Edwards Doesn't Promise To Support Hillary As The Nominee
John Edwards' campaign against Hillary Clinton is definitely getting nasty. During an Iowa campaign stop, the New York Times reports that Edwards declined to answer whether he would support Hillary if she were the nominee. "I'm not willing to talk about that at this point," Edwards said, then waiting for the next question.
The other Democratic candidates have pledged to support the eventual nominee, and only Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul have refused to make a similar promise on the Republican side.
Late Update: Edwards has responded further, saying that "I fully expect" to support the nominee.
Comments (161)
colonpowwow wrote on November 13, 2007 9:35 AM:Edwards Doesn't Promise To Support Hillary As The Nominee
Says he's going to place his millstone around someone else's neck.
Sounds about right to me, especially if the nominee is Hillary.
Will wrote on November 13, 2007 9:45 AM:"Definitely getting nasty"? Nice frame job there, Eric. Gimme a break.
"I'm not willing to talk about that at this point," Edwards said, then waiting for the next question.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to give in the heat of a hotly-contested campaign. After all, one of the things Edwards is fighting against is Hillary's "inevitable" meme; why feed into it or even acknowledge by answering this question?
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 9:48 AM:I'm with John Edwards. If Hillary is the DEM nominee, I'm sitting out the election.
nogo war wrote on November 13, 2007 9:49 AM:He refused to answer a stupid question, If he believes he will be the nominee
bm wrote on November 13, 2007 9:51 AM:Agree with John Edwards
Never would I vote for Hillary
Those who say they will sit out the election if Hillary is the nominee are the same idiots who voted for Nader the last time saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Give me a break. Don't buy into the right wing hype about Hillary or we'll end up with Rudy as president.
And I say that as an Obama supporter.
J.R. "BoB" Dobbs wrote on November 13, 2007 9:54 AM:I'm with Will on this one. The Clinton inevitability meme is awful and mocks the primary process. It's too much theater, too little substance.
Plus, I'll probably vote for someone other than Clinton if she secures the nomination. I'm tired of being anti-war and thrown under the bus by the likes of her and other so-called liberal hawks...
colonpowwow wrote on November 13, 2007 9:56 AM:Exactly right, Teresa.
But you have to forgive the bitter over-reaction of the progressiver-than-thou Edwards supporters as their do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do $400-haircut populist candidate prepares to limp back to his 28,000 square foot gated estate after the thrashing he's about to receive.
Obama in 2016!
Gee wrote on November 13, 2007 9:56 AM:This has Joe Trippi written all over it. It's a perfectly easy question to duck.
DTM wrote on November 13, 2007 9:57 AM:It seems to me the first question a neutral reporter would ask is whether Edwards has promised to support anyone else besides Clinton.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 9:58 AM:Teresa wrote on November 13, 2007 9:52 AM:Those who say they will sit out the election if Hillary is the nominee are the same idiots who voted for Nader the last time saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Give me a break. Don't buy into the right wing hype about Hillary or we'll end up with Rudy as president.
And I say that as an Obama supporter.
No, Teresa you would be wrong. I've never voted for Ralph Nader in my life. I've supported DEMs for my entire voting life.
But this time, if Hillary is the nominee, I sit it out.
No way, no how I cast another vote for a Clinton.
Gee wrote on November 13, 2007 9:58 AM:I withdraw my previous comment -- didn't look closely enough at the original item. Obviously, Edwards did duck it. I don't think there's much significance to that.
Hestal wrote on November 13, 2007 9:58 AM:Edwards, always the careful thinker, realized that he could be accused of being "nasty" if he did not say he would support Hillary, but he also realized that he must destroy the "inevitable meme" that she (Hillary, again) has so masterfully, (mistressfully?) built.
So he thought and thought about what to do. Then, from deep within his heart and soul, and his Southern Baptist upbringing, he realized that he simply could not acknowledge that a woman could actually occupy a superior position to his own. He had to give a coded message to his supporters in the South that he was a man, a southern man, a Southern Baptist man, and he would never knuckle under to a woman.
This coded message, coupled with his equally coded message that he is for the states deciding the gay marriage issue (state's rights a la Reagan), because his Southern Baptist upbringing would not let him support gay marriage.
Now this is masterful. He at once lets the homophobes know that he is not riding on the gay bandwagon, and he gives his apologists the "states rights, civil union" argument to defend his religiosity.
He is a very deep thinker, indeed.
Re: "Those who say they will sit out the election if Hillary is the nominee are the same idiots who voted for Nader the last time saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush."
WRONG. I supported and campaigned hard for Gore in 2000, but if Hillary is the Dem nominee I may very well not vote for President in 2008 as I didn't in 1988.
The ONLY thing that may get me to pull the lever for Hillary is the Supreme Court; but if I do I will hold my nose when I do... imagine 4-8 more years of Hedge Fund managers paying 15% income tax rates, 4-8 more years of drug & insurance companies screwing over our health care system, etc etc etc
tfatha wrote on November 13, 2007 10:06 AM:So, by refusing to even entertain the frame of the question (which allows all of our minds to drift to Hillary being the nominee), Edwards is slammed with the frame that he is not a team player. This is the guy running against the system. We should expect the system to also run against him.
poetry wrote on November 13, 2007 10:10 AM:That is DISGRACEFUL of Edwards.
Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 10:11 AM:It is absolutely insulting to think that if Hillary is not the candidate that you would sit out rather than vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is... WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST 8 YEARS? I just don't get it. We the Democrats NEED EVERY SINGLE VOTE. Honestly.
joe subscriber wrote on November 13, 2007 10:11 AM:Should have voted for Nader that last two times. Would have sent a message to the Pelosi and Reid types that they won't have my vote just because they're not Republicans. Two party system with each supporting the other. The war in Iraq and the stripping away of our liberties in the USofA have occurred because of the collusion of the Democrats, especially the Clintons. Better to vote for Nader than to continue this two party farce, my friend.
wes2 wrote on November 13, 2007 10:12 AM:Edwards grouchy with the NYTimes? I can't even begin to imagine why...
brian wrote on November 13, 2007 10:13 AM:Whenever it comes to coverage of Hillary, or attacks on Hillary, TPM comes dangerously close to following the "mainstream media" silliness. This was a stupid question designed to make a candidate feel uncomfortable. Edwards was right to dismiss it. Coverage of this type of question is nearly as silly as coverage of all the horse race markers without in depth coverage of the issues that matter. A better question, or at lease one that deserves coverage by TPM, is whether or not Edwards will continue to push the poverty issues if he loses. He will probably not answer since he does not want to look like he is preparing to lose, but it would be a question worth coverage. I could only imagine the TPM coverage if Edwards had answered the Hillary question. "Edwards Concedes Defeat, Supports Hillary" Gimme a break.
Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 10:14 AM:Another pathetic move by edwards. All dems should support whoever the nominee is.
If its clinton II, I will hold my nose and support her. Hopefully congress will force her to do things as congress probably will be controlled by the dems; however, the senate will still be grid locked, which means probably eight more years of stagnation. We need change and it appears more and more like its going to be obama or stagnation at this point.
Edwards should pack up his playset and go home. All he is doing is taking votes from obama and helping clinton II get the nomination. He can't even carry his home state and it looks like he is losing in iowa, his other home state for the last 4 years. Pack it up buddy and move on.
eric wrote on November 13, 2007 10:15 AM:Of course he'd support her. He is just avoiding the question.
pmorlan wrote on November 13, 2007 10:15 AM:tfatha wrote on November 13, 2007 10:06 AM:
So, by refusing to even entertain the frame of the question (which allows all of our minds to drift to Hillary being the nominee), Edwards is slammed with the frame that he is not a team player. This is the guy running against the system. We should expect the system to also run against him.
