Ken Salazar to lead her transition team! WTF?

[JRLeft]

He's horrible, no one should support that asshole leading anything. Pro fracking, shitty on the environment, pro TPP, and Pro Keystone XL.

Hillary Clinton has named her transition team should she be elected in November, and the roster—as many feared—is a who’s-who of establishment figures, including former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who has a maligned track record on climate.

The team will also include former national security adviser Tom Donilon, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, president of the Center for American Progress (CAP) Neera Tanden, and director of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics Maggie Williams. Two of the campaign’s policy advisers, Ed Meier and Ann O’Leary, will also serve as co-executive directors.

Salazar, whose career includes positions both in government and corporate Washington, D.C. firms, has previously pushed for projects that are reviled among environmental activists, such as fracking, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Keystone XL pipeline.

> Snip

“Historically, too many Wall Street executives and corporate insiders have traveled through the revolving door between private industry and government,” the letter stated. “The result of this practice is that the interests of elites are over-represented in Washington.”

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/clinton_transition_team_headed_by_anti-climate_power_broker_20160816

[MohRokTah]

2. OUTSTANDING CHOICE!!! BRAVO, HILLARY!!!!!!

[JRLeft]

6. His environmental record, the fact he is a lobbyist though unregistered doesn't bother you?

SMFH!

[MohRokTah]

8. Pluses, IMO.

The more her choices piss off the extreme left, the better I like 'em.

[JRLeft]

12. Extreme left? You sound like a tea party member.

😂😂😂😂😂

[snooper2]

15. does far left sound better?

[Wilms]

22. It's all relative.

By today's standard, Eisenhower would, in many ways, seem far left.

And Nixon, as you know, was a centrist.

And anyone who would want to "piss-off" the "far left"...I don't know what that's called.

[FoxNewsSucks]

230. Often, they call themselves "dittoheads",

I have other terms for them.

[BobbyDrake]

23. I think "left behind" is ultimately the most appropriate term.

As in, "the Left Behind is making a stink again because someone isn't pure enough for them."

[misterhighwasted]

30. Winner!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. ^^This! n/t

[Monk06]

150. Ouch ! I felt that all the way from Western Canada

I think one of my teeth got knocked loose

[JRLeft]

29. This country has moved so far to the right that the actual middle is called far or extreme left.

😂😂😂😂😂

[snooper2]

32. negative

[emulatorloo]

35. Sorry that's incorrect.

[NCTraveler]

66. Highly inaccurate.

To the point rebuttal isn't necessary.

[choie]

125. Absolutely correct!

[G_j]

167. This country has moved so far to the right

that some people in this thread actually think they are liberals! It might seem hilarious, if it wasn't so mind numbingly sickening.

[JRLeft]

185. Right leaning democrats believe they are progressive.

It won't be long before we are being told Reagan was a moderate.

[George Eliot]

187. Dismayed by above posters. Words have no meaning it seems.

Even if they really like the centrist-right politics they are endorsing, have they no memory at all of where the party used to stand and the people Democrats used to represent? That's what I don't get. And it is easy enough to google if they care to know. It makes my heart hurt for our once-exceptional country.

[JRLeft]

268. No they do not.

[MohRokTah]

25. Flag on the play...

[fleabiscuit]

129. I'm going to steal that pict...

[PatSeg]

24. What???

Is there a war on progressive Democrats right here at Democratic Underground? Why on earth would you want to piss off Democratic voters? The primaries are over.

Pretty much all the Democrats I know are anti fracking.

Salazar, who was Interior secretary during Obama’s first term, has also defended the safety of fracking for oil and natural gas. Just last month, he joined industry supporters in criticizing anti-fracking proposals that greens want to place on Colorado’s November ballot, saying the “ill-conceived, vague” measures would “undermine businesses across the state, damage our economy and kill jobs.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ken-salazar-tpp-trade-227068#ixzz4Hc3Nd4tH

[elleng]

77. Yes, seems to be happening, the 'war' to which you refer.

[PatSeg]

96. Yeah, not like anything I've seen here before

Hi Elleng!

[elleng]

97. Hi, PatSeg.

[PatSeg]

99. I sent you a PM

[womanofthehills]

184. Agreed

Who are these people saying that caring about the environment is an extreme left view.

Salazar claiming zero damage has been done by fracking - who says that??? Someone who only cares for corporations, not someone who cares for people who have had their health and lives ruined by fracking chemicals.

[PatSeg]

186. Yes

I thought caring about the environment was a Democratic value. When did Democratic values become "extreme left"?

In a democracy, we question our leaders. It is messy and inconvenient, but it is what sets us apart from a monarchy or dictatorship.

[adigal]

153. I think we have to let Hillary know this is unacceptable before the election

Because no one will listen to us after the election.

[PatSeg]

163. Yes, silence is consent

[LanternWaste]

34. Seems odd to predicate liking someone simply on who else may or may not dislike them as well

Seems odd to predicate liking someone simply on who else may or may not dislike them as well; but then again, I realize we often place our personal judgement of people into the hands of others, it's less work that way, and a major reason gossip columns stay profitable.

[MohRokTah]

40. Welcome to DU. eom

[bonemachine]

224. did you just welcome someone to DU

That's been here for 11 years longer than you?

[Exilednight]

45. Extreme left? Do you even know what the term means?

I have yet to see anyone on this board argue for political prisons or a violent overthrow of the government.

I find it even more sad that you're willing to throw away a core belief of our party because you hold a grudge.

Although it shouldn't surprise me since you once stated that Hillary should "pivot right".

Reply #8 in case your mind needs refreshing http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028044289

[MohRokTah]

61. I've known the "purer than thou" Extreme Left for decades.

I reject them every bit as much as I reject the Extreme Right.

[Exilednight]

63. it's pretty obvious you use phrases in which you don't know the definition.

But that's what always makes you good for a laugh.

[MohRokTah]

71. Strange, it seems you have no understanding of what constitutes the Extreme Left. eom

[Exilednight]

76. When someone starts acting like Che Guevara, then you have an argument.

Until then, not so much.

[MohRokTah]

81. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[Exilednight]

104. My seven year old does the same thing when she knows she lost an argument.

At least in being seven she has an excuse.

[MohRokTah]

107. Man, if you think you hold all that is true about what is and what is not Extreme Left,...

You may want to revisit your beliefs and where you fall in the political spectrum, because I've obviously struck a nerve.

[.99center]

117. Struck a nerve...

You just replied using a hundred or so laugh emotes on a discussion board, you feel better or do you need to go sit in the corner to cool off? If liberals make you lose your head and start spamming a board with emotes, it's possibly time to find a more moderate site.

[MohRokTah]

120. I use 100 ROFLs whenever somebody posts someting SO RIDICULOUS...

that it deserves 100 ROFLs in response.

[Exilednight]

123. That's the problem I usually find. Everyone wants an echo chamber, and when someone disagrees they a

Labeled "extreme left" or "far left"

I'd love to have a Democratic Socialist party in this country, but not a truly socialist or communist party. People throw around words in attempt to be hyperbolic, but I'm reality they're just showing their ignorance. It's like the two year old that sticks their fingers in their ears while yelling 'na nanananas, I'm not listening to you".

That's okay, the fact that the person is sitting at their keyboard and the best they can come up with is a bunch of emotes just proves to people with brains about how ignorant they truly are.

[Demsrule86]

171. The far left (Greens ET AL).. those who will never back the Democrat before or after an election..

And who doesn't vote in midterms...because he/she will show those Democrats and frequently cost us congress and sometimes the presidency (2000) ...and then cries more about the fact that the Republican agenda is advancing...although they had as much to do with electing the Republicans as the Republican voters did...support your elected especially the president or the Democratic nominee...otherwise you will just keep on electing Republicans. This is why Democrats can't have nice things like single payer.

[George Eliot]

198. Nice rant. Where's your proof?

Aren't you afraid of losing those 72% Sanders voters with accusations like this? Stein at 3.5% is your concern? Johnson at 10% takes more Republicans. The only candidate hate is working for is Trump. Apparently you're pro fracking, pro TPP, pro Wall Street. That's all I can surmise from your post.

[choie]

128. Struck a nerve?

You give yourself and the stupid emoticons too much credit.

[fleabiscuit]

133. I have been watching for some time for what that trip-wire of left/right is.

I'm quite suspicious of absolutes.

[choie]

126. It's pretty clear that is a

Reactionary position. To be against somebody like Salazar is not to be "extreme left" it's an absolutely absurd claim to make.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. So you have a big framed picture of Joe Lieberman in your living room, then?

