Robert Scheer: Go Ahead, Back Hillary Clinton and Forget All About Her Record

[portlander23]

Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2015, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Robert Scheer: Go Ahead, Back Hillary Clinton and Forget All About Her Record

Go ahead and support Hillary Clinton, those of you for whom having the first female president is the top priority. She is by far preferable to Carly Fiorina, though of course no match for likely Green Party candidate Jill Stein (I know: You want to win). Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a principled and electable person, is not available, and political integrity be damned.

Just admit that you will be voting for someone to be president of the world's most powerful nation who has not only been profoundly wrong on the two most pressing issues of our time--economic injustice and the ravages of unbridled militarism--but, what is more significant, seems hopelessly incapable of learning from her dangerous errors in judgment.

For confirmation of the Margaret Thatcher hawkish side of Clinton, simply refer to her book "Hard Choices," which clearly is biased against choosing the more peaceful course and instead betrays a bellicose posturing that seems to harken back to the Goldwater Girl days that reflected her earliest political instincts.

One key piece of that betrayal was the reversal of the New Deal wall between commercial and consumer banking, codified in the Glass-Steagall Act, which Franklin Roosevelt had signed into law. When Bill Clinton betrayed the legacy of FDR by signing the so-called Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, he handed the pen used in the signing to a beaming Sandy Weill, whose Citigroup had breached that wall and commingled the savings of ordinary folks with the assets of private hustlers--a swindle made legal by Clinton's approval of the legislation.

Hillary Clinton, in her statement this week, made clear that in opposition to positions taken by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and even John McCain she will not revive Roosevelt's sensible restriction if she is elected.

It was that president's parting gift to the banks but also to his wife, whose Senate career would come to be lavishly supported by Wall Street's mega-rich leaders. They are now quite happy to back a woman for president, as long as it's not someone like Brooksley Born or Elizabeth Warren who is serious in her concern for the millions of women whose lives were impoverished by Hillary Clinton's banking buddies.

Related:

The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street

It’s something that might have been called neocon ... her supporters are not going to call it that

What Hillary Clinton wants you to forget: Her disastrous record as a war hawk

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

Paula Dwyer: Clinton's plan on Wall Street protects husband's legacy

Sirota and Perez: Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Policy Being Shaped By Two Bankers

Yahoo Politics: Hillary Clinton doesn’t support revival of Glass-Steagall Act

Clinton: Cooperation, not speeches, is needed to regulate Wall Street

[oasis]

1. It will be interesting to see who Scheer gets behind when Hill

becomes the nominee. Looks as if he'll be forced to sit quietly on the sidelines while the 2016 election parade passes by.

[sabrina 1]

2. Why would that be interesting? I'm sure he won't have to worry about that anyhow, since it appears

Sanders is the people's choice. And when more of the people get to know him, more people will follow the lead of those who have learned who he is and what he is about.

[oasis]

4. "The people" had better start coughing up lots more campaign

cash between now and November 2016. It will take more than what is projected to be in Bernie's war chest to hold back the Citizens United, right wing funded, colossal cash tsunami that is coming.

[JDPriestly]

14. Is there any reason other than her campaign cash to support Hillary over Bernie?

None of the Hillary supporters seem to be able to verbalize about that reason.

Money -- more important than anything else?

Bernie: You mean the guy who cares about people?

Hillary: You mean the woman who cares about money?

When I talk to Hillary supporters, I note great fear of Republican money.

I just think that human values can prevail over money values any day. It's just a matter of working together.

As Bernie says, when we are united, we can do anything.

[antigop]

27. it's all part of the effort to push the "Bernie is unelectable" meme. It's all they have. nt

[roguevalley]

48. hillary spent 9 out of 10$ raised in the third quarter already.

she is reverting to her old path from 2008. She hasn't learned a thing about cash. Bernie on the other hand will have my last penny. Times that by millions.

[green917]

100. exactly this! ^^^

"Bernie will have my last penny."

this describes it perfectly! the people who want to wrest this country away from the vampires on wall street that have been sucking this nation dry for the last 40 years (longer really but i count the Reagan revolution as the beginning of their apex) will go to the mat for Bernie because it's not about money or prestige or being the chosen one for him. It's about principals and integrity and genuinely wanting to make this nation better for ALL Americans. Because of that, Bernie shall have my last penny also!

[arcane1]

54. Yes: Her willingness to lean to the right on some issues.

Also known as "working with the republicans" and "reaching across the aisle" and many other euphemisms.

