose & then it's our fault.

You can't win without us, but you tell us we are irrelevant.

Won't be my problem. I will do my part to prevent it, but I have no control over what others do

I thought we were the smart party.

And trusting Hillary to appoint a SC Justice who is not a corporatist shill lies beyond my reach.

I seriously envision a Hillary presidency making Duhbya look like a piker when it comes to civil liberties trampling, and war mongering death and destruction.

Sure she is the lesser of two evils, but not much less.

But I believe you could make a legitimate case on other issues

I won't be participating in the DU primaries war. I will definitely be voting for all Democrats.

Otherwise, Repubs will go after her and destroy her.

The only reason she didn't win it in 2008 is because she didn't take caucuses seriously. She won't make that mistake again. President Obama won the primary on the caucus states.

continue. We must have a Dem President

The true colors of what happened from the 2000 election are being felt from citizens united to the voting rights act.

It should not, and cannot be minimized. Once justice is 81 years old and two are 78 years old. In 4 years they won't get any younger.

All elections matter but If there was ever an election that mattered the 2016 is the one.

The midterms were awful, and some here blame the lack of voting turnout was because the Democrats didn't have anything to offer? If they are that immature that they do not recognize the importance of voting, they will pay the consequences.

The fact that more people were shopping on Black Friday than voted, only puts emphasis on how we get the country we deserve

end up paying the consequences.

ive been saying this since 2000

it will be a court that will be hard right for decades to come.

or any other Third Way corporatist in a Democrat suit from being shoved down our throats as the Democratic nominee in 2016. No fast-forwarding to that outcome, because that is the outcome we need to prevent.

That's the corporate goal, because if corporatists succeed in doing that, they have ensured the continuation of their predatory corporate agenda no matter who is elected.

Corporate Republicans and the corporate Third Way are not just another flavor of politician within an essentially functioning representative government. They are building perpetual war, a police and surveillance state, and using our own laws and intelligence agencies to empower corporations over the will of the American people to dismantle democracy itself.



Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441

On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257

Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343

Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285

How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611

Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575

Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986

Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9

at the appointments made by Democrats verses republicans

If Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, and those who hate her refuse to vote for her, than everything they supposedly stand for is bullshit, because that is exactly what would happen if a republican became president in 2016.

Just look at who Bill Clinton appointed, and that should give you some hint what a Hillary would appoint.

My view is fight for the candidate of your choice whoever it is, and I suspect it will be a formidable one, but when the smoke clears, anyone who calls themselves a Democrat who won't vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 won't be on this site

I've watched the dem party drift to the right for three decades & it is still drifting right. This strategy has led us where we are - two parties, both beholden to the 1%. Are they different? Yeah. One set of sellouts is a little more socially progressive than the other, but both will ultimately do what their corporate masters want.

You know, you don't always have to win the fight, but you have to fight & the dems don't do this. Why haven't the dems hired a Frank Luntz equivalent to frame the message? We've got George Lakoff, a master of framing, but the dem party never calls on him & let the repubs frame the message every time. Maybe they are happy with the current good cop/bad cop routine both parties are playing on the American public.

Don't blame us because the democratic party is losing their irrelevant base.

Issue alone then you haven't been paying attention to what has been happening

If the younger demographic holds to the philosophy you suggest and doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee, they are the ones that will be living with the consequences, and in the next 20 to 30 years they will have to re fight the battles for women's rights, civil rights, social security and Medicare from square one. It won't matter to me, but it will matter to them

I don't believe in blaming or coddling anyone. If someone does not wish to vote that conveys a level of immaturity in my view that has nothing to do with age

I for one would have no problem voting for Bernie Sanders if he runs as a Democratic and wins the nomination, as I would for Hillary Clinton

Because I actually understand what the SC can do

And yes, Hillary is better than Republicans on most social issues. However, our country is being destroyed by the corporatists who have sold out our democracy to the banks and the Kochs--and also by the warmongers.

As your links so succinctly highlys--Hillary is both a raging corporatist and a warmonger.

She's wrong (and in lockstep with the worst Republicans) when it comes to the most serious and foundational issues facing our Republic.

I will consider the Democratic party dead, if she is our nominee. I will be politically homeless.

I hope it doesn't come to that.

We have to do better than her. The progressive, heart of our party will not be motivated to vote for her. How in the hell can we win an election with a candidate that the majority of our party can't stand.

Underground

…because I've been a staunch Democrat most of my adult life--3 decades.

It's sad what has happened to our politics, on both sides.

A succinct assessment.