I mean, why not?

[MohRokTah]

170. Flag on the play...

[Warren DeMontague]

196. No, that's not an ad hominem.

By your stated logic, anything - or, to be more precise anyone- who annoys/pisses off the "left" side of our party is or was the cat's fuckin' pajamas.

It's a logical extrapolation from your own statement.

So, there you go.

[MohRokTah]

197. Flag on the play...

[Warren DeMontague]

233. You're flailin', cuz you know I'm right.

Lieberman was the poster senator for reasonable centrist woodchuckery circa 2000, wasnt he?

[MohRokTah]

234. Flag on the play...

[Warren DeMontague]

235. What alternate viewpoint?

Defend salazar, go ahead, i'm listening. Make the case based on his specific positions or record.

But that wasnt what i was responding to - i was responding to your statement upthread that anything which pisses off "those people" in our party, you like.

So it's a logical extrapolation from your statement, a point you have yet to address or a question you still have yet to answer.

Those ref jpgs only work when used correctly, by the way.

[MohRokTah]

236. Flag on the play...

[Warren DeMontague]

237. Yes, we do.

[MohRokTah]

238. Flag on the play...

[Warren DeMontague]

239. Irony.

Gonna answer any of my questions or address any of my points? No? Because you haven't, yet.

Then this isn't a debate - so 'bad arguments ref' doesn't really apply, does he?

And yes, that's another question.

[JRLeft]

246. He's wrong all of the time, therefore he will never answer your questions.

[rockfordfile]

209. This has to do with being against everyday Americans

Being against pollution isn't "extreme left". Being pro pollution is right wing.

[MohRokTah]

210. This has to do with the Extreme Left labeling anybody who isn't "PURE" as a Corporatist.

Nothing more.

The Extreme Left is every bit as obnoxious and demanding as the Extreme Right in their clamor for ideological purity. And just like the Extreme Right, they live in a self perpetuating bubble that moves further to the extremes every moment of every day.

[El Supremo]

151. Hear hear!

Agree 100%

[rockfordfile]

207. No I don't think so

[geek tragedy]

3. he's not the nominee, he's heading up an administrative function nt

[Demsrule86]

5. He is not that bad anyway...but you are correct. nt

More concern from the concerned is so concerning.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

156. Not just "an" administrative function --

one, along with Chief of Staff, of THE most powerful "administrative functions" there is.

[geek tragedy]

157. Can you remember who Obama's was, off the top of your head?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

161. Sqeezy lobbyist John Podesta (IIRC) was head --

while Rahm was COS. Both were very clear signs of where the Administration would be heading.

[geek tragedy]

162. yes, the most liberal and most successful presidential administration

since FDR.

[George Eliot]

188. That's ridiculous.

[geek tragedy]

189. Ok. Tell us who was more liberal/successful.

Bush II
Bill Clinton
Bush I
Reagan
Carter
Ford
Nixon
LBJ
JFK
Ike
Truman

[George Eliot]

199. Depending on issues, many. Pre Reagan/Clinton the country was more liberal.

Carter ahead on climate change.
Nixon opened up China and created EPA.
LBJ pushed through by twisting arms civil rights, medicare. The ACA is no medicare.
Ike - see 1954 platform and read his letter to Edgar re social security and trade unions
Truman - just because he succeeded our most liberal (social democrat) and maintained his programs although Wallace (FDR's VP) would have done better by expanding them.In fact, the Germans have trade unions included in their Constitution because of Truman's suggestion that they be included.

And these are just major accomplishments. Many lesser from all. Almost every president was more liberal that Obama pre Reagan. And like Obama, they've made a lot of mistakes as well. Once before you claimed Obama most liberal...do you read much history?

[geek tragedy]

200. LMAO.

1. Carter did exactly nothing regarding climate change, except for having a bureaucrat mention it in a report.

2. Nixon didn't open up China. China opened up China. And Congress created the EPA, not Nixon.

3. You're right that the ACA is no Medicare. It's available to people who are under the age of 65. Also, Vietnam?

4. Who cares if Ike wrote a damn letter?


Only someone who is deliberately ignorant would claim Richard "abortion is necessary if you have a black and a Jew" Nixon was more liberal than Barack Obama.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/archive/Shocking-Comments-Made-by-Nixon-in-New-Tapes-.html

P.S. Ask Salvador Allende's family about how liberal Nixon was.

[George Eliot]

204. You are opening yourself up to attacks to point out negatives because

Obama has a few himself. You asked for "liberal" policies and I complied. Re ACA, companies reneging? I don't think the jury is in on that one. And choosing to parse out the letter which points out his liberal leanings for these times is cowardice.

Again, read some history.

[geek tragedy]

205. are you counting "Operation Wetback" amongst Ike's liberal achievements?

(note to jurors: there really was a program with that name under the Eisenhower Administration)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

You're cherry-picking, or inventing, things which you claim elevate Nixon and Eisenhower over Obama in terms of liberalism.

Nixon was a rightwing dirtbag who was pushed into some policies by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress.

[George Eliot]

212. If I were, it would be there, wouldn't it?

You are the one cherry picking. I gave you what you asked for. And I didn't have to go to other sites to get educated. I knew these things because I read and I learn. And if you didn't want liberal examples, you should have been clearer in your challenge.

Obama's liberalism is arguable. And that's obvious form our exchange.

[geek tragedy]

214. I asked you who was more liberal/successful than Obama.

You responded with cherry-picking and myth-making.

[JackRiddler]

244. Do I remember Podesta, Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett?

No way! I get my brain bleached every four years.

[JackRiddler]

243. Do you really believe what you're writing?

Appointments don't matter? Do presidents make all the decisions while the cabinet watches? Hey, it's not the president, it's just the guy who's going to assemble the team, just a future chief of staff or secretary of a department? Does this logic apply to Supreme Court nominees, by the way?

[Demsrule86]

4. Good choice Hillary

"In 1986, Salazar became chief legal counsel to then Governor Roy Romer; in 1990, Romer appointed him to his Cabinet as Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. In this position, he authored the Great Outdoors Colorado Amendment, which created a massive land conservation program of which he became chairman. Salazar also created the Youth in Natural Resources program to provide for environmental education in public schools. In his cabinet role, he established reforms that forced mining and petroleum operations to better protect the surrounding environment."

After Obama's nomination...."The nomination was praised, however, by Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters. Upon the nomination, Karpinski said, "Throughout his career, Senator Salazar has campaigned on a pledge of support for 'our land, our water, our people.' With a perfect 100% score on the 2008 LCV Scorecard, he has lived up to that pledge. As a westerner, Senator Salazar has hands on experience with land and water issues, and will restore the Department of the Interior's role as the steward of America's public resources. We look forward to working with him to protect the health of America's land, water, and people in the coming years."

[OnDoutside]

13. I'm reporting you for making reasonable points....

[Demsrule86]

46. I know right?

It is an administrative position. No person is all good or bad.

[womanofthehills]

255. support for our land and water through fracking and huge pipelines - not wanted by anyone I know

[Demsrule86]

266. At the time the president supported the pipeline

When you work for the administration, you support the policy. And Hillary has said she is against it...Obama has said he is against it...How much damage to our water was done by Bush...who 'won' because of Green voters and a year of bashing Gore? This is for the transition...but some here can't wait to pounce on Sec. Clinton even before she is elected. One would think they would have learned what happens when you don't have your guys back...like Obama in 10 and 14...you get no chance for anything good. This is why Democrats can't have nice things like clean water and a single payer.

[NurseJackie]

7. Excellent!

[whatthehey]

9. So the complaint about an administrative role is...policy?

John Podesta was O's chair iirc. What policy did he direct again?

[SaschaHM]

10. Anyone that doesn't agree with 2016's progressive agenda..

must be purged from the government no matter the role. I wish she would have named Barney Frank as the head.

[JRLeft]

11. Who's on a candidates transition team, tends to tell you how one will govern.

[whatthehey]

14. Not really

Many transition into cabinet roles but few influence policy much. Cheney did, because Shrub was an empty suit, but Podesta, Christopher et al hadn't much political influence on policy. Even when they get hifalutin titles like Warren quick tell us what political strategy the Secretary of Defense implemented under Clinton. Base closings?

[Demsrule86]

47. How about an example.

Also, I looked at this guy...I see no issue with his policy either.

[treestar]

16. Never heard of him

Which I would think I would have were he the fount of all evil.