This over-emphasis on her money makes me wonder if some people want money itself to win. We cannot let that happen

[jwirr]

31. You are assuming that it is business as usual. The people

are no longer interested in bought politicians who have their own billionaires. Hillary included.

What we are interested in is getting Glass-Steagall back so that when we deposit what little money we have left in a commercial bank it will be there when we need it. We want the right to invest locally in sound investments that are insured by the government not play the investment casino game.

[cui bono]

66. "The people" have already surpassed what "the people" donated to Obama by this point.

[oasis]

70. I believe you know that Citizens United was not in operation in 2008.

Can you honestly say it doesn't matter?

[cui bono]

71. How does that factor in to this? We're talking about "the people's" donations.

Are you talking about Hillary accepting super PAC money? Or the GOP?

Didn't Romney raise more money than Obama?

[oasis]

73. Hill will gladly accept all legal contributions. She's ready

to fight fire with fire. Candidates who want to run a campaign with one hand tied behind their back
have a roadmap leading to a dead end.

While counting on the zeal of the "people" to get over the finish line is admirable, it's a losing strategy in the age of Citizens United.

As my dear old granny used to say, "wishing don't make it so".

[cui bono]

80. I do not agree with you. Not with the social media outreach these days.

Young people are flocking to Bernie and they aren't watching cable news where the ads would run.

Plus, how do you justify participating the game of big money controlling our elections? That just makes you part of the problem. Vote for Bernie and become part of the revolution. All it takes is for him to win the primary. The general is in the bag if he's the nominee.

[oasis]

81. If you believe I'm "part of the problem" you have no idea

what problems everyone will have if the Supreme Court gets 2 or 3 more ultra righties on the bench.

Should Bernie somehow get the nomination and lose in the GE because he chose not to accept the money that would shield him from getting swift boated, then YOU would be part of the problem.

If Democrats lose the White House by upholding the highest principles of American society, we can all pat ourselves on the back for the "moral victory". But it won't mean diddly squat after 4 to 8 years of GOP leadership and SCOTUS appointments.

[Bubzer]

89. It baffles me that you think Hillary wouldn't select a pro corporate person for the SCOTUS.

Corporations and Banks love Hillary. They know the next president will have a huge impact on the next supreme court judge. They want Hillary or someone from the GOP to win. They know either way is a win for them. They know either way, they'll get a corporatist judge elected. Hillary is way to heavily tied to corporations.

[oasis]

116. It baffles me that you think corporate rulings

would be the primary focus of the Supreme Court. Hillary has the endorsement of NOW for her decades long support of women's issues.

[Bubzer]

118. That was more than a bit disingenuous...unless you like the citizens united ruling.

Or perhaps you're okay with the following?

Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court

snip

In the eight years since Chief Justice Roberts joined the court, it has allowed corporations to spend freely in elections in the Citizens United case, has shielded them from class actions and human rights suits, and has made arbitration the favored way to resolve many disputes. Business groups say the Roberts court’s decisions have helped combat frivolous lawsuits, while plaintiffs’ lawyers say the rulings have destroyed legitimate claims for harm from faulty products, discriminatory practices and fraud.

Whether the Roberts court is unusually friendly to business has been the subject of repeated discussion, much of it based on anecdotes and studies based on small slices of empirical evidence. The new study, by contrast, takes a careful and comprehensive look at some 2,000 decisions from 1946 to 2011.

Published last month in The Minnesota Law Review, the study ranked the 36 justices who served on the court over those 65 years by the proportion of their pro-business votes; all five of the current court’s more conservative members were in the top 10. But the study’s most striking finding was that the two justices most likely to vote in favor of business interests since 1946 are the most recent conservative additions to the court, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., both appointed by President George W. Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/business/pro-business-decisions-are-defining-this-supreme-court.html

The endorsement from NOW has no bearing on Hillary's well known affiliation and bias in favor of corporations.

[sabrina 1]

76. Oh, it matters, it matters to the point that 80% of the public say it is a top issue for them. So

when you refer to that dirty money as a plus you are highlighting the difference between the one who AGREES WITH that majority of voters and who isn't just TALKING, he is REFUSING IT.

Why do you think he has gone from 3% in the polls to beating the Front Runner who IS taking advantage of that cash while SAYING she doesn't agree with it?

It always amazes me how political 'experts' seem to think that the American voters are stupid, that they don't NOTICE things like this.

People are ANGRY about this very subject.