The narrative that the Democrats are just to kind and timid--and the Republicans are big bullies who force the Democrats to ditch their stances--is bizarre. How many times will these grown adults hang their heads in shame, as if the Republicans have stolen their lunch money YET AGAIN?

Most of our elected officials hail from very wealthy, connected and privileged families. They've been entrenched in money and power for most of their lives, and educated at Ivy League schools. Are we supposed to believe that these aristocrats are terrified into compromises with Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell?

Bottom line--They're all on the same team. Bought and paid for by the corporations. The Keystone pipeline and the banking regulations are great examples of this. On the big, foundational issues that empower "We The People" and create the fabric of our democracy--both Democrats and Republicans have been chipping away for years. Collectively. It's not the big-bad wolf Republicans snarling at the kindhearted Democrats who were overcame with the vapors and just couldn't stand up for what was right! They are working in tandem and meeting the goals that their corporate masters have set for them.

So much of what we see and read in politics is theatre for the masses--to gin up fear and emotion during elections (so they can continue their corruption)--and to prop up the appearance of a two-party system.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of the nonsense.

after six years of watching that "goddamned piece of paper" be assaulted almost into oblivion, is beyond absurd.

This is the garbage of Third Way talking points. We are continually urged to put our faith in wolves to defend us, when those very same wolves have been eating us alive.

Hillary defends NSA spying and mass surveillance of the American people. She is poster child for the warmongering state that has implemented the trashing of our Constitution through Kill Lists, indefinite detention, and perversion of our laws to persecute journalists and whistleblowers and political protesters under the name of "terrorism."

And she is the architect of the next major assault on our democracy through the use of "trade policy" to allow multinational corporations to overrule our own democratic laws and protections.

No, Hillary will not defend the Constitution. On the contrary, she stands solidly with the corporate politicians and corporate alliances that are putting it into the ground.

The stench of Hillary's corporatism is as rank as the stench of this corporate presidency that is dismantling democracy itself and subverting our representative government for the interests of corporations.

This nation cannot afford another corporate administration. We need to become the 99 percent and demand corporate money and power out of politics. Run, Bernie Sanders, run in 2016.

You are one of best DU has.

HRC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banksters and the war machine.

appoint liberal judges and not wishy-washy moderates.

Because, if you can recall, it was President Clinton, her husband, who was pretty moderate yet he nominated these unapologetic liberals, but it was a Democratic Party controlled Senate that got them through.

The focus for Liberals should be on making Congress liberal, not the executive. As we've clearly seen under President Obama, having a Congress under Democratic control makes all the difference, not who sits in the White House.

The Clinton's have never been as liberal as Right-wingers continue to fearmonger or as neo-conservative as some wide-eyed Liberals want to make them out to be. The Clintons have always been pretty progressive but their policies will depend on how we get out the vote because, you know, U.S. presidents aren't kings or dictators. That totalitarian-like power still lies with Congress.

is that any Democrat will be better than any Republican Radical Reactionary, which they all are.

Hillary's campaign is funded in part by or indirectly by the Koch Bros.
What does it take to convince you Democrats that Hillary's best interest are not in the working class Americans but for the Wall St,banks and other corporations that want to continue milking the working class/ I will work like hell to see that she is defeated but I don't think she will get past Iowa, there will be those that will challenge her and if she is defeated by a weak candidate then that will show, she herself is even weaker. Democratic leadership needs to get their shit together and find a REAL candidate

And when this person you got your shit together for to get on the ballot is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for for him/her.

but finding a candidate or recruiting a qualified winning candidate is not up to me but is up to the leadership of the DNC.
And right now the DNC leadership is totally incompetent.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be content in allowing the chips fall with Hillary as the nominee and after her defeat apologize for losing and making excuses why we lost as she did in recent election
We need to make some noise now that we need new Leadership at the DNC. Right now as a national political party the Democrats are disorganized and nearly broke. So the cheap rout for the DNC would be not to rock the boat with Hillary and let the Wall St types fund Hillary's campaign and the DNC doesn't have to work so hard in fund raising to support a national campaign.
WE don't need a DNC chairman that will hide from a Democratic President's accomplishments for the sake of her own personal election outcome.
So lets forget about the candidates for now and today, or as of yesterday we need to organize our national Party and clean house at the DNC and make sure we have real Democrats running the DNC (first order of business)

One of our most liberal SCOTUS appointees refuses to retire even though frail. She said she was afraid that her replacement would not be Liberal.
IDK, Sotomayer seems to always vote with the more liberal "justices." I suspect that Ginsberg knows much more than we do...

the elephant in the room.