[2naSalit]

108. He was the replacement

SOI after Dink... er, Dirk Kempthorne, not any more in favor of our public lands and wildlife than Dink... er, Dirk. Had numerous arguments with Kempthorne, each one leaving me with far less respect for him than the low level I had before the conversation... and he was gov when I lived in Idaho too. Salazar is just a more smiley kind of guy but every bit the jerk lacking concern for the environment as his predecessor.

[treestar]

109. What did he do to deserve the conclusion that he is lacking in

concern for the environment?

[2naSalit]

118. Just a few articles to remind us

of what was going on while he held the SOI position that he was so unqualified for and did nothing of real tangible value to protect our collective environment including wildlife and wildlife habitat. None of which went unnoticed out here in the wild west.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2010/10/18/obama-passed-up-grijalva-at-interior-for-more-offshore-oil-friendly-salazar/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2009/03/06/salazar-affirms-decision-to-delist-wolves/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2008/12/16/interior-update-salazar-cows-and-condos-conservationists-be-damned/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/11/13/the-secretary-regrets-the-exchange-whos-next-at-the-department-of-interior/

And remember the BP oil spill while he was SOI?

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2010/05/06/is-bps-remedy-for-the-spill-only-making-it-worse/

Note: I used these from TWN because they are all easy to find at one link. There are more articles but I'm sure you get the idea.

[treestar]

140. That source does not even attempt objectivity

He determined the wolves were "recovered" and if that is a thing under the ESA, then its standards may require something to be de-listed. Those articles are heavy on opinion and I have a feeling the writers thereof will never be satisfied with anything the DOI does that is anything less than perfectly ideal.

[2naSalit]

148. well

I grant that they have a bias in their stance. However, the wolves were actually not delisted under the parameters prescribed in the ESA, which the writers had been engaged in trying to enforce for over a decade so I am accepting of the bias on that part. These writers were at a point of exasperation at the Congressional efforts to gut or out right rescind most of our environmental protections and Ken Salazar was just another in a string of SOIs who were playing along with those who oppose all environmental protections for the sake of corporate profit.

Personally, I've never met a rancher who would make even a fairly decent SOI.

I agree that there is bias in the articles but they are factual and that's what matters, pretty hard to find anything political that has no bias attached. I know them all, and disagree with each one in different areas but in all the facts are there. None are the "no compromise" type so there's that as well. Most of these are written in response to a government not caring that they aren't following the rules and acting beyond their authority in some of these cases.

[womanofthehills]

182. Salazar quote: "We know that, from everything we’ve seen, there’s not a single case where hydraulic

fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone."

(Unbelievable statement!!! We know of hundreds or thousands of cases where fracking has been a problem. What kind of a disconnected or "corporate connected" person says this. It's a statement not connected to reality. It's scary actually.)

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/17/why_did_clinton_just_tap_a



Or how about being pro Keystone X pipeline - not just being pro, but pushing for it.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says he believes the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada should be built.

Salazar said at an energy conference in Houston Wednesday that the pipeline could be built safely, as long as conditions are imposed. Those conditions would require the pipeline operator to meet tough environmental standards and even pay for conservation programs along the pipeline route.

Salazar told The Associated Press that the pipeline could be a "win-win" project that benefits U.S. energy security while boosting conservation efforts in Montana, South Dakota and other affected states.


http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/salazar-build-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline

"Tough environmental standards" - He is in la la land. Our environmental standards have been so tough, we have had all these pipeline accidents. Not to mention the gazillion bad pipeline welds.

List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

[George Eliot]

203. Crickets chirping...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. he's really not horrible, that's just insane hyperbole.

[LexVegas]

18. Good pick. nt

[womanofthehills]

183. Agreed - very bad pick if you care at all about the environment.

[auntpurl]

19. Oh god, it's already beginning.

I'm exhausted already. This is exactly what happened with Obama, except the far left was HAPPY with Obama up until the very second he named the first cabinet member. And he's been the enemy of the far left for the 8 years since.

Guess what? Obama's been a really good president. Hillary will be a really good president. Both of them are orders of magnitude more on the side of the far left than anyone the Repubs could possibly nominate.

[NurseJackie]

20. It's stuff like this that make it so easy to be dismissive of the far left.

They get so disproportionately bent-outta-shape about the most inconsequential things, their unwillingness to see anything positive, an inability to compromise, purity at all costs (even if it means defeat and no progress). I'm sick of it.

You're right, Auntpurl... it's exhausting. We need to focus on Hillary winning in November ... not whining and nitpicking every little things.

[MohRokTah]

26. I some times despise the Far Left even more than the Far Right

At least the Far Right will sometimes relish in the fact that they are ignorant rubes whereas the Far Left thinks they're the most intelligent people on earth.

[NurseJackie]

41. If they were, they'd pick better candidates. I mean, seriously now ... Stein?

And they'd do a better job of getting their candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. For being such an intelligent group, they certainly miss the mark for some of the most basic things. (Frankly, I think they get more satisfaction from sitting in judgement of others and in "knowing they're right" than could be had from actually winning an election, or making the hard choices---and compromises---needed to win elections. But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.)

[TheKentuckian]

94. No surprise there, birds of a feather flock together.

[DinahMoeHum]

127. The "Nothing But The Best For The Oppressed" syndrome. . .

. . .is strong among the "Far Left".

Which is why although I have some friends/colleagues among them, I don't trust the "Far Left" to make any big critical decisions.

[Exilednight]

48. Yeah, you're right. It's not a clean environment is essential to human life.

Nor is it true that global warming is reaching an irreversible tipping point.

Mother nature always has a way of winning, the real question is whose side do we want to be on, mother nature's life giving one, or the one where she wipes out mankind because they betrayed her?

[tecelote]

58. Lefty here shocked to hear real Democrats being disparaged.

I'm with you brother.

[Maru Kitteh]

166. No, it's actually the regressive, privliged, amoral, puritopian rainbows and pixie dust

brigade of perennial malcontents and quadrennial drama-queens who choose our Presidential campaigns to showcase their personality disorders in a childish bid for attention that are being disparaged; because they deserve that shit.

It has nothing at all to do with real Democrats. Real Democrats have done the work to grow our party, so that you, me, and the rest of the country could have President Barack Obama instead of President McCain and President Palin, let alone President Romney. Real Democrats are now doing the work it's going to take to save the country from having a President Trump. You're welcome.

Real Democrats work hard for the only party on the national stage with a chance in hell of winning - who are representing progress, representing equality, representing justice, who stand for renewable energy and against the rape of our public lands, who actually believe in science and climate change and are doing something about it, who are for raising the minimum wage, who embrace the public option and debt-free college.

Real Democrats are fully-realized adults who advocate passionately in the primaries but then have the maturity, if their candidate does not win, to consider the consequences of a spiteful vote against the party motivated by ego, and instead swallow their pride, do the right thing, and vote for the Democratic nominee. Real Democrats find it unacceptable to ask the vulnerable of society to suffer for the satisfaction of any small, selfish, personal need for "revenge."

The permanently blazed and chronically ineffectual whiners will continue their role in society, poking sticks at those of us doing the work they benefit from, all the while wailing that it's never enough, and pouting about their faux "oppression." Fuck them. Those are not Democrats. Real or otherwise.

[NurseJackie]

59. I guess someone will have to figure out if strategic wins but occasionally compromising are worse

than always losing but having the satisfaction of being pure and correct. Tough call, huh?

[Exilednight]

73. Nothing tough about it. The laws of nature do not compromise.

Beimg strategic only works if your strategy gets you where you need to be

It is possible to be strategic and get results without giving up much in return. No pragmatic President is ever remembered as a great president.

[NurseJackie]

74. Just ask President Kucinich.

[adigal]

154. I can't believe how the people in the posts above you talk about liberals

Where am I? Did I wander into a far right site? What the hell??? This guy doesn't believe in global warming?? And that's ok with people here!?

[Exilednight]

160. And that is part of the debate. Who will he recommend for

the EPA? That's the purpose of a leader of the transition team, to pick people to fill various high level positions.

[George Eliot]

206. They're emotional voters. They love, love, love and so are blind to the meaning

of appointments. That is what keeps this country moving to the right. it is easy to love and hard to study. I'll bet not one watched the Stein hour on CNN because easier to be uninformed and love your candidate. It is really rather scary. And they vomit all over many who come from the Green Party to vote HRC rather than face Trump. How smart is that?

