When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

C'mon, Lash - Bob Livingstone? You're citing some ultra-conservative whack-job purveyor of "secret investment and health strategies" as creditble anti-Hillary intel? You may as well cite Stormfront or Aryan Nation for good info about Obama.
Jeez.

Ok. I've been bringing a wide variety of what I find - a few questionable sources have gotten through. I'll be more careful.

It's a little disconcerting - the effort you're putting into any and everything that might smear Clinton.

Hey, snood, Glad you brought light on Lash's posts. Those of us that doesn't know any better buy that stuff, lock stock and barrel.

She is a bum deal without using questionable sources. 8 years ago I would have voted for her. But it's like buying a manufactured product that they have to lie in advertising to get her elected. No thank you.

She's a perfectly good candidate as far as I can see, the people attacking her seem to be Fruit Loops mostly. I don't mean the people who prefer to vote for someone else, that's their choice. I mean the plethora of Hillary haters who seem to have intermixed the very core of their being with anti-Hillary vituperation.

Name calling will get you nowhere. Here is a post from PDiddie's blog:

Thursday, December 24, 2015
People are starting to get it
Thanks to Gadfly, via Twitter... this.

If Hillary Clinton ends up winning the Democratic nomination for president, some Bernie Sanders supporters will vote for her anyway. I can respect that decision. While the differences between Democrats and Republicans are often overstated -- to give just two examples (there are many), the same people advise Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz on foreign policy and Hillary Clinton is at least as cozy with Wall Street as most Republicans -- there are some real and important reasons to worry about a Republican White House. The Supreme Court and heads of agencies are, in my view, the biggest concerns in this vein. I'd have low hopes for Hillary Clinton's appointees but no doubts that they'd be better on balance than those offered by a Trump, Cruz, or Rubio.

Yet I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. While I understand the lesser-of-two-evils mentality, I disagree with it; most of Clinton's policy positions are unacceptable to me. If Sanders loses the primary, I will probably vote for Jill Stein.

I don't know if Ben Spielberg of 34justice reads the same things I read or came to the conclusions I did months ago by reading Brains, but it's not all that big a stretch if you value actual progressivism and do some thinking.

Wouldn't that be a strategic blunder, some friends and family ask me? Democrats who aren't quite as polite ask if I'm an idiot. Don't I realize that this type of thinking led to George W. Bush becoming president in 2000 and that I may similarly "blow this election" by deciding to vote my conscience?

The premise of these questions, however, is completely wrong, and not just because, as Jim Hightower documented at the time, voting records show that "Gore was the problem, not Nader," in the 2000 election. In fact, refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election is both a principled and strategic decision that I encourage more people to embrace.

There are two possibilities when it comes to my vote: it will either impact the outcome of the election or it won't. If my vote won't impact the outcome of the election, I might as well vote for the candidate with the best policy positions, regardless of his or her supposed electability.

If my vote will impact the outcome of the election, I may have to decide which matters more: (a) the differences between a bad Democrat and worse Republican over the next four years or (b) the degree to which I'd undermine our chances to enact fundamental change to a broken political system in the long-run by pursuing a lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy.

I'm going to do the linear, bipolar Democrats a favor here by making their argument -- the one they need to make to non-voters, not to people like me and Spielberg.

"Not a dime's worth of difference." "Don't vote; it only encourages the bastards." (I have a Facebook friend -- a former Democratic precinct chair, then a former Green, now a voting atheist who uses that second phrase s good bit. THE most argumentative person, in the harshest of various ways, I have ever encountered. And that's quite definitive, but it's also a digression.)

Back on point.

... (T)he type of political "pragmatism" that would lead someone to choose (a) undermines power-balancing policy goals. Because politicians and Democratic party officials know that many voters think this way, they have little incentive to listen to our concerns. Instead, they can pay lip service to progressive values while crafting a policy agenda and decision-making process more responsive to wealthy donors than to their constituents.

That dynamic is on full display already in the 2016 Democratic primary election. Clinton is campaigning against priorities, like single-payer health care, that Democrats are supposed to embrace. While early union endorsements for Clinton initially improved her rhetoric on education issues to some degree, she is already backtracking to assure corporate donors that her positions are unchanged. The unions who endorsed Clinton early have no negotiating power relative to rich donors who make their support contingent on Clinton pursuing their interests; given that fact and her record, she seems unlikely to keep her promises if elected.