Have you talked to any young people eg, the ones who are the largest voting bloc now in the country? The ones who were responsible for the success of OWS?

Not only are they thrilled with Bernie's principled stand on this, they are outraged at Hillary's, what they call 'double talk' on the subject.

His campaign is CENTERED AROUND CITIZENS UNITED, because he does not underestimate the intelligence of the public at all.

He agrees with them.

That money is going to be what LOSES the election for those who are taking it and wins it for the ONLY ONE who has run an incredible campaign so far, WITHOUT THAT MONEY and without the Party backing the others have.

That should tell you how important it is.

[oasis]

78. I'd wager 75% of the American public doesn't even know

what Citizens United is, let alone be upset because Candidate A took advantage of it, but Candidate B did not.

However, they might question the wisdom of Candidate B letting Candidate A get the upper hand when there was an opportunityfor them both to operate on a level playing field.

[Hortensis]

86. 158 OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIVE families are funding 2016.

From the L.A. Times yesterday: "But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs.
...
In marshaling their financial resources chiefly behind Republican candidates, the donors are also serving as a kind of financial check on demographic forces that have been nudging the electorate toward support for the Democratic Party and its economic policies."



"Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House. They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns."

[link:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0|

[Live and Learn]

101. You obviously are out of touch with the poeple. Go to the streets and start talking to people.

Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2015, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

I think you will be pretty damned surprised at what they do know and how pissed off they are.

[oasis]

110. Most of the people I talk to about politics

want to defeat the Republicans in 2016 and beyond. They also believe Hillary is in the best position to do that.

The enormous amount of Hillary endorsements by "people in the know" should make you think again about who is out of touch with people.

[Live and Learn]

111. I talk to people in the streets not whoever your 'people in the know' are.

And the people in the streets are not endorsing Hillary by any means. And no, their main goal is not to defeat the Republicans, it is to create a more equitable system by voting for the best candidate. In the primaries, at least, that means Bernie. In fact, we have had many people asking how they can change their registration to Democrat, just to vote for Bernie.

[oasis]

114. You certainly cover a lot of territory.

[sabrina 1]

67. And right there you have put your finger, probably inadvertently, on the number one issue to a

majority of people in this country. The corrosive, tainted, bribery of our politicians by Corporate 'cash'. People have wondered for a long time why our system of government has sunk to such a level of dysfunction, FOR THE PEOPLE, that over 60% of them didn't vote in the last mid term.

Because they now KNOW WHY. And they have begun refusing to cast votes for people who are nothing but tools of corrupt corporations. All we have to do is look at their donors, then look at their records on the issues they support.

OWS was the first sign of that awakening, which it turned out was pretty widespread.

And here you are PROMOTING that the one candidate in the race who has had the GUTS to REFUSE the bribes, needs to 'worry about getting more cash'.

Don't worry, the people are so ANGRY about this that they will make certain, as they have already, that the ONLY candidate with the guts to say 'NO, YOU CANNOT BUY ME" to these corrupt greedy corporate entities, has all that he needs to do what he has done already, against ALL ODDS, challenge their money ridden system and show them that when a good decent courageous human being stands up the people will stand with him.

If we have to get second jobs to out finance them, you can bet that people are SO ANGRY over this and SO MOTIVATED that they finally have a LEADER willing to defeate their dirty money, they will do that.

[oasis]

75. I can't say I like what's happened to our system

but it is what it is.

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change".

[zalinda]

87. Are you saying that people

should just stay home and accept things the way they are?

Z

[SammyWinstonJack]

91. Sounds like it and with god's help, no less.

[oasis]

107. If you get stuck in a traffic jam, at the time, your

only choice is to accept it. When you get home, you can write your city council and go to town hall meetings that focus on traffic conditions. Working together with city officials and community leaders, an extra lane is added. It's a gradual process.

Right now, we're stuck with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. If we play by those rules,we have an equal chance of winning. If we walk off the field in protest, we lose outright.

[pangaia]

94. Well, this CAN be changed.

If you are ready to quit, I am not.

[Autumn]

96. Here's the fault in that line. Some things can't be changed but fuck if I'm going to sit on my ass

because the

corrosive, tainted, bribery of our politicians by Corporate 'cash'

can be changed if we want it to. Just not by voting for more of the same old shit out of fear because... OMG the republicans are so bad!!!!! Nothing is easy.

I can't change a cloudy day but I sure as fuck can change who I chose to vote for.