[auntpurl]

68. Sometimes I sit back and reflect

The far left has spent 7 years complaining heartily about the ACA - everything it lacks, how it's not enough, how it was a "sellout". Have they LOOKED at the opposition in the current presidential campaign? I don't mean the candidate, I mean the supporters! Half the country are self-defeating, racist morons! And we got a freaking healthcare plan through that FINALLY removed the evil pre-existing conditions clause that meant MILLIONS weren't eligible for insurance or paid half their salaries for it. DEMOCRATS DID THAT. And there were more of those morons in the country than there are now, back in 2008. This is a HUGE WIN! Seriously, what is wrong with people?

[cali]

83. One of the major reasons many of us on what you term the "far left", have been critical of the ACA

is that we have long viewed it as untenable, reliant as it is on insurance companies. There is mounting evidence that in the long run, the ACA will be effectively gutted. It's been helpful to millions to date, but that is changing. And there is no evidence to support that it's a step toward single payer. The trend regarding the ACA is not a hopeful one.

It's not a matter of being against it. I supported it at the time as an improvement over the status quo and because of the substantial increase of funding for CHCs. It's still better than what was before, but it's being eroded.

Just another moron here.

[auntpurl]

86. When I used the term moron, I was referring to Trump's RW supporters

as I said earlier in the post.

There were a lot of people on the far left who did not support the ACA from the very beginning, who said Obama had sold out his campaign promises, and this was too little reward.

I am not in favor of single payer for the US for the simple fact I don't think it will work. I am in favor (as is Hillary) of a public option - it's something I expect she will work on quite soon after getting into office. And a public option will solve the problem of insurance companies dropping coverage.

[cali]

98. A public option is a huge step for single payer. And in country after country

single payer works. I don't know why you think it's unworkable here.

Once the door to single payer is cracked open by the public option, there's a real chance of single payer becoming, over time, a reality.

[Old and In the Way]

106. I agree.

A public option that checks private insurers should be offered.as an option. Let's see what the market chooses.

[PatSeg]

102. The tags "far left" and

"extreme left" have just popped up here recently. Sounds like something that Frank Luntz would come up with. It certainly does not serve Democrats to belittle other Democrats.

I suppose we should just take what we get and never question or criticize anything - that sounds more like republicans to me!

[choie]

130. That's right

Just March in lockstep and smile. No criticism allowed or you're deemed a member of the "extreme left".

[womanofthehills]

193. F**king up the environment is not a "little thing."

[NurseJackie]

195. That's true, but intentionally sabotaging or not supporting the best candidate ...

... simply because she isn't the purest or most perfect candidate (in the opinion of those who would so do) is a foolish thing to do. It's not the goals that are foolish, but their naive and short-sighted methods of achieving them are.

There's no shame in incremental progress. The real shame and stupidity is abandoning incremental progress and settling for going backward, simply because someone was too proud and vain, or because their feelings were hurt when they didn't get their way.

This is a predictable theme and pattern of behavior that we see over and over, election after election. You'd think the far-far-left would have learned by now. Obviously not.

[JRLeft]

247. When it comes to the environment, we don't have time for incremental change.

[NurseJackie]

248. So why pursue a route of guaranteed failure and stagnation?

It's difficult for me to understand why some people prefer absolutely "no change" (on principle) instead of making "some progress" (with compromise and making reality-based decisions). I guess their stubbornness, pride and vanity have a lot to do with that.

It's impossible to be certain, but that seems to be the most logical reason. For some people, it seems, there is much more personal satisfaction in being able to say "even though we lost, at least we stood our ground" instead of "we're not there yet, but we've made some improvements and we're getting closer".

Weird, huh? Go figure.

[JRLeft]

249. We're already failing because are not doing what scientists have told us to do.

[NurseJackie]

250. And putting forward "pure" candidates (who have zero chance of winning) helps, HOW?

And refusing to support an "imperfect" candidate (although they are light years ahead of the other candidate) helps, HOW?

And writing-in a candidate's name, as a protest gesture, knowing full well that the write-in will never win (and that the .01% of protest votes will be disregarded by the winner) helps, HOW?

I'm not saying that the goals aren't important. It's just that the fringe-y far-left seems to be intent on self-sabotage, and failure, and perpetual marginalization ... all for the sake of their "no compromise" and "purity before reality" mantra.

You guys are something else.

[womanofthehills]

254. I don't think people are saying they are not supporting Hillary

I'm supporting Hillary but not happy with her choice. She picks a guy whose environmental record is more in step with Republicans than Democrats - people will be disappointed.

[Demsrule86]

49. And as I have pointed out

We managed to lose the House and the Senate by not supporting our president...how different things might have been had we chosen another path. This is why Democrats can't have nice things like single payer.

[George Eliot]

208. Read Bill Press "Buyers Remorse" - that's how Obama lost the far left

Nobody owes a candidate anything. American democracy relies on candidates following through on their campaigns. We haven't had that for a long time and so voting is seriously low in the US compared to other nations. It is not the voters fault. It is the misbranding of candidates. They have themselves to blame.

[Demsrule86]

242. Why would I read Bill Press who like many who are ...I won't say on the left

because I am left...but I will say they have unreal expectations of what any Democratic president can do. I know what he said and what others said too....and the result was we lost the house and any chance we had of enacting a progressive agenda evaporated. We also lost governorships when the disappointed punished the Democrats at the state level (just before the census could there be a worst time?)...and we now have a gerrymandered House where the GOP can do as they please and feel no political pressure which destroys...our system of checks and balances. The house is designed to feel political heat, it has been a disaster for progressives. And unless the lawsuit winding it's way to SCOTUS is successful at ending the gerrymandering of the House,it may continue another ten years. The census is in 2020. What really happened is the Republican agenda was advanced by the disappointed and the Greens of course...kind of ironic if you think about it...these voters were so angry because they were so upset with Pres. Obama that they showed him...by enabling the GOP to take the House, governorship's, and later the Senate The chance to get anything done ended with the 2010 elections.You are correct. No one 'owes a candidate' but what do we owe each other?By not supporting Obama, we lost any chance of a minimum wage raise, the chance for a fair tax system, a public option, gun regulation,many women lost the right to choose as newly minted GOP states enacted rules that punish women and lost many other progressive goodies. What did we gain? The answer is a big fat nothing...so the disappointed really punished the American people. This is why Democrats can't have nice things like single payer.

[JoePhilly]

65. YUP ... Combustible Hair Club is holding preliminary meetings ...

... to identify potential outrages before they happen.

[auntpurl]

67. lol

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. "Combustible Hair Club"!!!

[Squinch]

122. Their orchestra is tuning up. Everyone she chooses will be deemed awful.

[Andy823]

78. A lot of those who went after Obama

Were just trolls that came here to cause problems, and most of them went over to JPR with Manny, the troll leader. Some still come back here to stir things up, and I am sure once Hillary is in office, they will show up here and do the same crap they did with Obama.

[auntpurl]

79. Apparently the "new rules" are staying in effect even after the election

So it will still be against the rules to bash Democrats, I'm relieved to say.

[Andy823]

82. I hope you are right

They got by the rules before, and as we have seen here since the primaries ended, they still keep trying to skirt the rules. I hope the rules get enforced one the election is over.

[adigal]

158. But saying you hate the Far Left as much as the Far Right is fine, right?

As was posted up above.
Nice double standards going on.

[Old and In the Way]

134. The only way you can post here and disrupt is pretending you are to the left of everyone else here.

This has happened since 2001. The MO for RW disrupters is always to post as uber progressives. Anyone who uses "TheProgressive" as their nom de plume is automatically a flag in my book. Ken Salazer is evil? Not really, just a troll stirring shit.

[treestar]

176. Exactly.

You can bet on that. They are even starting earlier with the alleged evils of the people they pick to do things. When there is no one that would satisfy them anyway.

[NCTraveler]

21. What a horrid article wrought with hyperbole.

Some HA HA Goodman worthy spin.

I can see how articles written like this perk the ears of LIV's.

[misterhighwasted]

56. EXACTLY. Here's the Actual Transition Team Headline:

Clinton-Kaine Transition Project Announces Senior Leadership Team

Former Interior Secretary Salazar To Serve as Chair; Donilon, Granholm, Tanden and Williams To Serve as Co-Chairs

Salazar will serve alongside four co-chairs – former National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden, and Maggie Williams, Director of the Institute of Politics, Harvard University. Ed Meier and Ann O’Leary, two top campaign policy advisers, will shift full-time to the Transition team to serve as co-executive directors and manage the project’s day-to-day operations.
Heather Boushey, the Executive Director of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, will serve as Chief Economist.

Full story with Link to The Briefing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512370782

[villager]

27. He's as shitty a pick now, as he was when Obama foisted him upon us in Interior.

Sadly, that pick was one of the real "tells," that most of Obama's campaign rhetoric was of the smoke-and-mirrors variety, alas.