The system is certainly running against him and has since day 1. Why else would Edwards be the only candidate in the three way tie in Iowa to get such little coverage. And when they do cover him they nail him.
I only wish that some courageous reporter would tell the real story behind this campaign. Tell about all the entrenched interests who are lined up against him in this campaign. Chuck Todd at MSNBC almost covered it when he let slip about all the politicos who hate Edwards. But he won't name names.
RU Shur wrote on November 13, 2007 10:15 AM:Seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to give in the heat of a hotly-contested campaign.
A perfectly reasonable answer would look like "I am a Democrat, and I would support the Democratic nominee -- I intend it to be me."
John McCutchen wrote on November 13, 2007 10:18 AM:"Perfectly reasonable" and "completly truthful" not same.
That's the problem that Hillary poses for lots of Democrats including this one who has supported every nominee since 1968
Joe Buck wrote on November 13, 2007 10:19 AM:This is stupid. Edwards was not saying that he was unwilling to back Hillary if she won. Rather, he is (properly) refusing to talk about the hypothetical situation that she wins. He's in a political race, and he's in it to win. It's unwise for a politician to concede the possibility of defeat at this point.
He didn't say he wouldn't support her, he just said it was too early to talk about it. There is still a primary going on. Maybe TPM thinks it is over.
MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 10:20 AM:Three reasons to support whoever the Democratic nominee might be:
1. John Paul Stevens, age 87
2. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 74 and not well
3. The current court's decisions limiting Brown (school desegregation) and overturning the "rule of reason", a 96 year-old precedent that was one of the basic restraints applied to big business by the anti-trust laws.
This is a terrible statement by Edwards. The only good answer is "of course I will support the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, the alternative is four more years of our current disastrous policies."
Does anyone honestly doubt that Hillary would have answered this question without pause if it were reversed (I mean, aside from the inexplicable Hillary haters out there)?
Michael Lafferty wrote on November 13, 2007 10:21 AM:Great. Then if you need every single vote, get off your ass and work for ANYONE but Senator Clinton to get the nomination.
Trust me, as a life-long progressive Democrat, when I say this: if Senator Clinton is the nominee exiting the convention, this party will nose steeply down into the ground and LOSE the general election. And, if progressive democrats can easily find company in opposing her nomination—or corination, as it were—then imagine what independents and Republicans can do!
The candidacy of Senator Clinton is political suicide. I held my nose and worked the streets for John Kerry because I understood the consequences of not doing so, and I've never sat out an election before. Ever. But, I swear, I will likely sit out this one is she is chosen. Don't say you haven't been warned of the consequences of her selection…
Good for Senator Edwards not giving her yet another free pass.
Unka Willbur wrote on November 13, 2007 10:22 AM:I'm about as anti-Hillary as you can get, but I do have this to say to those who claim they will not vote if Mrs. Clinton is the cadidate:
I hope you enjoy your luxurious suite at Rudy's "Homeland Security Camps", after the election. You're there for your own protection after all.
Partial snark, certainly. But in an election where the likely choices are between a corporate-owned political hack and a fascist, it's downright irresponsible to sit out the election. An election which, if Mr. Guliani or one of his ilk is "elected" might well be the last election Americans will participate in.
"WRONG. I supported and campaigned hard for Gore in 2000, but if Hillary is the Dem nominee I may very well not vote for President in 2008 as I didn't in 1988."
You didn't vote for Dukakis? Was it Willie Horton?
budfox wrote on November 13, 2007 10:23 AM:"Getting nasty" ?
Nothing nasty there, he just didn't want to answer the question at this time.
I am sure all the Dem candidates(minus Gravel) will support the nominee.
Many people, including myself and apparently Edwards, are sick and tired of the Clinton inevitability meme being shoved down our throats.
james wrote on November 13, 2007 10:23 AM:I'm sort of with Theresa on this one. I do think there were only minute differences with Gore and Bush in terms of positions, although I do think their administrations would have ultimately turned out differently thanks to 9/11.
I still voted for Gore, and I'm voting for the nominee. While I understand that Edwards is in a battle right now, I wonder what will happen in February if he's losing. This definitely is starting to make you wonder whether he's in this for his ego or not. He wasn't a populist in the Senate, and now he is? It always made me distrust him as a candidate. This is another strike against him if after the first few contests he loses and refuses to support.
Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 10:23 AM:joe subscriber sed: >>>The war in Iraq and the stripping away of our liberties in the USofA have occurred because of the collusion of the Democrats, especially the Clintons.
Yeah. It's all the Clinton's fault. Everything Bush has done... Has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush/Cheney consolidation of power in the Executive Branch. Nothing at all.
What is this Talking Points Memo or Fox News Talking Points?
That said, I would like to add on-topic thought to my comment above... That this is clearly a dodge by Edwards, but I don't think it is a bad dodge. It's a stupid question to ask a candidate in the middle of a heated campaign. I'm with Edwards on this... Tho he obviously should have dodged with the qualification that of course everyone in the country needs to elect a Democratic President... Still, stupid stupid question.
"Better to vote for Nader"... My God. It is truly unbelievable in this day and age that someone would still think that.
eric wrote on November 13, 2007 10:25 AM:I love all of the concern trolls/Hillary haters here...
"I am warning you - I won't vote for Hillary, you better not nominate her - and BTW, the world is going to end if we have this woman in the White House!"
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 10:25 AM:Three reasons to support whoever the GOP nominee might be:
1. John Paul Stevens, age 87
2. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 74 and not well
3. Roe v. Wade.
"james wrote on November 13, 2007 10:23 AM:
I'm sort of with Theresa on this one. I do think there were only minute differences with Gore and Bush in terms of positions, although I do think their administrations would have ultimately turned out differently thanks to 9/11."
Minute differences between Bush and Gore? You can't be serious. You really can't.
Joe wrote on November 13, 2007 10:28 AM:Edwards was smart here for the reasons referenced above by those who agree with the move. I'm not sure if this really proves things are "definitely getting nasty."
It is telling Ron Paul is one of the people who also took this tack. As Glenn Greenwald notes, he is known for being principled. People like Kucinich are running on principle, but honestly don't think they will win. Barack Obama wants to be a united.
BTW, as to sitting out the election. Already, people are being guilted into supporting someone they feel is a bad choice because they are the least of two evils. Many who say this quite honestly oppose Hillary Clinton on various grounds. But, they help the "let's settle" brigade by this crude argument ... this early in the game.
I live in NY. This means, sigh, if Rudy is the other nominee, NY very well might be in play. This sucks. I am nauseated by a Rudy v. Hillary option for various reasons. But, it still is too early to say what I 'have' to do ... wait until after the convention!
But, many don't live in such a state. If it is 'safe' one way or the other -- and Nader ignored the principle in '00 -- not voting for HC will not give the election away.
If Hillary is running against let's say Romney, I somewhat doubt he will have a good shot at winning NY. There, not voting for H. very will might help the Republicans either. Esp. if you still vote in one of the few House races up for grabs in that state.
eric wrote on November 13, 2007 10:29 AM:"Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 10:25 AM:
Three reasons to support whoever the GOP nominee might be:
1. John Paul Stevens, age 87
2. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 74 and not well
3. Roe v. Wade."
I would say that those three reasons are a pretty good reason for Dems to support the Dem nominee, as well.
Richard Joseph wrote on November 13, 2007 10:29 AM:With a long list of votes in support of the Bush agenda, Hillary has been a leader of the collaborator wing of the Democratic party. No Democrat with principles, no patriot, should support her.