[sabrina 1]

99. Nothing is ever 'what it is' unless WE allow to be. And WE did that. WE are just as responsible for

playing the 'red team' 'blue team' game for so long that THEY invented.

But the rumblings that people were no longer playing that game were publicly manifested by millions of people when Occupy Wall St went out on the streets to say 'Enough is enough' .

What they hated most about that movement was it was NON-PARTISAN. They tried so hard to get them to say who their 'leader' was, unable to use their stantard tactics on a movement they couldn't slap the usual labels on.

That's why they so brutally tried to destroy it po

They didn't, and now those people who made their feelings known about the corrupt system we live under are being joined by millions more because that is what it will take to end the corruption and the destruction of this democracy.

I am thrilled to see so many people awake and ready to end it, starting with the money they are buying our politicians with.

That is the first step that has to be taken.

Anyone who accepts that money is a huge part of the problem and the people are seeing that now.

I believe this is the first major election where this has been such a huge issue, and we have a candidate who has made it the central focus of his campaign.

[ChiciB1]

95. YOU SAID IT QUITE CLEARLY!

Great post ans I THANK YOU!

[rhett o rick]

98. When HRC supporters warn about the dangers from the billionaires cash, they seem to be saying

that we should relax and go with it. But it's projection when they think that voters are influenced by big money. The millions that have come out to welcome Sen Sanders into the race are doing it because they reject living under the control of big money.

The Democratic Party is the Party of the People and not of Goldman-Sachs. We must kick big money out of our Party.

[oasis]

105. "We must kick big money out of our Party"

That's fine and dandy with me. First we must get big money out of politics period so that we have a level playing field. It will have to be a gradual process. Now is not the time to start.

"Never bring a knife to a gunfight"

[rhett o rick]

108. The problem today is that attitude that we need to bring a bigger gun to the gun fight.

There is no end to that. The people have power if they get together. We need to fight big money and we can't do that if we accept big money.

There will never be a better time to fight than right now.

Gandhi would agree with, "Never bring a knife to a gunfight." But he wouldn't agree to bringing a bigger gun.

How many American children have to slide into poverty before we stand and fight for them?

[oasis]

112. I'm happy that you and many others have taken that position

and are committed to it. The road to a future society that works for everyone, depends on passionate, dedicated folks in the movement.

Hillary's campaign and Democratic Party leadership are stuck with the cards they have. A Democratic victory will be a step toward eliminating big money from elections.

[rhett o rick]

117. My hope is that if we don't win, we at least scare the crap out of the Oligarchy. nm

[L0oniX]

121. "The Democratic Party is the Party of the People". I wish it was.

[rhett o rick]

122. We have no choice but to fight to get it back. nm

[Armstead]

5. Why not state why his opinion is wrong, rather than cute little throwaways?

[oasis]

7. Most Democrats have already accepted Hillary's flaws and are

more than ready to have her as the nominee. Those who endorsed Hill had the same information in front of them, there was no need for them to sign up for Scheer's anti-Hillary refresher course.

[840high]

8. The more i learned about her - the more

I knew I could not vote for her. I did vote for her in '08.

[oasis]

13. Who's our best bet to beat the GOP . You can look at it

from that angle if you wish. There will be no messiahs coming down the pike who have the ability
to turn back the tide of the Citizens United flood of money headed for the GOP nominee.

[retrowire]

16. to hell with it, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251431753

[oasis]

28. No. "Compromise" is not a four letter word.

Today's half loaf is better than running the risk of having ultra conservatives in charge of the Supreme Court bakery for the next 25-30 years.

[retrowire]

55. it's all or nothing in my book.

fear is a four letter word though.

[green917]

106. to quote a hero of mine

"Voting for the lesser of 2 evils, is still voting for evil!" -jerry garcia

When the CEO of goldmann sachs says that he doesn't mind if the next president is Jeb bush or hillary Clinton, that tells me everything i need to know about where secretary clinton's priorities lie at least where her fiscal policy is concerned (which she has a pretty clear record on). The thing about bernie sanders that is resonating with so many of the American people (including several republican friends of mine) is the fact that you can pick any subject and watch video of Bernie talking about said subject 30 days ago and then watch video of him speaking about the same subject 30 Years ago and there is no substantive difference in his policy position (with a very few minor exceptions). Virtually the opposite can be said of secretary Clinton. She has had to evolve her positions on virtually every subject she has ever spoken about! i would rather vote for the guy who had it right the 1st time!