[Demsrule86]

50. Yeah and after he was shown the error of his ways by electing Republicans...things were so much

better...right?

[villager]

52. Um, he was part of the "error of ways" that led to the election of Republicans in the midterms

...since he was such a blatant signal that little would change.

Right?

[Demsrule86]

60. No, he wasn't...no person can please everyone...the fact many

did not have his back lead first to the Republican House which stopped the progressive agenda cold...and to awful rightwing policy...next we lost the Senate...because...by golly he didn't fight the House hard enough...I mean come on they were bluffing on the debt ceiling right? I don't think they were bluffing personally... the point is how do you like having the GOP in control of Congress? Has any good come from it? Maybe we should have supported Obama and gotten 90 %f or more of what we wanted instead of 100% of nothing. This is why Democrats can't have nice things like single payer.

[villager]

75. He was an awful choice for Interior, a squandering of "hope and change." Timorous Democrats lose

...because they are terrified of actually embracing the mandates given them by voters.

Salazar's return signifies that this may happen again. Let's hope it doesn't.

[Demsrule86]

116. Right and we showed him too

Gave him a GOP House in 08...wow...what a great plan. No Democratic president will ever please you 100% but a GOP House will always displease you 100%.

[villager]

121. They showed us! We'll piss on that mandate and... wait? What? No one's still voting!? nt

[Demsrule86]

139. We never had a working majority in the Senate thus and we faced

the worst obstruction from the right, I have ever seen. And when 'no one voted' all progressive policy was stopped cold...but hey the GOP got their way. Such a good plan...indeed. Blame a president for something he can't control and then help Republicans.

[villager]

141. So our retroactive excuse is that the majorities we had the first two years...

...weren't quite "good enough." Better to cave and fold now, while we still can!, eh?

Sorry, not buying it. Obama had a mandate. Instead, he choose footsie with Wall Street and crypto-fascists. It was massively disappointing.

[PBass]

145. Our "majority" included such liberal powerhouses as Joe Lieberman (sic).

I wonder how closely you were paying attention during this period. The Senate was deadlocked during the years people claim that Democrats had a majority. That's just a fact.

[villager]

146. "I wonder how closely you were paying attention during this period"

We saw what the cabinet appointments were. We saw how the House was used to pressure the Senate (as in: not).

We saw how the "Bully Pulpit" was used.

We saw which ideas and policies were advanced and floated, and which were not.

And we've seen the difference now, when the President finally feels he has "nothing to lose," here in his last two years, compared to the wasted opportunities of the first two.

[George Eliot]

211. These people need to blame ... rather than hold their candidate responsible.

You'll never convince them. Loyalty and love. It was clear from day one Obama wanted to be a uniting President. I've always thought we voted him in too early in his career. The Repugs were having none of it. But he tried for six years. IMO, his worst offense was letting the thirteen bankers off the hook. He was simply not seasoned. He was DLC all the way.

[Demsrule86]

172. We never had a working majority ...not with Kennedy ill and then Scott Brown, Lieberman

And we had conservadems and a 60 vote rule just for Obama...had never really been used much before. The only way we got the ACA through was to leave it exactly as enacted in the House...which is why it was never vetted. Nancy Pelosi gave up her majority to get it passed...and many Democrats gave up their seats as well...they knew what would happen. Of course, many blamed Obama ...did not support him and we lost the House...and the Senate. President Obama has still been a great president...but how much more could have been done with the proper support.

[villager]

175. Thank goodness the best strategy was a preemptive caving in on everything...

...along with staying the hell away from the bully pulpit!

Keeping powder nice and dry!

[George Eliot]

213. +1

[Demsrule86]

245. 90% of something like for instance

health care is better than 100% of nothing. Getting some stimulus although we really needed a bigger stimulus saved our economy. We got what was possible...and recognizing that and moving forward to save thousands of American lives by enacting the ACA and thousands of American jobs by enacting a stimulus seems like a good idea to me...presidents and others have tried for over 100 years to get some form of health care...who knows if or when this opportunity would have presented itself again. Now we have something to build on..it was a good idea...and wasting time arguing and losing this chance while it may satisfy Obama critics would not have saved one life. You see I want to get things done ...sometimes we have to do it incrementally.

[villager]

252. Somehow the climate is not changing "incrementally." Nor has it been "incremental" for those priced

...out of insurance coverage, sans a public option.

Certainly, though, any kind of thorough investigation or justice for those lying us into war, or derailing the economy has been absolutely "incremental" (well, read: "non-existent&quot so you've more than gotten your wish there.

[Demsrule86]

253. Once you lost the house put a fork in it ...done.

Maybe we had a chance if we had supported the president. Chances are with the gerrymander, we still won't get the House...so all the state and House races we lost in 10 because some wanted to send a message to Obama...are still working against us. And if we don't get the states back by 20...we have ten more years of the gerrymander (census). I have hope because there is a case heading to SCOTUS that might put an end this but it might not.This is why Democrats can't have nice things like climate change legislation and single payer.

[villager]

263. We agree that the anti-democratic practice of gerrymandering needs to end.

We disagree about the efficacy and "leadership" of the Democrats, however, during that period when they last had the majority in the house.

Unfortunately, the message that was "sent" was to the electorate, who had given them that majority.

[Demsrule86]

265. Absolutely the gerrymander needs to end

The last time the Dems had a working majority is the issue we apparently disagree with...The Gop would never work with Obama thus we needed 60 votes for everything. Obama never had 60 votes without sweeting the deal for conservadems or for that Lieberman. This is why we didn't get Medicare for 55 and older...or a public option. And when people turned against the president and blamed him for GOP obstruction...we lost the House and the states...now the states are even worse than the house as that is where the Gerrymander comes from (census)...and we need to fix it by 2020 or pray that the lawsuit is successful...it is heading to SCOTUS.

[villager]

267. Yes, re: Gerrymander. But we disagree on that first two years. I think they were woefully

...mishandled, in terms of what was even "asked for" at the outset, the preemptive caving in order to reach some Sally Fields moment ("You all really like me!&quot that would never be forthcoming, etc

Indeed, end-of-term Obama, working against an even more throttling Republican majority (as opposed to working with a "somewhat problematic Democratic majority" in the first two years...), shows us just how much was squandered, actually, in terms of what might-have-been.

Or what, at least, might-have-been asked for out loud, to change the terms of the discussion.

[PatSeg]

28. I'm noticing a very unsettling tendency

to tag progressive Democrats as "far left" and even "extreme left", as if talking about the SDS or Weathermen of the sixties. Most Democrats are opposed to the TPP and fracking and, for renewable energy. According to some, it appears there is only room in the party for moderate to conservative Democrats. Everyone else is extreme and nutty.

Some of his positions weren't even moderate.

Salazar is a longtime defender of fracking for oil and gas, telling an industry conference in 2014 that "there's not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ken-salazar-tpp-trade-227068

[emulatorloo]

33. There are about three LOUD members here who label some folk 'far left'

and in general when they do that it is not about a progressive politician. So this isn't some giant DU conspiracy.

As you say "according to some" - a handful of people.

That being said, I think we need to acknowledge that du as a whole is not yet recovered from primary wars 2016. If you remember some alleged "progressives" pulled a lot of shit here, including posting Breitbart bullshit to smear and lie about HRC. Some people are still touchy about that.

[PatSeg]

91. Yes

I realize it is just a handful, but they are extremely vocal. I stayed away from DU for the most part during the primaries, but I see signs at GD 2016 that the primary mentality has not completely subsided.

I see no reason to alienate other Democrats when we have plenty of republicans to focus on. For that reason, I cannot see a good motive for this progressive bashing. I can think of a few not so good ones though.

[George Eliot]

215. Thanks for the wisdom. I'm getting reactive myself in response.

Time to take a break.

[PatSeg]

222. You're welcome

I'm sure some people are sincere, but I have to wonder if others aren't just trying to elicit an angry response. Disagreeing with one another is understandable, but actually attacking fellow Democrats when there are plenty of republicans out there is counter productive.

[KeepItReal]

36. It is unsettling.

After this general election, hopefully we'll be free to debate the direction of the party and it's leadership.

[PatSeg]

92. I hope so

In the past, I've noticed that some people disappear after the election is over.

[a la izquierda]

37. Yep.

God forbid us "loony lefties" give a shit about the environment.
The hell with this place.

[emulatorloo]

38. Just a handful of people say that shit. Alert on their posts and put them on ignore

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. Damn proud to be part of the Looney Left!