The Democratic National Committee's actions are also illustrative. The party establishment lined up behind Clinton before the race even started, and the DNC's debate schedule is, despite their protestations to the contrary, quite obviously constructed to insulate Clinton from challenge. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz's recent decision to suspend Sanders' campaign's access to its voter data (in response to a data breach by a since-fired Sanders staffer; the access was restored after the Sanders campaign sued the DNC) has caused even party loyalists to believe that the DNC "is putting [its] finger on [the] scale" and pro-Clinton journalists to acknowledge that the DNC's behavior "makes Clinton's lead look illegitimate, or at least, invites too many 'what ifs.'"

What is developing for 2016 -- and I thought it was obvious before I wrote yesterday's post -- is that the 'status quo' candidate(s) are going to be, indeed already are, at a strategic disadvantage.

Both Clinton and party leaders are making a mockery of many of the principles the party is supposed to stand for. And pledging to support Clinton in the end -- no matter what she and the DNC do -- enables this kind of behavior. It's hard for me to see how we will ever fix our political process and reclaim our democracy by refusing to draw some lines in the sand.

I could accuse those who disagree with that assessment of propping up a sham political system. I could say that, by downplaying the unfounded smears the Clinton campaign has spread against Sanders and insisting that we must support Clinton in the general if she wins the nomination, they are destroying the Democrats' credibility and thus helping to ensure ever more privilege-defending and corrupt elected officials and government policy. But it would be a lot fairer of me to acknowledge that a lot of the Republicans are really scary, that my strategy isn't guaranteed to work the way I think it will, and that people evaluate the risks differently than I do.

That last sentence is the kindest acknowledgment that can be extended to the Clinton folks. Spielberg is about to make up for it, though. Bold emphasis is mine.

Similarly, those who disagree can continue to accuse people like me of "helping the GOP" in the 2016 election by pointing out that the Democrats have extreme flaws and don't always deserve our support. But it would be a lot fairer of them to acknowledge that millions upon millions of people have suffered at the hands of lesser-of-two-evils candidates over the years, that an open commitment to support a lesser-of-two-evils candidate robs voters of bargaining power, and that the Democratic Party has brought voter discontent upon itself.

Bottom line: if Hillary Clinton loses to Donald Trump, it won't be anybody's fault but HERS. I had to defriend someone on Facebook just yesterday who couldn't understand this, kept typing "Trump/GOP thanks you for your support," etc. and so on. There's no time to waste with horses' asses, led to water, who refuse to drink. Too many people outside the current electorate that need persuading to forfeit effort teaching swine to yodel.

Here is another olive branch.

Hopefully Sanders will win the Democratic primary and this discussion will become a moot point. In the meantime, it's good for those of us who believe in social justice to push each other on our tactics. We would just do well to remember that reasonable people with the same goals can disagree about which electoral strategy is most likely to help us achieve them.

Clinton people can do their thing, Sanders' people can do theirs, at least until he is disqualified. It makes more sense than to continue antagonizing each other on social media, no? I don't think not voting sends the right message -- somewhere around 75% of Americans already do that, and I don't get that the powers that be are listening. I also don't think writing in Sanders' name in November is a good way to go, but at least it's a protest vote and not a protest non-vote.

An alternative to vote in favor of, and not against some objectionable candidate or party -- outside the 'left-right, left-right' -- that matches up best with one's progressive populist principles. I also think that the movement -- a political revolution, thanks Bernie -- makes the strongest statement when it advocates for a living wage.

Bernie Sanders has many of the right economic ideas, but he's also still too beholden to the military industrial complex as well as an abbreviated version of the Second Amendment (truncating the "well-regulated militia" part, like the NRA and all of its adherents do). And I simply don't think that his social justice message is going to reach enough minorities to help him get to the lead, and even if he got a sudden groundswell of support that pushed him to the front after winning Iowa and New Hampshire, that the DNC establishment would allow him to claim the nomination.

So the question remains: cast no vote, cast a symbolic protest vote, or cast a vote that really sends the loudest message to the DNC. The choice has always been, and will continue to be, yours.

I would actually love to be convinced that using my vote for the Green Party or to write in Bernie would be a better idea than voting for Hillary if she's nominated. I really would. I just haven't heard anything that makes that make sense. I keep trying to envision the country and my life in the days after a Trump or Rubio or Cruz or Bush win. I keep trying to imagine that my conviction to create a more pure liberal party would carry me through those days, and that I would be able to get through the following days by focusing efforts on the midterm elections in two years. But what keeps breaking through that reverie are graphic visions of busy right-wing lobbyists running about, trying to trash hard-won legislation, the immediate escalation of tough rhetoric from the oval office and military presence in sensitive areas - the beating of war drums.