Michael Lafferty wrote on November 13, 2007 10:30 AM:Eric: you just don't get it. It's not about the world ending if "…we don't have this woman in the White House!"
It is about the incontroverable outcome: if Senator Clinton is the nominee, neither she nor any other Democrat will occupy the White House. Get it?
It's not about 'hating Hillary.' Senator Clinton cannot win the larger contest, even when her opposition is a pitiful as it is. Her negatives will significantly outweigh her positives to a degree sufficient to insure that she will lose the general election.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:31 AM:eric wrote on November 13, 2007 10:25 AM:I love all of the concern trolls/Hillary haters here...
"I am warning you - I won't vote for Hillary, you better not nominate her - and BTW, the world is going to end if we have this woman in the White House!"
Nice namecalling there eric.
But the bottom line is this - you're not doing your candidate any favors by trying to force her down the throat of voters.
This kind of BS just makes me more determined to prove you wrong.
I believe another Clinton presidency will be as bad for this country as the first one was.
Perhaps you're one of those comfortable middle class voters who wasn't hurt by the terms of Bill Clinton, but my family isn't.
Bill Clinton's "welfare reform" put a lot of people in deeper poverty.
NAFTA means we're now living in poverty because our professions went first to Mexico, then Thailand.
My family can't survive another Clinton in the White House.
I understand Edwards position.
Right now he's running. He's behind, but he's got a shot. All his energy is focused on one thing, winning. He can't let his troops think he's considering his options if he loses.
Its would be wrong for him to consider otherwise.
Somebody ask Hillary if she's going to vote for Edwards when he get's nominated.
He could have answered the question more gracefully, but it's all academic. He may be the the winner.
But if he's not, maybe he can hook up with the Obama ticket.
If it's Hillary, we are all going to hold our noses and vote for her, but she's too close to big corporations to really be considered an ideal candidate of the Democratic party.
Yeah she's a democrat, but she's way to close to Bush and the Neocons on the sliding scale for the good of the Republic, what with staged audiences, war votes, the inability to admit a mistake, the hanging out with Murdock & W's dad. And that means, just like when Bill checked out, we could find ourselves with another Neocon 8 years hence.
Personally I am thinking we need a clean break from the past.
I am an anti-war liberal and I hope Obama wins. But if Clinton is the nominee, I think of the Supreme Court and I know I will have to vote for her!
Alan wrote on November 13, 2007 10:34 AM:John Edwards has turned out to be a whinger. He could have said: I will support the nominee chosen by the primary voters. If I am chosen I would expect Hillary and Obama to support me.
To those who want to sit it out if Hillary is the candidate. Fine with me. We really don't need this kind of high mindedness in the party. We have enough Republicans who do that kind of schtick and end up voting their guy in. Guliani must be smiling.
Democrats crap on their own. The Republicans will be laughing all the way to the White House.
MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 10:35 AM:All of the self-styled progressives that think they might accomplish something if they actually sit out the 2008 vote or think that they make a point by voting for Nader (or someone like him) should read Jake D's last post.
The make up of the Supreme Court for the next decade is in the balance. This is the last chance to limit the damage.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 10:35 AM:You go, RJ!!
NCSteve wrote on November 13, 2007 10:35 AM:So let me get this straight. Hillary doesn't have to answer any question she deems "hypothetical" but if Edwards refuses to answer one that carries a clear subtext that his own candidacy is irrelevant, he's being "nasty" and, apparently is doing so because he's a sexist? Right.
And hey, Hestal, whoever you are, thanks for the bigoted stereotyping of Southern men there disguised as psychoanalysis. Nothing sexist about that. Nope.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 10:37 AM:Tim Kane:
No more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton!!!
Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 10:38 AM:I assume this was directed at me, so...
Michael Lafferty sed: >>>Great. Then if you need every single vote, get off your ass and work for ANYONE but Senator Clinton to get the nomination.
Hahaha. Why don't YOU! It sounds like you're the one who hates her so much! Haha. I've wanted Hillary as President since she became my Senator in 2000. Barak's 2004 dnc speech made me openly weep it was so amazing, but she is clearly imho better suited for the job. She's done a fantastic job in the Senate and I've agreed with nearly all of her positions and proposals with the exception of the Iraq AUMF vote, but even that was a testament to her political courage.
Like I said, we the Dems need every single vote. It seems like most people in Hillary's camp would do anything possible to vote for the Dem candidate, but other candidates' supporters are less likely to do so... Tell me then, has your candidate of choice NEVER done something you disagreed with? You've agreed with EVERY vote and every proposal? They are the perfect candidate? If so, wake the fuck up b/c none of these candidates are perfect, you are not perfect, nobody is perfect, and the LAST thing we as a country need now is MORE IDEOLOGY sans fact. So please. Get over it.
Joe wrote on November 13, 2007 10:39 AM:If you are a practical pro-life person, especially one who thinks certain "liberal" things promotes that principle, voting for any Republican who runs is not necessarily a great thing.
You know, e.g., if war is deemed not "pro-life." Or, supporting someone who not only was pro-choice in the past (Romney and Guiliani) but wanted a less than credible person to be in charge of Homeland Security (G.)
Of course, Kennedy upheld the continuation of both Roe and the right of privacy (writing Lawrence). A Ron Paul might let abortion be a state issue, but privacy overall surely is something he supports. Would him as nominee really be much better?
In practice, limiting abortion is not a matter of allowing a few states (Florida has a right of privacy in its Constitution; Kentucky secured homosexual rights years before Lawrence) put harsh laws on the books, ones that in practice will likely be selectively enforced (see Latin America).
A credible pro-life candidate who supports various gov't supported initiatives that limits the need to have an abortion would probably lead to much fewer abortions in the long run. Just any old boob with an "R" next to his or her name won't do the job.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:39 AM:MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 10:35 AM:All of the self-styled progressives that think they might accomplish something if they actually sit out the 2008 vote or think that they make a point by voting for Nader (or someone like him) should read Jake D's last post.
The make up of the Supreme Court for the next decade is in the balance. This is the last chance to limit the damage.
You know what, Marc? That's hysterical. It amazes me that you can sit there and type that with a straight face. You do know that "progressive" DiFi voted for Pickering, right?
And Schumer and DiFi voted for Mukasey.
The list is endless.
Surely, you were laughing your ass off as you were typing, right?
Don't let the facts get in your way now.
Jesse wrote on November 13, 2007 10:39 AM:RU Shur is absolutely right. While the question is a dumb one and is yet another example of the media focusing on the horse race rather than on substantive, issue, I'm sorry -- the answer isn't a reasonable one. And given the events of the last 8 years, the idea that any Democrat would consider not voting for Hillary Clinton against any Republican nominee is unfathomable to me.
One can rightly criticize Clinton and other Congressional Democrats for failing to oppose the war in Iraq and other Bush administration policies, primarily in the national security arena, over the last 8 years. However, this is MILES from suggesting that an administration led by even a more hawkish Democrat like Clinton would resemble a Republican administration. There is an ENORMOUS difference between lack of opposition in Congress and affirmative actions taken by the Executive, particularly in foreign policy in the modern era. Modern presidents have a tremendous amount of power with regard to foreign policy. Whether or not this is what the Constitution permits, it is the reality. It is the White House -- much more so than Congress -- that will be the primary architect of American foreign policy from 2009 to 2012.
The idea that by sitting out the election -- and thereby enabling the election of a Republican -- you are "sending a message" to the Democratic leadership is the height of egotism and conceit and the antithesis of the public-minded spirit of liberalism and the Democratic party. Those who foolishly and selfishly voted for Nader in 2000 to "make a statement" directly enabled the election of an administration whose actions have cost the lives of thousands of human beings. Anyone who would fail to vote for the Democratic nominee in any state where the presidential election is competitive would run a significant risk of doing the same.