Things I give a shit about: workers and Unions, people over corporations, getting Big Money out of politics, the environment, not bombing innocent people, not overthrowing governments, fair trade, and ethics.

OMG COLOR ME RED!!!!

[PatSeg]

100. Gee

You sound like a Democrat to me!!!!

[NCTraveler]

43. Maybe you could tell us what this op has to do with the environment.

The answer to that is the point many are making. That aspect alone is nothing more than extremely poor propaganda. This article can be defined as propaganda directed toward LIV's. It's truly HA HA Goodman worthy. Maybe usuncut, though their propaganda is a bit more nuanced.

[a la izquierda]

137. Why anyone left of center should be cozying up to fracking supporters is beyond me. NT

[PatSeg]

93. As someone else said,

it isn't DU so much, as it is a small handful of people who are quick to pounce on progressive members and their comments. In the twelve years I've been here, I've found the vast majority of DU members have been progressive.

[Demsrule86]

112. And you and your buddies get to judge who is progressive and who isn't I suppose.

No...here is the thing those who subject Democrats to a purity test don't help push a progressive agenda...they help elect Republicans who push a right wing agenda or gridlock. Salazar is not a bad choice for what is an administrative job. But you guys who can call yourselves far left or left- left , 'concerned' or what have you pounce on Clinton for every action that does not fit your standards of purity...It has not escaped my notice that most post negative stuff. I want to support Democrats and win in November. I also give them the benefit of the doubt because any Democrat is way better than any Republican.Had we all been supportive of the president and had his back in 08 and 12, it would be a different country today I think.

[PatSeg]

135. I'm sorry

I don't have any "buddies" and I do not put our candidates to a purity test. I am progressive, but pragmatic. Meanwhile, I don't ridicule people who express disappointment with certain policies or choices. We are here to express our opinions and preferences. That does not mean we aren't going to vote for the person we think is most qualified. In this case, that person is Hillary Clinton. Actually, I thought she was more qualified than Bernie Sanders, even though I agree with him on the issues. Being president is about more than issues.

I think Barack Obama has been one of our finest presidents, but I don't agree with him on everything. Expressing our disagreements is healthy and essential to a democracy. If enough people speak out, our leaders are inclined to listen. If we as progressives hadn't loudly rejected the Keystone Pipeline, I am quite sure it would have become reality.

I will support our candidate, but I will never support anyone blindly. I also will not dismiss Democrats as "far left" or "extreme left" because they express disagreement with some of our nominee's choices. Democrats can disagree with one another without using expressions that mimic what the right uses to describe liberals. Republicans tend to be sheep, but Democrats feel free to disagree and debate and that is the way it has been at DU from Day One.

[Demsrule86]

138. I don't agree with Obama on everthing either. I don't like the TPP for one example.

However, I agree with him much more than any Republican...my point is that by not supporting the president, and you were around in 10 and 14, we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. At some point, we have to support our elected...flawed though they may be...or we will never get shit done. Already the crying has commenced. Salazar is the last straw kind of attitude from some (not saying from you). She is not even in office, and it is already beginning. Many are ready to pounce on Hillary for anything. I don't think it is only a residue from the primary which is over people...because Obama faced the same sort of criticism...he was savaged on this very site before 2010. And what was the result? Did we move left...no we did not. Except for a few surprise court victories, if you want to call not losing everything a victory (gay marriage being the exception), we accomplished nothing progressive after the 2010 election. This quest for the perfect one is ruining any chance for solid progressive policy...like an increase in minimum wage, single payer or at least a public option...and many other things that we have tried to get for decades. We won't get them as long as we continue in this manner. Many who claim to be left play right into the Republicans hands and allow the Republicans to advance their agenda which is a damn shame for everyone.

[PatSeg]

143. We can support candidates

AND hold them accountable at the same time. I am quite sure there would have been more progressive accomplishments during Obama's term, if Dems had gotten out and voted during the 2010 midterms. A republican House and Senate prevented a lot of progress.

I think we should all be realistic in our expectations of any president, but it is important that she/he knows what the people want and expect. Presidents do respond to public opinion, but silence connotes acceptance of the status quo. This is how democracy works. I don't advocate constant bitching and complaining about every little thing, but politicians are ideally kept in line by the voices of their constituency.

Here's an additional thought - Democrats are more inclined to get out and vote if they are profoundly inspired or more likely, if they are dissatisfied with something, i.e. fracking, TPP, Keystone pipeline, corporate welfare, agri-farming, etc. "Inspired" doesn't generally come into play during mid-terms, but dissatisfaction can and should. As for the "inspirational" factor, only a few presidents throughout history have fit that bill. So as annoying as the bitching can be sometimes, I know that it serves a purpose.

[Demsrule86]

144. We were not realistic in our expectations of Obama

And many on the far far let including Greens trashed him and demoralized the vote. We have to give our people a chance...and the way people are pouncing on Hillary for a particular administrative position for the transition team leads me to believe, they have learned nothing. This is why we can't have nice things like single payer. Democrats need to vote period...the idea of getting something if not everything should inspire one sufficiently. You will never get it all.

[PatSeg]

147. Okay, I definitely agree with you

when you say......."the idea of getting something if not everything should inspire one sufficiently. You will never get it all." However, this constantly referring to progressive Democrats as "far left", "extreme left", and some even say "loony or crazy left" is counter productive. Most of the Democrats I know are liberal and progressive - they aren't "far" or "extreme" anything. Tagging fellow Democrats like that is divisive and potentially detrimental to the party and our candidates.

Traditionally Democrats tend to agree to disagree and in the last hundred years, they have made more positive social and economic change than republicans. I don't think that progress would have been possible if Democrats were to have behaved like republicans - fall in line like sheep. Our differences make us stronger and more effective. It is much easier to agree if you are like republicans who want to maintain the status quo.

[Demsrule86]

173. It is just a term...I see no stigma in it...nothing wrong with being left...I am a

liberal...more liberal than Pres. Obama in fact. And the flip side is calling people moderates or DLC types...and I see that too...been called it in fact and been called a leftist...which is fine...I wear my liberalism as a badge of honor. But what people are saying is many are too quick to condemn our elected and as a result, we help the GOP win elections...and I agree with that. I vote in every election and I vote a straight Democratic ticket. I want to see liberal policy enacted, and when I see people who are more worried about this cabinet pick or transition team pick or what have you...then getting stuff done...I just don't understand it. We have two choices...Clinton or Trump. There is no point in getting fixated on what I consider a small matter and risking Trump... We will get nothing from Trump but hell. Imagine, Trump picking four or even five justices. Focus!

[PatSeg]

174. Well

We will have to disagree on that, it is more than just a term to me and many DUers here. There is an inference that people who criticize Democratic politicians are either radicals or professional agitators. History will show that criticizing our leaders no matter how beloved or admired is a democratic tradition, one that assures the people's voices are heard.

I don't nitpick as much as some and sometimes it can be irritating, but I know it is an essential part of democracy. I prefer it to the alternative.

[George Eliot]

217. You show wisdom again by staying neutral and avoiding name calling and blaming. Thank you.

[PatSeg]

223. Thank you!

I really appreciate that!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

39. Welcome to the new and improved Democratic Party!

We (heart) fracking, war mongering, corporate-friendly trade deals, and a whole host of cool new things!

[PatSeg]

95. Seems to be a FEW Democrats

who think traditional Democratic values are "extreme". Sounds more like republicans to me.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

159. Well that HAS been the goal since around 1990 --

to create a permanent majority by staying leftish on social issues and right on foreign policy and the economy. HRC's Presidency -- with the blessing of good folks like Negroponte and the other Republicans so bravely supporting her -- is only the final fulfillment of that goal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/13/pemanent-democratic-major_n_186257.html

An old but fun look back on the subject, full of a lot of great information --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2776161

[PatSeg]

165. That was an interesting flashback

A lot of deleted comments, but an interesting discussion.

I've been wondering if the republican party will fade away and maybe the Democratic party might split into two parties - liberal and moderate. I don't know, but I just can't seen the GOP surviving much longer.

[George Eliot]

218. Exactly my thoughts. Trump is hastening that merging of right and DLC centrist dems.

Although, many say that Republicans are leaving the GOP because of Trump's insanity. But I think the exit of many GOP leaders has to do with feeling Clinton might protect their interests more than Trump. These global billionaires have never cared much about the planet or the middle class before so I'm suspicious that they give even a hoot now about Trump's words and actions except as they harbor a real trend to appeal to working-class Americans. Suggesting he would bring American jobs back to US or provide day care as Ivanka did probably rattles the billionaires more than any insanity on his part.