We got us a Democratic President....surely upon the word of the Holy Bible, wouldn't he replace Ginsberg with another liberal judge.

I think not...I bet Ginsberg thinks not too.

if she were to become the Democratic nominee.

Whoever it is will beat the shit out of President Cruz...God have mercy if a nazi thug like that ever gets in the white house with control of congress...shudder..

if people feel that strongly about it, get behind a more progressive candidate and fight like hell.

But, if when the dust settles it is Hillary, let go of the high minded stuff and fight like hell for her, cause there are only two options at that point, and the other option is going to be bad.

Really, REALLY, R E A L L Y bad.

The Supreme Court is in balance

I view her no better than a turncoat, liar narc-like informant for the other side. She and Bill are cozy with the Bush family too. She is a Vichey Dixiecrat Dem collaborating with the enemy in my opinion. Only fools or those to gain personally should want to vote for her.

But I will vote for the eventual nominee in the general even if it is her.

it did not get government or State Department approval. And because she has not taken a position on it, and likely will not until after the environmental impact studies are completed. Further she is no longer in the state department. The only thing she has even said about this issue is that we need to reduce our dependence on dirty oil or inevitably we would end up using dirty oil from somewhere. Therefore, you can expect her position on clean energy sources to be very positive.

What a crock of shit.

that mistakes a president for a king...or queen.

She's been doing this crap for decades, that's how the US government operates. What if the study said it wasn't workable? Then she's just supported a non-working project. If the studies come back and it doesn't work, TransCanada needs to come up with another alternate or route or whatever.

in my OP. While she said publicly that we need to reduce OUR dependence on dirty oil, she was working behind the scenes, along with her buddy Paul Elliot, to coerce the EU into taking that same dirty oil.

She is not trustworthy. She cannot be the DEMOCRATIC PARTY candidate.

Its hogwash, and stale hogwash at that.

she runs for president.

So, your point is moot.

one way or the other?

"This project violates the Clean Water Act because it transports over the Ogallala Aquifer."

something that changes her mind? Of visa versa?

She's not a nutjob climate change denying psycho who doesn't care about the law.

Her answer, when asked about it, will be non-committal for that reason. She'd say "we need a fast track from Bakken, and Keystone XL would provide that, but we also need to make sure that we have proper environmental regulations in place." There, that's completely non-committal, and you can use it to bash her and others can use it to defend her.

tar sands would be shipped directly overseas. It would not be used in America. It is the nastiest "oil" available and would threaten our country while not producing any meaningful long term benefits.
Canada has refused to allow this muck to be piped over their land because of the possible environmental consequences. Why would America allow it? Only for the oligarchs, that is the only reason. So the Kochsuckers can make more billion$.

Keystone XL is a proposed expansion of Keystone, which is more important for Bakken shale oil than anything else. Keystone Gulf is already completed.

It's kind of a pointless discussion though because as long as the US imports more oil than it exports, then we won't be "losing" anything.

make her own decisions. Personally I would like to know more about the backgrounds of these "experts".

That's what the climate change deniers do, they go by "gut instinct." This is a rather flimsy argument line, imo.

The experts in the EPA range from law professionals (who know what the environmental laws and administrative regulations) to secretaries to geologists to meteorologists to biologists to topographers. Some guys (or ladies, actually) in a room follow all the environmental impact paperwork, checking off each part that meets a given predefined requirement.

Now, Clinton, not being omnipotent, cannot say what all of those hundreds if not thousands of people are going to discover by the end of the assessment.

over our land and aquifers isn't a huge risk? If "assessment" takes long enough the pipeline will be complete. She is just buying time. You either favor protecting our environment or not. By the way, engineers said the BP oil rigs were safe. They are always safe until they fail.

build a "green" retail store that tested a lot of concepts (natural light, passive heat, recycling) that didn't exist way back when that are standard today?

Did she force big changes that are now standard SOP or was she a token with little say in what the company did?

She did increase women hires, and she did start WM (and other corporations once they saw that it worked) on a more sustainable path. She was not senior enough to make any changes to corporate structure.

Lady Bird was "allowed" to beautify the highways. Michelle O is "allowed" to speak out on nutrition and obesity and exercise. The pulpit is given but in a very LIMITED way. Have these stances made a difference? Hell yes--but these women never got a chance to weigh in on issues such as nuclear disarmament or the size of our standing military...they just were not permitted access to that part of the portfolio. Starting to take my point?