For goodness' sake, this should not be an argument.
Unka Willbur wrote on November 13, 2007 10:39 AM:RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:31 AM:My family can't survive another Clinton in the White House.
Hmm, so you think another Republican-party candidate will be better for your family? I'm just curious as to you thinking on this.
Joe, NY will never be in play no matter who the republican nominee is, including Mr. 9/11. Have you heard his positions on anything lately????? He basically wants to start wwIII. You actually think ny would go for him. NYC voters can't stand him, especially how he has made millions off the 9/11 tragedy. Nope, NY will never be in play for a republican nominee as long as they continue on the platform that they are running on (endless war, tax cuts for the rich, screw the middle class and the poor, no health care, overturn roe v. wade so that the jake d's of the world are happy, etc.) and hasn't been since reagan.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:43 AM:Unka Willbur wrote on November 13, 2007 10:39 AM:RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:31 AM:
My family can't survive another Clinton in the White House.
Hmm, so you think another Republican-party candidate will be better for your family? I'm just curious as to you thinking on this.
The Bush years sure haven't been any worse.
MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 10:44 AM:RJ,
I know exactly what those clowns in the Senate have done. They have worked very hard to earn the 20% (if its even that hard) approval rating. That is why I will not give a penny to either the DSCC of the DCCC. Schumer is my Senator and ignored my wishes. He will not get my vote ever again (not that it matters).
But faced with the possibility of two more right wing ideologue judicial activists like Roberts/Scalia in the Supreme Court, the choice is clear. If you don't think that is where this is heading if Rudy (or any other Rethug) wins the election, you are delusional.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 10:44 AM:Joe:
ANY of the Republicans running at least give me a chance of getting strict constructionists on the bench, so I will answer your question with a "yes".
If you want to argue about "Just War" Doctrine, perhaps a different thread would be more appropriate?
Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 10:45 AM:Btw, Jesse's comment @ 10:39AM: "There is an ENORMOUS difference between lack of opposition in Congress and affirmative actions taken by the Executive"
Can also be applied to RJ's @ 10:39AM
The Dem would actually get to NOMINATE the person RJ. Helloooo!
Daniel wrote on November 13, 2007 10:46 AM:Three new polls from states that were not close in 2004 (Connecticut, Tennessee and Georgia) have Rudy and Clinton in a toss-up! Some fascinating stuff, check it out here.
iVoted4Nader wrote on November 13, 2007 10:48 AM:"...But in an election where the likely choices are between a corporate-owned political hack and a fascist, it's downright irresponsible to sit out the election. An election which, if Mr. Guliani or one of his ilk is "elected" might well be the last election Americans will participate in."
GOOD POINT; But WHAT ABOUT A THIRD PARTY?
If your choices are:
A) Get sh$t n
B) Get p$ssed on
Don't you think it's about time to support a 3rd party? IF YOU'D SUPPORTED A 3RD PARTY THROUGH IT ALL, don't you think we'd have avoided your choose A or B only OUTCOME which we are now at?
You people; like sheep to a slaughter, again and again and...
Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 10:48 AM:jake d., do you even know what the term "strict constructionist" means?
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:49 AM:MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 10:44 AM:RJ,
I know exactly what those clowns in the Senate have done. They have worked very hard to earn the 20% (if its even that hard) approval rating. That is why I will not give a penny to either the DSCC of the DCCC. Schumer is my Senator and ignored my wishes. He will not get my vote ever again (not that it matters).
But faced with the possibility of two more right wing ideologue judicial activists like Roberts/Scalia in the Supreme Court, the choice is clear. If you don't think that is where this is heading if Rudy (or any other Rethug) wins the election, you are delusional
Uh, no Marc........delusion is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
Yeah, let's talk about Roberts and Alito. How many DEMs voted to put them on the Supreme Court? You really don't want to go down that road because the DEMs have proven that they don't care about the very issue you're trying to use to justify your vote for them.
Unka Willbur wrote on November 13, 2007 10:49 AM:RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:43 AM:The Bush years sure haven't been any worse.
I find that hard to believe.
Larry Geater wrote on November 13, 2007 10:51 AM:We the Democrats NEED EVERY SINGLE VOTE. Honestly.
Yet another reason to withhold your support from Sen Clinton, the one candidate who will drive many voters to stay home on election day.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 10:52 AM:Yes, Michael; I am a member of the Federalist Society as well : )
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:52 AM:Unka Willbur wrote on November 13, 2007 10:49 AM:RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:43 AM:
The Bush years sure haven't been any worse.
I find that hard to believe.
And therein lies the problem. You, and the Clintons, have no idea what it's like to live with the results of their stances.
So you go ahead and disbeieve it. All the way to the same election result as John Kerry's.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 10:53 AM:I'm going to let RJ continue on this thread -- as the Big Dawg says, it's been fun, BOYS.
Jesse wrote on November 13, 2007 10:54 AM:Ethan @ 10:39 AM -- exactly. Voting for a nominee in the Senate -- especially under the unusual circumstances of the Mukasey nomination (alternative was an acting AG who was a Republican lackey) -- is not tantamount to supporting his or her views. If that were the case, no nominee in a situation where the President and Senate are from different parties would ever get through. It's a tactical decision that often reflects a "this is the best we can get" reality. In a Clinton administration, nominees for executive positions and the federal judiciary would be vastly, vastly different from those under a Giuliani/Romney/Thompson/McCain administration.
Unka Willbur wrote on November 13, 2007 10:54 AM:iVoted4Nader wrote on November 13, 2007 10:48 AM:But WHAT ABOUT A THIRD PARTY?
Under what rock is this mythical viable 3rd party hidden(one that's not organized around some extreme agenda)? Show me and I'll gladly support it.
The truth with this election is that you can't opt out. You're either going to choose to get pissed on, or if you make no choice, you'll help to ensure everyone, yourself included, will get shit on.
Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 10:54 AM:Unka, actually if rj is just talking about economics depending where rj lives that could be a true statement. Obviously, globally and all the other problems of the king's administration don't impact on some areas of the country. Also, alot of the talk about economic "expansion" or growth or gdp is all a bunch of fluff not based in reality. The average us worker's salary has been stagnant or decreased since around 1970. There has been study after study and we truly are worse off today than we were in 1970 and before, notwithstanding the cheap toys or big screen tv.
MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 10:56 AM:RJ,
Roberts and Alito
or
Ginsberg and Bryer.
If you see no difference, go vote Green.
moondancer wrote on November 13, 2007 10:57 AM:I like the third party scenario. I think it would greatly improve progressive leverage.
Jake, you better be careful,or you'll lose all your new deal benefits and be forced out on the street to sell pencils.
No VA, no Social security, no medicaid, medicare, food stamps, surplus cheese food products. You'll be picking through the dumpsters with the rest of the trolls.
Larry Geater sed: >>>"Yet another reason to withhold your support from Sen Clinton, the one candidate who will drive many voters to stay home on election day."
Find me a poll that says that. It is a GOP talking point and you know it.
Hillary is leading all of the Democrats in every single poll and she outperforms all other Dems in head-to-heads with the Repug candidates... And encroaches or beats all the GOP candidates in solidly Red States. Thank you Daniel.
Again. Bring the facts or you are contributing nothing but support for another Dick Cheney Presidency.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:52 AM:And therein lies the problem. You, and the Clintons, have no idea what it's like to live with the results of their stances.
No person in my family, to my knowledge, has ever made more that $30,000/year in their lifetime. Most of my family have been laborers since my family emigrated here in the 30s.