I am in no way suggesting he is a better candidate than HRC at all. I don't trust him one bit But the Koch Brothers, Walton family, other elite might find more worrisome issues in the Donald than in Hillary to their interests.

[PatSeg]

225. It will be interesting to see what happens to the

republican party. The more moderate ones could easily align with the more moderate wing of the Democratic party, but clearly we can't have a one party political system. I don't know if they start a new party or maybe become independents. The republicans clearly have to cut ties with the extremists in their party, but that doesn't leave a whole lot of voters left to work with.

Meanwhile, if the Democratic party sees more division, a new party could possibly emerge with moderate Dems joining up with the few sane moderate republicans that are left. I don't know though, there is so much animosity between the two parties, it is hard to envision anyone crossing party lines in the near future.

Most likely, it will be something that most of us haven't even thought of yet. We live in very interesting times.

[George Eliot]

231. Millennials make a difference. Check out this link.

Watch this video from Hartmann's Big Picture today with the author of Millennials Rule. Perhaps a look at the future?

[PatSeg]

251. Very interesting

It is hard to say what politics will look like "When Millennials Rule", as many of them will evolve over the years. I can't say that my political identity at that age was well developed and certainly not well informed. Most young people have a lot going on in their lives and except for a few like David Cahn, do not spend a lot of time on politics.

It is a big unknowable - some will gradually move more right and others more left, some will become settled and perhaps have no interest in government or politics. In that sense they may mirror their parents' generation to some degree.

[womanofthehills]

194. We (heart) the Keystone pipeline - I want one of those running through my yard

and don't forget the GMO's .

[PatSeg]

226. And we hate renewal energy,

National parks, clean water, and universal health care.

[womanofthehills]

256. Actually, I almost had a KinderMorgan pipeline running through my property

Thank God for the drop in oil prices, the project was dropped.

[PatSeg]

260. Oh wow

You really did luck out on that one!

[Demsrule86]

53. Really?

I found one too...only this one was during the time he was in office (2012) and not aPolitico regurgitated hit piece...

"Salazar said state-level oversight of the onshore oil-and-gas development method called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," is not enough, and argued industry complaints about the planned rules are not valid.

“There are some who are saying that it's not something we ought to do; it should be left up to the states. That's not good enough for me, because states are at very different level, some have zero, some have decent rules,” Salazar told Reuters while aboard a Statoil platform in the North Sea.
Fracking involves high-pressure injections of water, chemicals and sand into shale formations to open seams that enable hydrocarbons to flow. The method is enabling a natural-gas production boom in the United States, but is bringing fears of pollution along with it."

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234737-salazar-state-fracking-oversight-is-not-good-enough-for-me

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

31. I guess Spliff the Bike Courier's voicemail box was full

[zenabby]

44. Is Fracking Bad?

I know that Fracking is considered one of the environmental evils, but what makes it so? How many of us have taken the time to understand it? Is it the methane part of it, or is it that it can cause earthquakes? Are there any good links to articles about pros and cons of fracking, and what makes it dangerous from a scientific perspective. The answer it appears may be more complex than fracking is good or bad. It may be relative. Could it serve as a transitional option till we have clean wind, solar based energy everywhere?

Here's Hillary's take on fracking and she is not opposed to it. It is not black and white, just as TPP is not black and white. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/13/bernie-s/does-hillary-clinton-support-fracking/

[KeepItReal]

55. I think you mean "Fracking ain't so bad."

People here don't oppose fracking because they are uninformed.

And even if they were uninformed and against fracking, they'd still have the high ground on this issue.

[Motley13]

57. Besides poisoning the water & our food supply

http://www.alternet.org/environment/8-dangerous-side-effects-fracking-industry-doesnt-want-you-hear-about

[DFW]

51. I don't know Salazar, BUT

i was visiting an old friend in northern California on Monday who will be on the transition team. He is a solid environmantalist who probably would have headed the EPA under the Gore administration. He is now 72 and might not want another long term position in DC but he is no friend of fracking. There will be plenty of opposition to fracking on Hillary's transition team, fear not.

[misterhighwasted]

54. HERE FOR THE FULL STORY: Outstanding Transition Team

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/updates/2016/08/16/clinton-kaine-transition-project-announces-senior-leadership-team/

AND HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512370782

Clinton-Kaine Transition Project Announces Senior Leadership Team

Former Interior Secretary Salazar To Serve as Chair; Donilon, Granholm, Tanden and Williams To Serve as Co-Chairs

Salazar will serve alongside four co-chairs – former National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden, and Maggie Williams, Director of the Institute of Politics, Harvard University. Ed Meier and Ann O’Leary, two top campaign policy advisers, will shift full-time to the Transition team to serve as co-executive directors and manage the project’s day-to-day operations. Heather Boushey, the Executive Director of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, will serve as Chief Economist.

More..

[CentralMass]

62. There is some big $$ in play .

[NurseJackie]

64. Can you elaborate?

[CentralMass]

113. Here are a few links.

I don't have time for a lengthy response. Here is a article on Ken Salazar.

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16530

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/16/hillary-clinton-picks-tpp-and-fracking-advocate-to-set-up-her-white-house/

Basically Pro TPP, Fracking, Keystone XL-Pipeline, drilling, etc.

So we now have a pro fracking VP and a transition man who has for all intensive purposes been lobbying for the gas and oil interestate since he left the government

Below are some links on the amount of $$ the Oil & Gas industries spend on lobbying.


http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/


https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01


So my point is that the monied interest will win and this is shaping up like we are being given lip service on issues like TPP and Fracking, etc..

[oasis]

69. ImWithHer. This includes her judgement on whoever she choses to help

her achieve her vision for America.

[George Eliot]

191. I'm still confused by her vision. Clarify for me please.

Pro-con? fracking. PRo-Con? TPP. Do you really know? Yes, she'll get my vote but I'd feel better if I understood her true positions.

[oasis]

240. During the next 8 years you should be able to figure it out.

[George Eliot]

241. Haha. Looks like we'll both be figuring it out. :)

[Sunlei]

70. Clinton should speak to Obama about Salazar and why he 'resigned'. Years ago that 'Bundy' crap was

allowed to fester. That fellow shouldn't be near any decisions on appointments, he'll snooker city people and give favoritism to the Bundy types.

[BainsBane]

72. I'm bored with the outrage

It was an outrage she dared to run, that she won, that she chose Kaine, and now Salazar.

You should expect many more Democrats to serve in various capacities in her campaign and, hopefully, her administration. We can assume that you will find none of them acceptable.

It's not like she is appointing the guy to head the EPA. So what if you don't like his views on the environment? It has
f all to do with running a transition team.

[bravenak]

84. i agree with you

[Tarheel_Dem]

90. It's exhausting isn't it? I mean there are other places on the web to trash Democrats, this.....

shouldn't be one of them.

[mcar]

101. It is exhausting, isn't it?

Some will always find nits to pick. Me, I look at the overall picture. Who has the time or energy for 24/7 outrage?

[womanofthehills]

257. I would not call what's going on with our environment "a nit"

As long as the price of oil stays low, fracking is not very profitable - good news for the environment. Fracking water is getting into corn fields, cattle are drinking it, it's in peoples well water, in rivers, in lakes, and we don't know how much of our food supply is now contaminated. In North Dakota drillers were doing a lot of illegal dumping of fracking water and barely being fined.

Besides all the toxic chemicals in fracking water, radium-226 and radium-228 is often in the wastewater.

I believe these are "nits to pick"

[mcar]

258. OK then

[2banon]

80. Nice to see a few progressive voices here who give a damn about policy

and the people named with track records appointed to oversee said policy.

just stuff only the loony far left care about, like the environment.

There's another word I use for "fracking" but it's a little bit too direct and on point.

so we'll just skirt around it a bit, just to be clear..

We're All Gonna Get Fracked now baby.. hope the oil industry has plenty of vaseline on hand.

[cali]

85. It's an appointment that I don't like. Period. If that makes me a traitor or loony left or

whatever, I can live with that. Particularly as the people yelling most loudly "how dare you, you far left radical", are using tactics I have no respect for.

Criticism is oxygen in a democracy. Trying to shut it down is undemocratic.

[dflprincess]

132. ^^^^This^^^^

But what do I know? I was put off by her campaign announcing Negroponte's endorsement like it was something to be proud of thus outing myself as a member of the "extreme left".