[portlander23]

17. Well, since you put it that way

It's hard to imagine any prominent figure that could run for the Democratic nomination who is more of a polarizing figure than Mrs. Clinton. A lot of this is certainly her relationship with the media and decades of scandals, most of which were manufactured. Within the liberal base, Mrs. Clinton is a totem for DLC third-way policies which drives the very real schism between "mainstream" or "moderates" (i.e. corporatists) and the traditional left. This is what you're seeing in this forum, and it's what caused Mrs. Clinton to lose the nomination to Barack Obama.

So, if you really want to argue who's best poised to beat the GOP, I have a hard time envisioning Mrs. Clinton as the most qualified standard bearer. I don't question your passion for her candidacy, but I don't think she will best motivate voters on the left in a general election, and her presence alone is more than enough to animate the right to vote for whomever gets the GOP nomination.

[oasis]

23. Hill is savvy enough not to shy away from

All that nasty ol' cash that her GOP rival will use against her.

[portlander23]

25. I didn't mention anything about funding

Mrs. Clinton may very well be correct that the only way to get elected to higher office is with dark money. I concede that point. In this respect, Mr. Sander's candidacy is very much an experiment.

My point is that Mrs. Clinton is a polarizing figure in American politics. What you're seeing reflected in small donor fundraising, crowds, response from liberal commentators, etc. is that the left in general is not that motivated to elect her, and whether or it's fair or not, the right wing has spent several decades turning her into a boogey man for Republican voters. They will be very motivated to defeat her.

I'm not sure how much money you'd have to throw at that to make her more appealing in a general election.

[oasis]

37. America will have a good look at Hill on Tuesday.

Those who have made up their minds to despise her, from the right, or the left, will remain unchanged.

I believe she will impress a lot of fence sitters.

[frylock]

113. Those who have made up their minds to despise her policy positions and use of poor judgment..

FIFY

[A Simple Game]

19. If Bernie beats Hillary in the primaries and proves that the voters are not being

swayed by the high priced ads or the endorsements anymore, will you still keep worshiping at the money altar?

[oasis]

22. "Money altar" no "Reality altar" yes.

[roguevalley]

49. reality is whatever we choose to tolerate. i don't choose to tolerate bullshit

that is all.

[hifiguy]

52. I stand with Adam Savage

[Live and Learn]

102. I think any of them can beat the GOP this time around. The GOP is falling down

and we don't want it replaced with GOP light.

[JDPriestly]

15. Hill??? To rhyme with Bill????

How cute!

[oasis]

21. Hill has the will, skill and knows the drill.

So take a pill and chill 'cause refusing PAC money won't pay the bill.

[JDPriestly]

34. Or better said, "refusing PAC money won't pay the Bill (or the Hill).

[erronis]

58. Knows the drill and uses Bill to shill for illicict shit for her brilliant elitists

It makes me ill to think we have to put up with yet another 4-8 years of DINO swill.

[JDPriestly]

74. Cause if you don't take PAC money, you win without paying the bill.

Cause if you don't take PAC money, people trust you.

Feel the Bern!

[MrMickeysMom]

40. These must be most of the Democrats living in a bubble...

It, however is not most Democrats.

Money does not = power, regardless of the Stepford Wives hypnotic, very practiced talking points about all the money.

This is all falling away, right along with the awakening of where we are in terms of

*Our future ability to have sustainable living conditions on earth
*Crumbling memes originated by the strong-armed patriarchic control over women's bodies
*Wallet extractions of the middle class to Wall Street Banks
*What is left in terms of job growth and starvation wages that cause Americans too much pain
*Lost opportunities to re-build infrastructure and loss of sustainable infrastructure for energy development

You know what most people and in particular progressive Democrats say about all of that?

Enough is Enough

[oasis]

42. I should've put an emphasis on "congressional" endorsements.

They may know a thing or two about who is in the best position to get it done.

[MrMickeysMom]

43. How so?

Are they inclined to ask "How high?" when the Billionaires and Millionaires say, "Jump"?

[oasis]

44. They DO know a winner when they see one.

A defeated candidate can't accomplish much, no matter how respected he is for pooh poohing cash.

[MrMickeysMom]

45. Who is "they" ?

I thought you would have an answer, but I guess there is nobody home on that one.

[roguevalley]

50. it looks nice on paper, the congressional endorsements but these are the

9-10%'ers, the shit heels from each state that no one can tolerate. NO ONE that my goons would endorse would get my vote. But hey, the election will tell the tale.