Jake D endorses RJ - enough said.
Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 10:58 AM:jake d., so what? You actually think that because your a member of the federalist society, that means you know what the term "strict constructionist" means? Based on your posts, I bet you don't have a clue. If you think "strict constructionist" is interchangable with the term republican party hack rubber stamp judge, you are sadly mistaken.
Reference Librarian wrote on November 13, 2007 10:59 AM:If Edwards is the nominee I will not vote for him. Period. End of discussion. No way. And if this upsets the poor little Edwards supporters, too fucking bad. No tell me how terrible it would be if the Republicrats keep the white house in 08. I know that. But they're the ones who are bawling "Oh I can't for the terrible HillaryBeast if those nasty meanies in the Democratic Party give her the nominee." Well, two can play at that game my friends, and there are a hell of lot more of us Hillary supporters than you guys. The fact is everything, I mean everything you say about the Clintons is a God damn fucking lie.
Item
"Bill Clinton's Triangulation lost us the Congress." Clinton went to this strategy AFTER the 1994 Election. What Clinton did in his first two years was: passing an assault weapon ban, trying to change the military's homophobic policies, enacting progressive tax policy and trying to enact national health care. That failed, by the way, at least in part because of the pettiness and institutional blindness of so called leaders like Senator Byrd and Monynihan.
Item. "Hillary Clinton is Bushlite." Hillary Clinton's voting record is by objective measure (see Progressive Punch.Org) is more progressive than any of the other candidates.
"But she wants to expand NAFTA!" But so does OBAMA! Just for example look at her entire statement on the deal with Peru:
"I support the trade agreement with Peru. It has very strong labor and environmental protections. This agreement makes meaningful progress on advancing workers’ rights, and also levels the playing field for American workers. Most Peruvian goods already enter the U.S. duty free, but our exports to Peru have been subject to tariffs.
However, I will oppose the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The South Korean agreement does not create a level playing field for American carmakers. I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia. And as long as the head of Panama’s National Assembly is a fugitive from justice in America, I cannot support that agreement. Accordingly, I will oppose the trade agreements with these countries.
We need to vigorously enforce our trade agreements. As President, I will appoint a trade enforcement officer and double the enforcement staff at the office of the United States Trade Representative. I will also systematically review every trade agreement to ensure that it is delivering benefits to American workers. I will also expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that workers negatively affected by the global economy get the help they need. And as President, in my first months in office, I will take a time out from new trade deals to assess their impact before going forward."
Item "Clinton is a neo-conservative who wants to go to war with Iran."
Nonsense. Unprintable twaddle. Clinton's position on Iran is exactly the same as Edwards and Obama as set forth in their essays in Foreign Affairs. Exactly the same. Here they are:
Candidate One:
Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel.
Finally, we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.
Candidate Two
We also need to renew our commitment to engagement and diplomacy in order to solve problems before they occur, rather than scrambling to deal with crises after they have erupted. With engagement comes far greater knowledge and the potential for progress and even trust. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan talked with Soviet leaders at the height of the Cold War, in both cases turning back major threats to our national security. We need to do the same with Iranian and North Korean leaders.
Iran presents a complicated challenge for the United States. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dangerous radical and a strong supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas. He has said repeatedly that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and last December sponsored a conference for Holocaust deniers in Tehran. Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the situation in Iran has only worsened under this administration. With a threat so serious, no U.S. president should take any option off the table -- diplomacy, sanctions, engagement, or even military force. When we say something is unacceptable, however, we must mean it, and that requires developing a strategy that delivers results, not just rhetoric. Instead of saber rattling about military action, we should employ an effective combination of carrots and sticks. For example, right now we must do everything we can to isolate Iran's leader from the moderate forces within the country. We need to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomatic measures that will, over time, force Iran to finally understand that the international community will not allow it to possess nuclear weapons. Every major U.S. ally agrees that the advent of a nuclear Iran would be a threat to global security. We should continue to work with other great powers to offer Tehran economic incentives for good behavior. At the same time, we must use much more serious economic sanctions to deter Ahmadinejad's government when it refuses to cooperate. To do this, we will have to deal with Iran directly. Such diplomacy is not a gift, nor is it a concession. The current administration recently managed to have one single-issue meeting with Iran to discuss Iraq. It simply makes no sense for the administration to engage Iran on this subject alone and avoid one as consequential as nuclear proliferation.
Candidate Three
The Bush administration has opposed talks with our adversaries, seeming to believe that we are not strong enough to defend our interests through negotiations. This is a misleading and counterproductive strategy. True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.
The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
Like Iran, North Korea responded to the Bush administration's effort to isolate it by accelerating its nuclear program, conducting a nuclear test, and building more nuclear weapons. Only since the State Department returned to diplomacy have we been able, belatedly, to make progress.
Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to "rekindle the vision," shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.
To reassert our nonproliferation leadership, I will seek to negotiate an accord that substantially and verifiably reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. This dramatic initiative would send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal. I will also seek Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2009, the tenth anniversary of the Senate's initial rejection of the agreement. This would enhance the United States' credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing. As president, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks.
Candidate One = Barrack Obama. Candidate Two = John Edwards Candidate Three = Hillary Clinton.
"But what about Kyl-Lieberman. She voted to give Bush authority to start another war." A sense of the Senate resolution does NO SUCH THING. One house of Congress doesn't have the power to authorize the President to wipe his ass. Article I Section of the United States Constitution (ever heard of that) states "All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" And BTW, Kyl-Lieberman was also supported by Dick Durbin and Carl Levin, both of whom voted against the 2002 AUMF, which of course John Edwards COSPONSORED. Apologizing for a mistake is not the same as showing evidence that you can formulate and execute an effective foreign policy.
Finally, I suggest you go to your local library, find a copy of Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson Master of the Senate and read the passage on page 460. It may be enlightening.
Michael,
In my previous, accidentally anon post, you'll see that my family has most definitely been a recipient of the ass-end of the immoral and corrupt economic policies of the last 40 years.
But that does not limit my ability to see the massive danger of not voting for a POS like Hillary Clinton, if she's the candidate.
Michael:
I am registered Independent.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 11:01 AM:Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 10:54 AM:Unka, actually if rj is just talking about economics depending where rj lives that could be a true statement. Obviously, globally and all the other problems of the king's administration don't impact on some areas of the country. Also, alot of the talk about economic "expansion" or growth or gdp is all a bunch of fluff not based in reality. The average us worker's salary has been stagnant or decreased since around 1970. There has been study after study and we truly are worse off today than we were in 1970 and before, notwithstanding the cheap toys or big screen tv.
Yep, in the late 80s we BOTH had good jobs in middle managment. Both of our industries went offshore with NAFTA.
Today it's unemployment and WalMart.
moondancer wrote on November 13, 2007 11:04 AM:Ethan-
On the other hand how many times do you have to let down before you learn a lesson.
I think she loses to every gooper. I don't think she could beat Ron Paul. And even if she did win, the only thing I see thats a plus is non-fascist jurists.
Her health plan sucks, she is an unfettered hawk, and does nothing to promote a progressive agenda.
In her obsession to "triangulate" she is taking progressives for granted.
DRinOH wrote on November 13, 2007 11:04 AM:To the idiots saying they won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, did you ever here the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?
That said, go Obama...
Hestal wrote on November 13, 2007 11:04 AM:Hey, NCSteve, nice to hear from you.
In case you haven't noticed, Edwards said, repeatedly and publicly, that he cannot support gay marriage because of his "Southern Baptist" upbringing. Those are his actual words and he still stands by them.