[PatSeg]

136. I think it makes you a progressive Democrat

Only republicans fall in line and follow like sheep. And it tends to be the right who call Democrats "loony left" or "extreme left" or "radical". Democrats are more inclined to debate than to demean.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

155. As far as I am concerned --

the term "progressive" is becoming a bit toxic for me, if it means what I have been seeing recently. I am a Liberal, plain and simple, and will proudly remain one until the day I die.

[PatSeg]

164. The political wordsmiths

are at work yet again. They turned "liberal" into a slur, so liberals started to say "progressive". Now that word is being undermined as well.

"Liberal" is still a wonderful word, as is "progressive", but I think the former defines my views the best and not just politically. I tend to be open minded in most areas of my life and where I'm not, I endeavor to be. I do derive a little satisfaction that "conservative" is becoming a more negative word these days - what goes around comes around.

[treestar]

177. And there is no appointment you are likely to like

I bet not a single one will be satisfactory. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie can't do half the jobs each by themselves.

[cali]

178. And you are so wrong. yet again. I already posted an op about how much I like

the Heather Boushey appointment as chief economic advisor on the Transition Team a couple of days ago.

You may apologize for your false accusation at any time and it will be graciously accepted.

[treestar]

180. Goodness you are easy to offend

Interesting. Actually a miracle. Go Heather!

Still I am likely right as to most of these that will come up. Not you specifically, but this Salazar thing is just the first of many.

[cali]

181. And you, with the greatest of easen repeatedly toss out false smears. I find that..

to be worthy of the opposite of any respect.

What is more, your snide comment about it being a "miracle" that I posted such an op is more false, nasty stuff. And it's far from being the first positive thing I've posted about HRC, including during the primaries when I opposed her being the nominee. I'd post more links but why bother? It wouldn't do anything to curtail your proclivities.

You belong on my very short, very select ignore list for your continued false accusations.

Easy to offend? No. Dislike of false narratives cooked up by you? Yes.

Goodbye and good....

[cali]

179. You'd lose your shirt on that bet, tree. Here. What have you to say NOW?

I like this. Clinton taps inequality expert Boushey as her transition team’s chief economist

Inequality expert Heather Boushey has been named the chief economist of Hillary Clinton’s transition team, the Clinton campaign said Tuesday.

Boushey is currently the executive director and chief economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, as well as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. According to the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, Boushey researches economic inequality and public policy, employment and social policy, and family economic well-being.

<snip>

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/clinton-taps-inequality-expert-boushey-as-her-transition-teams-chief-economist-2016-08-16


A bit more about Ms. Boushey:

<snip>

Boushey was born in Seattle and grew up in Mukilteo, Washington. She received her Ph.D. in Economics from the New School for Social Research and her B.A. from Hampshire College.

She was formerly a Senior Economist with the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee and before that, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Economic Policy Institute. Her work focuses on the U.S. labor market, social policy, and work and family issues. Boushey’s work ranges from examinations of current trends in the U.S. labor market and how families balance work and child care needs to how young people have fared in today’s economy and health insurance coverage. She has testified before the U.S. Congress and authored numerous reports and commentaries on issues affecting working families, including the implications of the 1996 welfare reform. She is a co-author of The State of Working America 2002–3 and Hardships in America: The Real Story of Working Families.

Boushey is a Research Affiliate with the National Poverty Center at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and on the editorial review board of WorkingUSA and the Journal of Poverty. Her work has appeared in Dollars & Sense, In These Times, and New Labor Forum, and peer-reviewed journals, including Review of Political Economy and National Women’s Studies Association Journal.

On March 31, 2007, Boushey married Todd Tucker, formerly research director of the Global Trade Watch division of Public Citizen, who specializes in the legal, economic. and political consequences of trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).


<snip>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Boushey

I like this appointment a lot. Kudos to HRC.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512369904

I am really weary of you throwing false accusations at me and thinking you can get away with it. I won't let that shit go. EVER.

[George Eliot]

219. I agree but dig a little deeper . . .

These may amount to nothing but maybe indicate a trend... I'm not denigrating at all. Money talks.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/11/washington-center-equitable-growth-neoliberalism-reloaded.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/07/24/a-think-tank-wanted-to-study-inequality-no-conservatives-offered-to-help/

It is true that I am suspicious by nature. Clinton's been around a long, long time. Unfortunately. But I remain hopeful.

[Kaleva]

87. One's views on issues has little to do with running a transistion team.

[still_one]

103. He most likely was choosen because he was part of the Obama Administration as

Secretary of the Interior. The transition team is to prepare for a smooth transfer of power from the previous administration to the new one.

Salazar's position on fracking and other issues have nothing to do with the purpose of the transition team.

However, if you have an issue with it, then you can always leave a comment through the Hillary campaign in the comment area

[truebluegreen]

105. Ugh.

A corporate democrat as head of the transition team. I feel so encouraged and hopeful about the candidate's embrace of more progressive positions during the campaign. Really fired up in fact.

[alarimer]

111. Just her true colors shining through.

I'm not surprised.

[postatomic]

114. Local boy. He's been 'round the block a few times

I like Ken. He and the rest of the transition team will do their homework and help out Madame President.

[DemocraticWing]

115. Salazar and Tanden are dyed-in-the-wool DLC Democrats.

Those are the types that are going to be in a central position in the Clinton administration. The Democratic base has to keep the pressure up to make sure the centrists don't cave on things that are important to us.

And don't you guys get it twisted: they'll cave on anything, even the things Clinton ran on, if they let her. So if you care about LGBTQ rights, or the environment, or criminal justice reform, or reproductive rights...these are the issues that DLC types have caved on over and over again, not just trade and income inequality. It's going to take ALL OF US to hold our chosen representatives accountable.

Of course the alternative is Trump, who wants to shoot protesters in the streets. Our side is not like Trump, we welcome debate and dissent.

[colsohlibgal]

119. Worrisome

This guy is not just a minor administrative choice, he is in charge of her transition team.

The flip to a more progressive tone was welcome but we on the "crazy left" would like it if she follows through. So we shall see, this move is not too encouraging.

And crazy left? Because we are for getting profit out of healthcare, for a higher minimum wage, for saving our planet from global warming? If that is crazy I plead guilty.

[George Eliot]

192. Well put. Has she been honest with us?

[fun n serious]

202. ?

Yes. She means what she says. Y'all just looking for a reason to be angry. You can not be angry over what has not happened.

[fun n serious]

201. She is NOT going to veer center.

She is NOT. Watch and see.

[George Eliot]

220. I'm holding you to that promise.

[fun n serious]

221. Sounds good to me.

[choie]

124. And here come the excuses..

Anything to deflect appropriate criticism of this choice.

[Spider Jerusalem]

131. And Rahm Emmanuel led Obama's transition team

my reaction to this is a giant yawn.

[villager]

142. Actually, your point confirms every apprehension about Salazar. nt

[George Eliot]

190. +1

[El Supremo]

152. And what cabinet post will he be named to?

He's already been Secretary of the Interior. That seems to be his calling.

[bluestateguy]

168. Can we please be outraged about this after the election? [win the election first,ok]

nt

[ABLEZEROSIX]

216. Meet the new boss!

Same as the old boss.

[saidsimplesimon]

227. JR, truth indeed is

a rare event in our current political conundrum. We can make a better reality, if we hang together and refuse to accept the past as prologue.

[bluedye33139]

228. I support this choice. Salazar charted a measured course as cabinet official

And he was a powerhouse and got tons done. The solar/wind power prep in particular.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/ken-salazars-legacy/?_r=0

[tonyt53]

229. People questioned her choice of a running mate, then this choice. How'd she do with her campaign?

She knew what she was doing then, so how is this any different?

[PatSeg]

262. I think it is appropriate

to question her choices. That is what we do in a democracy. Personally, I think Tim Kaine seems like a really nice guy, but I'm still not crazy about him as a VP choice. We all have our preferences and many of us are just expressing them. I hardly expect to agree with Hillary on everything she does or says, none of us do.

I believe with her experience and expertise, Hillary will be an excellent president and Democrats will disagree with her on many issues, just as they have with President Obama. If we agreed with every person Hillary brought on board, we wouldn't be Democrats, we'd be republicans - i.e. mindless sheep.

[Grey Lemercier]

232. superb choice

[womanofthehills]

259. Can you elaborate about what is superb?

[PatSeg]

261. ?????

Yeah, I don't think "superb" fits at all. Odd adjective.

[KMOD]

264. Oddly, Michelle Malkin agrees with you on Salazar being a bad pick

her reason though is because she thinks he's one of President Obama's "green extremists".

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/michelle_malkin_sleazeball_ken_salazar_hillary_clinton_20160821

Politics do indeed make strange bedfellows.