[oasis]

61. Lumping Dem and GOP congress folk together is easy for some.

I don't see why disgruntled DUers haven't crowed about writing Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis letters of disapproval.

[portlander23]

62. I do have a bone to pick with Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi: Bush Impeachment `Off the Table’

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus.

“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.

[oasis]

63. A failed effort in a long, drawn out process would leave Dems

with egg on their faces just before the 2008 presidential elections.

Bush, Cheney and the other lying pieces of shit will live out the rest of their lives within their closed circle. A bunch of liars, meeting from time to time, reassuring each other they did the right thing is is punishment enough.

Meanwhile, I'll wait for the unauthorized book.

[oasis]

60. "They" would be Hillary's congressional endorsers which

I previously mentioned in a least two posts. I'll give you the post numbers if you think it it would be helpful.

[MrMickeysMom]

64. And, so who are they?

I'm sure that explains everything.

[oasis]

68. I'm certainly not going to list every one of

them for you. If you'd really like to know, the list is pinned a the top of the Hillary Group right here in your own back yard at DU.

[MrMickeysMom]

69. ... or any of them, and after all of that...

What drum are they all marching to?

[oasis]

72. "They" support Hillary because she

represents to them the candidate from the Democratic Party with the best chance to win the White House. Doesn't matter how each came to that conclusion. You can run your own profile of them. Collectively "they" know more about electability than anyone at DU.

In closing, they did not pick a candidate from the other available Dem choices, because.....wait for it.....they don't believe any of the others can win.

[MrMickeysMom]

85. Your response means that your ability to vote doesn't matter...

The Kool Aide has had it's effect with that response.

What the hell.... It doesn't matter why they think she's the best, right?

Well,then, why don't we just have a vote for the nominee of the party to the executive by having THEM vote?

Holy Fucking Shit.

[bvar22]

46. YES!!!

The LESS people know about Hillary, the more likely they are to vote for her.
Time to just "accept all her flaws", ignore the better candidate,
and just shut up and eat what the Billionaires and their mouthpieces in Washington put in front of us.

There is certainly no more that needs to be know about Hillary or any of the other candidates.......so STOP THAT!.
STOP looking for facts!!!!

[upaloopa]

57. "harken back to the Goldwater Girl days"

she was a kid in high school with no experience in politics. She took President Johnson's position in a debate and became a Democrat.

That sums up the propaganda worthless piece of shit writing this is.

This article is a way to carry water for the rupugs.

[senz]

65. Clearly Scheer is a person of principles and integrity.

Why would you glory in his disappointment at the possible triumph of an unprincipled person seeking only money and power? Why would that make you so happy? Have you no values of your own?

Scheer would most likely throw his support behind progressive candidates for the House and Senate who might serve to check some of Hillary's bad moves.

[Lunabell]

77. Don't you mean "if"?

she is the nominee?

[oasis]

79. There's always the possibility of a giant asteroid hitting Earth.

Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope that doesn't happen.

[dougolat]

109. Your faith in 'Funds always beating Fundamentals' may be misplaced

The uphill battle against endemic corruption outweighs an upHill battle for a kinder, gentler corporate crony, any day.
Both the voters who normally hold their nose and vote for the lesser of evils and those who vote third party or dismiss the whole crooked business can add up to a landslide, as indeed they must, to overcome the crooked voting manipulations.
(and assuming the Rs can salvage SOMEONE from that embarrassing clown car)

[LiberalArkie]

97. He would probably do like the rest of us if it comes to that, hold his nose then run outside

and throw up. And then wait for the 2024 election with Chelsea as candidate with the further backing of Wall Street.

[99th_Monkey]

3. Big K&R -nt-

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. I voted for Jill Stein and may do so again.

[TBF]

84. If Bernie is not on the ballot in Texas

I will look for Jill. I know folks in Austin will make an effort but it is always slim pickings down here when it comes to candidates that would actually help people.

[OldRedneck]

9. Who is Robert Scheer . . . .

. . . and what makes his opinion more important than mine, or anyone else's??

[portlander23]

11. FWIW

http://www.truthdig.com/staff/robert_scheer

Robert Scheer is a very well respected journalist and author, chief editor of truthdig, and the "left" component of KCRW's Left, Right, and Center program. He's extremely well known in general, and certainly amongst liberals tuned in to politics.