And in case you haven't noticed, David Brooks, the official stenographer of the Republican Party, recently published a column in the NYT saying that Reagan was not a racist when he kicked off his campaign by supporting "states rights" in Mississippi, in the town where the civil rights workers were infamously murdered for trying to register blacks to vote.
And in case you don't know, Jimmy Carter and his wife resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention, the "Southern Baptists" that Edwards spoke of, because of their demand for the subjugation of women among other things. This is a fact.
So it is no coincidence that Edwards, trying to get traction somewhere (he apparently can't even carry his own state), tried to do so by saying that he opposes gay marriage because of his "Southern Baptist" upbringing. He hoped to gain the votes of Southern homophobes.
But he knew that liberals might castigate him for rejecting gays, so he came up with the modern "states rights" approach. He said that the states should decide, not on gay marriage, but on civil unions, the modern-day code for separate-but-equal, we know how well that works don't we.
And now he will not support a woman. This again gives him points with southern misogynists and Southern Baptist males. And I keep saying "Southern" because Edwards wants to run a national campaign, but it ain't working. So he goes to the only place he has a hope of gaining support: the South, where he was born and raised.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 11:05 AM:MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 10:56 AM:RJ,
Roberts and Alito
or
Ginsberg and Bryer.
If you see no difference, go vote Green.
No thanks, Marc. I'll just sit it out. Hey, for once I won't have to stand in the rain holding a DEM candidate sign in "republican hell" freezing my ass off just to be disenfrahchised at my polling place.
But thanks anyway.
Crash wrote on November 13, 2007 11:06 AM:Why do Democrats choose such awful canidates?
Hillay is a LOSER.
She cannot win a general election.
She had to run have Bill help her, when she exposed what she is at the Philadelphia debate.
You want four more years of Republican rule, send her as the nominee.
We need a canidate that has widespread appeal and can overcome the inherent bias (fraud) in our electoral system.
The supreme court is about more than Roe v Wade. It's about Griswald. It's about overturning Brown v Board based on the same justification for installing the Brown judgement. It's about labor rights. It's about environmental protection. If you don't vote or vote GOP, you are voting against labor rights and environmental protection.
Bush nominated very young justices who, despite the fact that the country is turning against conservativism, will continue to decimate progressive principles for a generation.
Contrary to what Edwards has been saying, he's not much different philosophically than Hillary. But that doesn't matter if you have CDS.
loki wrote on November 13, 2007 11:08 AM:For those concerned about those irrational others who "refuse to vote for Hillary"...don't sweat it. They're numbers are too small to matter. Let them sit out the election stroking their thighs for the Republican candidate (which is what they'd actually prefer over Hillary Clinton. Think about that!).
Me? I am going to vote for Obama or Clinton or Edwards or Dodd or...etc. Any Democrat is better than any Republican. And those are our choices. People may not like those choices but there they are.
The Republicans are anti-science, anti-intellectual, dogmatic, willfully ignorant, war-mongers. They are all too happy to continue the old Southern Strategy, attack gays, knock down the wall of separation between the Christian Church and State...the list goes on.
The Democrats...not so much.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 11:09 AM:Hestal:
Kinda off-topic (we are actually discussing previous Presidents and their "BOY" comments in a thread below) but Reagan was not a racist -- his Justice Department led the way enforcing civil rights -- just ask Larry D. Thompson.
Nick wrote on November 13, 2007 11:10 AM:Brian up above said "...imagine 4-8 more years of Hedge Fund managers paying 15% income tax rates, 4-8 more years of drug & insurance companies screwing over our health care system, etc etc etc." Okay ... and how would this be different if Hillary lost and a Republican was in there? I know -- WE'D HAVE A WAR WITH IRAN. I have little use for HRC but she would be ten times better than any GOP pirece of garbage. Come on.
NY Times had a recent op-ed article titled your brain on politics. In it they looked at brain activity of independents. The most interesting result was that men who stated that they disliked Clinton showed evidence of liking her when they were shown a video clip of her speeches.
She has been so demonized that some men believe that they are supposed to dislike her.
As to not voting for the Dems to teach them a lesson. If the Dems do not have enough votes to win,they can move left or right. There are more voters to their right than to their left. Which way do you think they will turn?
Under Bush neonatal statistics have not improved. Under Clinton they would.
Jesse sed: "In a Clinton administration, nominees for executive positions and the federal judiciary would be vastly, vastly different from those under a Giuliani/Romney/Thompson/McCain administration."
We have a winnah! Thank you Jesse. Finally someone who gets it.
It is all about GOVERNANCE. Anyone can agree or disagree with a position in a campaign or a vote in the Senate -- BOTH of which are wrought with political calculation. But in the end it comes down to style of governance. The GOP wants to KILL the federal government we currently have and replace it with authoritarian theocracy. The Dems want an effective government that has a place in the modern world and is by and for the people's best interest. The Dems aren't always right, but the Republicans ARE.... ALWAYS. WRONG.
As for 3rd parties. I am in favor of as many parties as want to field candidates. Period. The problem is that our system of election has taken decades upon decades to become what it is today, and thusly will take at least a decade to change even with a concerted effort. Thing is, it is FAR more likely that a Dem Presidency would be open to opening the political system than a Repub... So if you're into 3rd party candidates for Pres you have a long road that eventually will have to go thru the Dem party anyway. Sucks, but you can either work your ass off for a 3rd party every 4 years when you are dissatisfied with the choices OR you can join or start a sustained campaign lobby the current system to be more open... Good luck with that.
I've rambled enough today, but my two key (off-topic) points from this convo are: Bush/Cheney consolidation of power in the executive is BAD, and it's all about governance. Oh yeah and support the Dem no matter what (there ya go! on topic!).
Joe wrote on November 13, 2007 11:13 AM:The fact Rudy wants to start WWII or whatever suggests he SHOULD not be a credible choice, but his 9/11 bona fides etc. are crap too, but loads believe in them. Including in NY.
As to Jake, given the flexible nature of their beliefs, I don't see Mitt or Rudy being a slamdunk "strict constructionist" sort. Nor, do many in the R. party really believe in that sort of thing.
And, you are the one who raised Roe as a core reason to vote R. I don't think Roe can be put in a vacuum, so yes, I think a 'pro-life' candidate has to support more than its overturning.
MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 11:13 AM:Incredibly, I have to agree with Jake D. Reagan was most definitely not a racist, and his civil rights division actually pursued real cases. That, however, does not mean that he did not pander to racists.
Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 11:25 AM:reagan was a racist and used racism to get elected. The euphamism used to promote racism was and is "state's rights." That goes all the way back to the civil war. How about the "welfare queen" that he constantly threw around, but never existed? How about the lee atwater and the "southern strategy"? Just do a little research and you will change your tune. Total racist. Why is the republican party entrenched in the south, when the party's economic policies are not favorable at all to the south? Racism.
moondancer wrote on November 13, 2007 11:25 AM:Jake D-
Of all the lies you've told here, the one that Reagan was not racist is the largest. His entire campaign was based on the race card. He instructed his Ag to end discrimination prosecution, he vetoed strengthened civil rights bills. He is the champion of bigots. No revisions allowed.
Incidentally, the source is his campaign manager.
I'm sitting it out too if hillary is the nominee..
can you give me a bogus headlinee too eric kleefield?
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 11:29 AM:You'll have to take that up with MarcNYC -- I know in my heart that Ronald Reagan was most definitely not a racist -- as I said, however, I am leaving this particular thread to RJ.
moondancer wrote on November 13, 2007 11:30 AM:Marc-
You are incorrect. Two of my best friends worked at DOJ in civil rights for W French Smith. There was explicit instructions to end all civil rights litigation. From mediating busing in cities that wanted it to dropping investigation and prosecution of cities that had overt racist programs.
oleeb wrote on November 13, 2007 11:31 AM:This is such a stupid post that it is difficult to comprehend.