I keep trying to understand how it is that my Democratic friends believe that this horrible scenario is preferable to four or eight years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. I'm well aware of all her baggage - the insecure feeling she gives me because of the coziness with big money - the uneasiness in my gut because she, like Bill has always seemed at least as enamored with power as they are with justice - even her grievous mistakes in voting for Iraq war and his in promoting oppressive mandatory minimum sentencing and unjust law enforcement. But I am also aware of the positives she will bring - with all the talk about her negatives, it is glossed over that she has supported most of the progressive agenda for most of her career. And I am just not convinced like my fiery Democratic friends seem to be - that "anything but Hillary" is a healthier choice than Hillary is.

I would really like to be convinced, because they seem so sure. They must know something that makes 4 or 8 years of Trump or Cruz or Rubio or Bush clearly preferable to 4 or 8 years of Hillary Clinton. I just haven't seen it.

Oh sure, come up with a well-reasoned, thoughtful response to a bash-Clinton thread. Fie on thee!

By the way, the OP has become ironically humorous in light of The Donald's oral diarrhea.

People characterize Bernie's ideas as radical, when the main thrust is intended to put us similar to the America of Roosevelt's New Deal, when we became the richest, most powerful nation in history. Democrats like Hillary only put up token resistance to the obliteration of the safety net. She is in the pocket of the corporate world that robs the nation blind. She has already made it clear that perpetual war is what we can expect. I prefer to vote Jill Stein if Hillary gets nominated. It is not a retaliatory striking out because my guy didn't get nominated. It is a statement that our votes cannot be taken for granted, when nothing moves for us when we do vote for Hillarys and Bills and Baraks. Only Charlie Brown continues to kick at the football, as far as I am concerned.

I hope your statement leaves you with a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction after the Republicans take office. It's likely that it will be all you have to show for it.

It's likely the Democrats will stop playing the base for suckers.

What does that mean, edgar? How does that translate to real actions? What's going to actually happen in real life that means we're not being "played for suckers"?

It means taking the common person's side for a change, more than anything else. I don't have more time to play with you, just now, snood. It saps my writing energy from other projects. I can't let myself be perpetually in a dither over a web forum.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jul/21/obama-will-be-remembered-history-great-accomplishm/

from the middle of the piece



I have particular difficulty seeing how anyone central or left-of-centre does not appreciate what America has gained with Obamacare so far. He may not have moved America into the 20th century with this, but he has bumped it forward at least 30 years on the health coverage side.

Right now, the Democrat base, insofar as it consists of people willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, is playing itself for suckers.

In Texas, the nonsense of not voting or voting Green hardly matters. Democrats who want to do shallow thinking can do it there...and no real danger presents itself. But in other places, it WILL be throwing out the baby with the bathwater...the kind of thing no truly intelligent person does.

Whatever, edgar. I can't imagine you've used that much energy here, though. Because you haven't said one substantial thing. Just a bunch of obscure dreamy crap about how you're going to change things in ways you can't explain.

Thanks, ehBeth. That helps a little with my frustration with otherwise sensible people like edgar who seem to be determined to throw the baby out with the bath water for some weird undefinable heroic end.

"The Green Lantern theory of the presidency

...During the Bush years, Yglesias coined the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics* to mock conservatives who believed that "[t]he only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower" in foreign policy. What he identifies here is nothing less than a Green Lantern theory of the presidency in which all domestic policy compromises are attributed to a lack of presidential will."
http://bit.ly/1PpxsuF

Bernie Sanders' voice (not to mention Elizabeth Warren's voice) are more than welcome in our present discourse. Left wing populist notions and values have been too quiet or too absent for too long, I think. Any such voices that help move Dems back to the left are necessary, as counter-point to America's decades-long drive to the right and as reminder that the dynamic forces of great wealth, privilege and power, unchecked, will leave the vast majority of citizens relatively powerless.

But presuming that Bernie or Elizabeth will get great things done immediately whereas Obama's incrementalism will not or cannot (because his intentions are morally or strategically compromised) is as not much less delusional than Trump or Cruz followers imagining those men, in the WH, can return the US and the world to their dream-world conceptions of the 1950s.