He's also written a book that's one of the best accounts of the recent financial crisis. This is his bio from Amazon:

Robert Scheer has built a reputation for strong social and political writing over his 30 years as a journalist. His columns appear in newspapers across the country, and his in-depth interviews have made headlines. He conducted the famous Playboy magazine interview in which Jimmy Carter confessed to the lust in his heart and he went on to do many interviews for the Los Angeles Times with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and many other prominent political and cultural figures.

Between 1964 and 1969 he was Vietnam correspondent, managing editor and editor in chief of Ramparts magazine. From 1976 to 1993 he served as a national correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, writing on diverse topics such as the Soviet Union, arms control, national politics and the military. In 1993 he launched a nationally syndicated column based at the Los Angeles Times, where he was named a contributing editor. That column ran weekly for the next 12 years and is now based at Truthdig.com.

Scheer can be heard on the weekly radio program "Left, Right and Center" on KCRW, the National Public Radio affiliate in Santa Monica, Calif. He is currently a clinical professor of communication at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Scheer has written ten books, including "Thinking Tuna Fish, Talking Death: Essays on the Pornography of Power"; "With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War"; "America After Nixon: The Age of Multinationals"; "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us about Iraq" (with Christopher Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry); "Playing President: My Close Encounters with Nixon, Carter, Bush I and Clinton--and How They Did Not Prepare Me for George W. Bush"; "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America"; "The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street"; "How the United States Got Involved in Vietnam"; and "Cuba: An American Tragedy". Scheer's latest book is "They Know Everything About You: How Data Collecting Corporations and Snooping Government Agencies are Destroying Democracy" (Nation Books, February 2015).

Scheer was raised in the Bronx, where he attended public schools and graduated from City College of New York. He was Maxwell Fellow at Syracuse University and a fellow at the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, where he did graduate work in economics. Scheer is a contributing editor for The Nation as well as a Nation Fellow. He has also been a Poynter Fellow at Yale and was fellow in Stanford's arms control and disarmament program.

That said, it's just an opinion.

[hifiguy]

32. Scheer has been a genuine journalistic heavyweight

as long as I can remember.

[roguevalley]

51. until someone's ass burns, then they become satan. Its really amazing

around here sometimes.

[bvar22]

47. You know,

Sheer's long and distinguished career as a syndicated investigative journalist is well documented on the internet.
I have immense respect for him.
You should study up.
If you Work for a Living, Scheer is your friend.

I believe 20+(30+?) years in the trenches plus international travel and exposure does, in fact,
make Scheer's opinion more valuable than yours.

[Demeter]

10. Voting for Hillary Simply Because She's Female Isn't Just Sexist

it's self-defeating. We do not need another Third Way, corporatist-kissing Miserable Failure in the White House. We've had too many of those since Carter was denied a second term by the Reagan Revolution.

[Maineman]

12. I agree. If I were going to become a single issue voter, the issue would not be gender!

[A Simple Game]

24. I think many Hillary supporters on DU are doing just that. Many seem to be just

minority shopping for President. Look how many, I know of at least two, who were against Hillary in the last election when there was another minority option but are now for her when there is no other minority running as a Democrat.

Should we mention that there has never been a Jewish President?

I'm all for a minority President but not if they aren't also the best candidate. The job is too important.

[portlander23]

33. In all fairness

I don't think you can lump Mrs. Clinton's supporters, especially ones in this message board who are fairly tuned in to politics, as voting for her simply for her gender. I think the truth of the matter is that there are centrists/corporatists within the Democratic Party and Mrs. Clinton represents that political view point.

The Democratic Party is a spectrum. There are members who don't want single payer health care, reinstating Glass Steagall, etc. And these are not the only positions to have. Some people legitimately believe in neoliberal trade and economics, though we can all most likely agree on traditionally liberal social issues.

I believe Mr. Scheer's point is that if you're going to embrace Mrs. Clinton as a candidate, embrace her actual record and what she's likely to do if elected. With Mrs. Clinton, that's going to mean doing very little to reign in Wall Street and an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy.

[A Simple Game]

39. I certainly know not all are using gender as the only criteria, or even considering it,

to make their decision. But I have no doubts that some are.

[NonMetro]

88. I Think That Is Exactly Right!

People support HRC because they endorse her record and her policies - all of it.

[L0oniX]

120. Only idiots vote based on solely on gender ...or race.

[Thespian2]

18. Of Course!!!

[uponit7771]

20. Only after we forget about Sanders record first. The "my candidate can throw a stone"...

... bullshit is tiring at best and sounds like FUD

[portlander23]

38. I read this earlier

I wasn't sure what to make of it. Is this a pro-Jim Webb opinion piece? I think it's a fair criticism of Mr. Sanders that he hasn't fleshed out a foreign policy yet. So far he's hanging his hat on his astute Iraq War vote. We'll have to see what he rolls out as the campaign proceeds.