Anyone who can't see this doesn't understand what she was dealing with as the first (unwanted) woman on that board, and the most junior person there, too. She couldn't have "demanded" union action any more than Lady Bird could have "demanded" that Lyndon shut down the Vietnam War. I mean, get real--how soon people forget what the corporate culture was like for women and minorities up until, frankly, very recently. Even as recently as twenty years ago, women and minorities in upper echelon positions were given the Token label even if they worked/crawled/hustled their way to the top. It's STILL not "done." It won't be until representation is proportional across industry and we aren't even close.

in trying to both praise her for leadership while simultaneously inoculating her from any criticism thereof. It's something I've become familiar with during Obama's administration.

minorities trying to breach the halls of power, she's dammed if she does, and damned if she doesn't? WTF is she supposed to do? Throw herself on her sword and get fired in a day? Or stick around, make the gains she can, and make it easier for the next woman or minority to grace the corporate hot seat? I guess if you've never been a female or minority (or both) having to eat shit from the dominant culture, it's easy to take that kind of attitude, but real life is Very Different indeed. She did the very best she could with the tools at her disposal--and that's pretty much the assessment of anyone and everyone who doesn't have an agenda opposed to her--like, you know, the GOP.

The only way you change the way corporations do business is to change the attitudes of the people who are making the business decisions. People want Clinton, no spring chicken, someone who came up in the STFU Woman and Make My Coffee Mad Men era (jurors, please note Extreme Snark in the event of a frivolous alert), to suddenly come out as Wonder Woman and "tell those fellers OFF!!!"

Yeah, that would earn her a one way trip to the corporate elevator going down--and they'd probably just give her the shaft without even waiting for the car to arrive on their floor.

"we are going to drill for oil while protecting the environment"

And that same language is applied here...she was powerful while she had no power.
And few even notice it.

What a coincidence, huh? I'm sure Hillary's status as First Lady of Arkansas, Walmart's headquarters state, was all just coincidental.

So she is powerful - and powerLESS, depending upon what works best for her public image.

She was also a shareholder. Her status as Arkansas' First Lady didn't hurt, certainly, but that wasn't all there was to her appointment. Do you seriously think that these corporate types pick Joe the Garbageman or Louise the Lunch Lady to sit on their boards? Why wouldn't they pick someone with influence or visibility, or a connection to their organization? To imagine that there's some kind of "democratic process" to corporate board selections is terribly, terribly naive.

She wasn't the first choice for the job, either. Don't let that get in the way, though...

And she had no power on that board. She could nudge and try to persuade, but she had no authority and certainly didn't have the votes of her fellow directors for "out there" changes to the corporate structure. It was a bunch of florid white guys. She was a token who did what she could in the short time she was there. But hey...BLAME her for not being able to multiply herself by 15 or more to override the cultural paradigms of the sitting directors...

So yeah, she "remained silent." Like piping up would have helped. Please.

Your source, ABC, has always been a GOP go-to outfit, but never mind that either...!

She was barely allowed in the damn room, yet she "never rose to defend the role of labor unions?" How much play would she have gotten? How about a "STFU Hillary?"

You pick your battles, and she picked hers--her battlegrounds were women hires and sustainability.

She is usually strong on women's issues. Do you have any inside information about how she stood up for the women Walmart hired while on that board? Do you know any specific information on that? Do you have any information about the treatment of women who work at Walmart?

when she took that appointment to that board and started the process of changing the culture there. She was the wife of a governor. That was many, many years ago.



I mean, really. Did you even read the NYT article? Her influence WAS limited, but the prospects for women, while still "paltry" improved substantially in the wake of her tenure. Her very PRESENCE was the first step of a long road.

How many Black senators flooded the halls of Congress after Ed Brooke broke the post-reconstruction ice? That would be "none" pretty much. So, what does that mean? Did Ed fall down on the job for failing to change the culture? Did he "not do enough?" Even women remain under-represented in Hill politics--until the Senate approaches fifty-fifty on that demographic, we have a ways to go. Why not "blame" those women for not "fixing" the problem in a male dominated organization? Because that IS what you're doing when you fling insinuations about HRC.

The point is, someone has to go first, and going first changes the culture. That was her contribution during her brief tenure there, and for people to even try to play a bullshit 'gotcha' game is pretty pathetic, IMO. No "there" there in that kind of argument at all.

is a dangerous thing.

I'm all for holding people accountable but she doesn't have fuck all to do with Wal-Mart now. Her IWR vote is infinitely more concerning. And far more recent, and thus, far more relevant.

They hate liberals and centrist dems and will do anything possible and will spend any amount of money to nominate Hillary.

But that's the reality of the situation for center left/democratic socialists right now.

I see your point.

Hint, hint...

I don't think she would disappoint.