No intelligent candidate is going to answer that if they remain in the game. It's like asking them to concede in advance (something DC based Democrats like Hillary are very comfortable with). It isn't nasty for him to say he isn't going to talk about that now when his intention is to ask her for her endorsement in the event he should win. Obama would do the same and ought to and so should Hillary if she were not in the lead and were asked this insulting question that presumes the loss of the candidate being questioned.
But no, this is interpreted--even on an otherwise intelligent blog as being nasty. How stupid can ya get?
Hestal wrote on November 13, 2007 11:36 AM:Hi Jake D, nice to hear from you.
Reagan was indeed a racist and the facts are not in dispute.
I respectfully suggest that you read David Brooks' recent column in the NYT about Reagan. He tries to rebut the belief that Reagan was a racist. Then read the responses, also in the NYT, from Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert. Mr. Herbert's column is in today's paper. The others' columns appeared in the last few days. Krugman's response is in his NYT blog and Brooks' defense of racism is in his regular column.
On civil rights, Reagan's record, and again it is not in dispute, was abysmal. He fired members of the Civil Rights Commission because they opposed his attempts to gut government support for civil rights. The record is crystal clear.
Your attitude reminds me of the old adage: "It ain't what people don't know that gets them in trouble, it is what they know that ain't so that does the trick."
MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 11:40 AM:Moondancer
I wish your friends would go public. If the information is correct, it needs to be out there and documented.
I also understand that I am drawing a distinction between a racist and someone who "merely" panders to racists. But, then again, I am an attorney, so I can't help it.
I also worked in a legal clinic representing clients seeking Social Security Disability who were being screwed over by Reagan's instructions to the SSA to DENY every claim in the first instance. As you can imagine, the folks who ended up getting screwed over were those who could not afford to pay for counsel to help with their appeals. And, the overwhelming majority of those people were minorities. From the moment I read the file on my first client, I despised Reagan and all he stood for.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 11:42 AM:Hestal:
I've read that already -- thank you very much though -- I respectfully suggest that you read Douglas Kmiec's book "The Attorney General's Lawyer" which has an entire chapter on civil rights (Reagan fired air traffic controllers too, so do you think he was against the theory of gravity?):
MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 11:46 AM:Jake,
Do you believe in gravity? After all, it's only a theory?
moondancer wrote on November 13, 2007 11:47 AM:No but he was anti-union and created an atmosphere that invited big business to break unions and fuck over their workers.
Typical GOP stuff, class warfare.
MarcNYC-
One of my friends was a source to a reporter at WaPo the other might have been I dont know. Its the first time I've mentioned this in public.
Mary wrote on November 13, 2007 11:51 AM:Good for John!!!!
I'm at the same point and maybe Edwards would consider the reverse coinflip of the Connecticut for Lieberman approach.
Run him as an Independent, Green, write-in, libertarian, whatever - just give me someone I can vote for and quite telling me I have to use my vote for a lesser evil to block a greater evil.
Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 11:53 AM:Question MarcNYC, if a politician is implementing policies to pander to racists, which are screwing minorities, doesn't that make the person a racist as well? I mean he or she is implementing racist programs. I really don't see the distinction.
Joe Klein's conscience wrote on November 13, 2007 11:54 AM:Has anyone asked Hillary if she'll support the nominee if it isn't her? There goes the NYT, trying to do Russert's job for him. They are so stupid.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 11:54 AM:I believe in gravity -- again, this seems a bit off-topic to "Edwards Doesn't Promise to Support Hillary" -- where are you, RJ?
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 12:01 PM:Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 11:54 AM:I believe in gravity -- again, this seems a bit off-topic to "Edwards Doesn't Promise to Support Hillary" -- where are you, RJ?
Didn't come here to play with you, Jake. I came to make a point. I did so.
Now you're gonna have to take your right wing BS on by yourself.
dcshungu wrote on November 13, 2007 12:01 PM:Larry Geater wrote on November 13, 2007 10:51 AM:We the Democrats NEED EVERY SINGLE VOTE. Honestly.Yet another reason to withhold your support from Sen Clinton, the one candidate who will drive many voters to stay home on election day
Chutzpah ultima! When are people going to stop spewing this unsubstantiated canard? There is not a single poll that supports this. The people who would "sit this one out" are the far-left (fringe) lunatics, who have been suffering from the Clinton Derangement Syndrome for the last 15 years, and would not vote for her or any non-ideologically "pure", no matter how high the stakes (they voted for Nader in 2000 because Gore was Bush-lite and look at what we got: The real Bush!). Fortunately, those folks are but a very small minority that can be safely ignored if the election is not uncomfortably close. In 2008, it won't be close if the Dems recognized that Clinton is their strongest candidate for the GE and embrace her with confidence.
As Campaign Diaries" reports today, there are new polls that show just how ridiculous is the notion that nominating Clinton would be disastrous for the Dems in the general election: She is the most competitive Dem Candidate in the South at the moment, and there is even support for her campaign's suggestion that she would be able to attract Republican women (and as we know, women tend to be most likely to go to the polls)!
So, unless you have credible evidence to substantiate that oft-heard canard about how Clinton would drive many voters to stay home on election day, please spare us because you come out sounding very (putting charitably) uninformed. I should let those who would "sit this one out" know that they are real "cowards" because what they are doing is letting others choose for them. Staying home on election day would not change the fact that you would still be casting your vote, but through those who go to the polls...your "non-vote" vote would still count! Got it?
It is really chutzpah ultima to ask if someone can win while he or she is winning!
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 12:06 PM:dcshungu:
Why don't you think all those above who posted they would rather stay home than vote for Clinton = credible evidence?
RJ:
Thanks for providing "credible evidence" at least.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 12:07 PM:As Campaign Diaries" reports today, there are new polls that show just how ridiculous is the notion that nominating Clinton would be disastrous for the Dems in the general election: She is the most competitive Dem Candidate in the South at the moment, and there is even support for her campaign's suggestion that she would be able to attract Republican women (and as we know, women tend to be most likely to go to the polls)!
This, from the party of "Fuck the South."
Yeah, uh huh..........got anymore BS to shovel out the door?
Ben wrote on November 13, 2007 12:12 PM:All of you that refuses to vote for Hillary. If Rudy gets elected, we will have you to thank for it. He'll probably turn the White House into a whore house with his 4th and 5th wife upstairs somewhere.
erasmus wrote on November 13, 2007 12:14 PM:All he had to say was something like:
"I'll be voting for the Democratic Candidate who, I expect, will be me."
And move on.
I think he handled this poorly. I expect any Dem to support the ultimate choice of the Party. This to me is a threshold question and is an unpardonable sin -- the Sin of Lieberman, if you will.
I've always liked Edwards and would not hesitate to vote for him, if he's the Nominee of the Party. But I hope he'll clarify this comment in the near future in a way that reaffirms his Party loyalty. I think Edwards is looking more and more irrelevant as the process goes along -- I'd hate to see him try to become relevant by making a third party bid. I'd much rather see him accept whatever decision Democratic voters dish out than become a spoiler.
jonnybutter wrote on November 13, 2007 12:14 PM:This was a stupid question designed to make a candidate feel uncomfortable. Edwards was right to dismiss it.
Nutshell-correct. Of course he'll support any Dem. I love TPM, but..come on, guys. This is really stupid. I love TPM because it's usually different from the MSM. Not this time, though.
Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 12:18 PM:dc, that's a bs post from the campaign diaries. How about this gallup poll?