[bvar22]

53. Do you know what "Defunding the War"

actually involves.

Would you punish the Pawns for the Kings Greed?

*Would you vote to stop soldier's pay?

*Would you vote for not upgrading or repairing damaged equipment in a War Zone?

*Would you vote to stop the funding for sending new equipment to our soldiers in Harm's Way?

*Would you with hold pay from the thousands (millions?) involved in the support for our soldiers from here at home? (from uniforms, to care packages, to medicines, to tanks and war planes.
Many small towns depend on the income.


The last time around, we found out exactly what "defunding the war"
actually meant, and I was not surprised that these bills to fund the war pass with near 100% approval.

[Armstead]

82. I think that guy is misrepresenting and exagerating Sander's positions

Sanders is not a total pacifist or total isolationist -- but on the spectrum, he is much more ratonal and even handed and against military adventurism than he is characterized in that overblown missive.

[LuvLoogie]

26. Keep posting. I am almost convinced that you don't like Hillary.

This non-thinking, non-person, however, is still voting for Hillary. Maybe a thousand more DU posts about how awful she is will help you to validate your choice.

[portlander23]

41. So

I don't think Mrs. Clinton is awful and I do think there is a lot of irrational Hillary-Hate out there. I posted this earlier as I think it's somewhat apt.

My primary concerns are the high probability of more bank failures, the disastrous effects of thirty years of supply-side economics and free trade policies, and impeding environmental disaster. Whoever is going to be elected to the presidency will likely be the Democratic or Republican candidate, and since Republicans do not care about these issues, it's important that whoever wins the Democratic nomination cares about these things and has a genuine drive to address them.

Mr. Scheer has been perhaps the best reporter on the causes of and response to the 2007-2008 financial meltdown, and while his criticism of Mrs. Clinton is blunt and a bit harsh, I don't think he's incorrect. I am very concerned that if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination that very little will change on these fronts, so yes, I'm going to keep posting about it. Having someone win the Democratic primary who will champion these issues is the most important political fight in 2016, because if the primary is lost, these issues will all go unaddressed.

[hifiguy]

29. The money paragraph:

"Just admit that you will be voting for someone to be president of the world's most powerful nation who has not only been profoundly wrong on the two most pressing issues of our time--economic injustice and the ravages of unbridled militarism--but, what is more significant, seems hopelessly incapable of learning from her dangerous errors in judgment."

Boom. Game over. Drop mic.

for Bernie!!!

[tularetom]

30. LOL the heading says 25 replies - I can only see 9 of them

I've put so many people on ignore I rarely see that doofy looking logo anymore.

[hifiguy]

35. I don't put the Kool-Aid drinking Hillionaires on ignore.

I can always use the laffs.

[840high]

59. I will never hold my nose again or

vote for the lesser of two evils. Have done it too often. No more.

[RiverLover]

83. Kick!!

& REC

[jalan48]

90. Hillary will just be another "New Democrat" in a long line of New Democrats.

I think that was one of the unintended benefits of Reagan's trickle down policies. The .1% got obscenely wealthy and the Democratic Party was able to become the 80's Republican Party.

[AzDar]

92. K & R

[ChiciB1]

93. Thanx For ALL This Fanastic Information!

Wlll need to check it all out later though. Work awaits!

[FairWinds]

103. If the "Hill" backers central argument for supporting her is that . .

she can raise lots of ONE PERCENT MONEY . .

both she and those backers are going down to a crushing defeat, and deservedly so.

Such an argument will persuade almost no one.

[oasis]

115. Not looking to convert anyone on these threads.

I only raised the money issue as a response to those who criticize Hillary for accepting PAC money.

If you have read through the posts, you'd know how many times "Citizens United" came up and the impact it will have on the 2016 elections.

If you really are interested in Hillary's accomplishments they are listed for easy viewing in the DU Hillary Group.

[senz]

104. Probably the best, most necessary thread on DU at this time. Worth bookmarking!

Robert Scheer says what needs to be said, and portlander23, the links are also excellent.

We need to bookmark and save this thread b/c we'll need it as the Primaries proceed.

Thanks, portlander!

[raouldukelives]

119. K&R nt