Republicans nationwide 78% against clinton and wouldn't vote for her if you paid them. Also, evidence that they will come out in droves to vote against her. I'd be willing to bet that that number might include some republican women. I can't imagine that the party is entirely made up of angry white guys. Also evidence that she energizes their base, etc.
Republicans nationwide 39% for obama 43% against and 18% undecided. Nearly, 50/50 and it's not outside the realm of possiblity that he could get 50% of the republican vote. He got 40% of the republican vote in illinois when he won his senate seat.
How about the virginia and florida polls where she is losing to mr. 9/11? In fact, she is doing worse in virginia than obama. Remember that poll?
Hmm, kind of cuts against your continuing arguments about clinton II. I find it laughable that you claim that she is the "most competitive" dem candidate in the south. If she's the nominee, you can write off every state south of the mason/dixon line and very likely the election as well.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 12:18 PM:Ben wrote on November 13, 2007 12:12 PM:All of you that refuses to vote for Hillary. If Rudy gets elected, we will have you to thank for it. He'll probably turn the White House into a whore house with his 4th and 5th wife upstairs somewhere.
Better than under the desk, I suppose.
RJ wrote on November 13, 2007 12:20 PM:Ben, you missed the irony of your statement, I suppose?
Some of you folks really need to get off your high horses. The air is really thin up there, I guess.
dcshungu wrote on November 13, 2007 12:26 PM:Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 12:06 PM:dcshungu:
Why don't you think all those above who posted they would rather stay home than vote for Clinton = credible evidence?
RJ:
Thanks for providing "credible evidence" at least.
You mean the few "passionate" lefties who populate cyberspace? Count them. They do not constitute more than about 5-10% of the electorate but are the loudest... Clinton's current poll numbers, in fact, ALREADY INCLUDE (i.e., exclude) them and she is still doing very well. They went for Nader or "sat the 2000 election out" but look at how close that election was. Had Gore managed to win his home state, we would not have had to suffer through the last 8 years of the Village Idiot. Clinton would win AR and be competitive in many Red states, where Dems are usually trounced. She'll capture most Purple states and win every Blue state. Just winning the states that Kerry had won, and capturing AR would make give her enough electoral votes to be POTUS, without winning Ohio. While the electoral vote calculus favors a Clinton GE win, I do not see a credible path to the White House for Obama (his road to the White House goes through many Red - old confederacy - states and Purple states where he'd be trounced) or Edwards, who did not even manage to win his home state in 2004 for Kerry (he is currently tied with Clinton there!)
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 12:27 PM:Sorry, Will, bm, Brian, joe subscriber, Michael Lafferty, Joe, Richard Joseph, IVoted4Nader, and RJ -- you have all been ex-communicated for your unpardonable sin of dissent -- the Sin of Lieberman.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 12:34 PM:You too, Outside the beltway and Mary -- I guess Hillary is so confident that she's willing to write of 5-10% of Americans right off the bat -- how does that make you feel?
some dude named steevo wrote on November 13, 2007 12:35 PM:Hillary v. Rudy - that would be a true nightmare.
WTF is wrong with this country?! Can't we nominate two decent politicians to run in the general election? I guess things will have to get a lot worse before they start to get better. The Fourth Reich is on the way!
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 12:37 PM:dcshungu:
You really don't think any Blue states will be in play if Hillary faces Rudy or Mitt??
dcshungu wrote on November 13, 2007 12:43 PM:Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 12:18 PM:dc, that's a bs post from the campaign diaries. How about this gallup poll?
Republicans nationwide 78% against clinton and wouldn't vote for her if you paid them.
Dear OCD Michael, I'd already responded to that question, but I see that you've been peddling it now for more than a week. Listen: 78% of Repubs who would never vote for HRC is not a very big number. They are roughly the 30% of Repubs who have stuck with Bush through thick and thin. So, therefore, 78% of ~30% of Repubs would never vote for Clinton: Big Fucking Deal! Her current national poll numbers already take them into account and she is still the most competitive Dem out there. So, can you now get another issue to "obsess" about?
BTW, why again is the post at Campaign Diaries b.s.?
Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 12:53 PM:dc, huh? I don't get it? Also, she is trailing big time with independents, which obama is doing well with as evidenced by how well he is doing with republicans.
Nonetheless, oh blind hillary-lover, you ignore the thrust of the post as well as the other points raised in my post, which show that your quote is bs.
How about the polls in all the early states showing a tight race for the dem nomination? Hmm, my guess is, as I have said hundreds of times, that Cali and NY skew the national polls. On a state by state basis in the south and in the light blue and purple states clinton II doesn't fair nearly as well as you constantly rant about the "national poll." The south? That really is laughable.
I'll keep peddling my polls as long as you keep peddling the same bs national poll.
Signed - left-wing, pinko, traitor for questioning the coronation, naderite, wacko, commie, ocd, etc.
erasmus wrote on November 13, 2007 12:56 PM:The "Sin of Lieberman" was not "dissent." It was refusal to accept the decision of the voters in the primary and mounting a third party bid. That is/was the Sin of Lieberman. Dissent all you want -- until the primaries are done. Then you line up behind the nominee.
Edwards seems to be leaving the door open that he might not be willing to line up behind the nominee if he loses. Bad form. He should close that door as soon as possible.
dcshungu wrote on November 13, 2007 1:01 PM:Reference Librarian wrote on November 13, 2007 10:59 AM:If Edwards is the nominee I will not vote for him. Period. End of discussion. No way. And if this upsets the poor little Edwards supporters, too fucking bad. No tell me how terrible it would be if the Republicrats keep the white house in 08. I know that. But they're the ones who are bawling "Oh I can't for the terrible HillaryBeast if those nasty meanies in the Democratic Party give her the nominee." Well, two can play at that game my friends, and there are a hell of lot more of us Hillary supporters than you guys. The fact is everything, I mean everything you say about the Clintons is a God damn fucking lie. ......
I just saw that absolutely powerful long post by our Reference Librarian (he is one in real life!), that I think should be packaged and resold as a "Pro Hillary" Oped piece. It effectively debunked just about every canard that is peddled by the lefties in these forums. I would just urge the Librarian to get out and vote for any Dem candidate that eventually wins the nomination, rather than to promise to "sit this out" if Edwards is the nominee (this election is too important and you're too smart to throw it out the Repubs...again). Fortunately, the awful possibility of Edwards winning the nomination is so unlikely that we won't have to worry about it...
Powerful and well-defended post; a must read and re-read!
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 1:01 PM:At last count, Will, bm, Brian, joe subscriber, Michael Lafferty, Joe, Richard Joseph, IVoted4Nader, Outside the beltway, Mary, and RJ seem to be "leaving that door open" too.
sonya wrote on November 13, 2007 1:03 PM:I'm a life long democrat and if Hillary is the nominee, I will not vote for her. I'm not a left wing nutcase. But this will be the third time in my life that Democrats had the opportunity to nominate a canidate that is worthy of support. That canidate is not Hillary and I will not go into the both and vote for the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I think Hillary, Rudy, Romney all suck and led us to hell in a hand basket.
Vince wrote on November 13, 2007 1:08 PM:Clearly, some of you aren't ready to have another Clinton presidency. I for one am ready and waiting for it. I say bring back the prosperous 90's. Who doesn't remember the nineties as a great time in American history. We had a balanced budget and people were getting rich like at no other time in recent history. BRING BACK THE 90's!
dcshungu wrote on November 13, 2007 1:09 PM:Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 12:53 PM:dc, huh? I don't get it? Also, she is trailing big time with independents, which obama is doing well with as evidenced by how well he is doing with republicans.
Let's see if this would be easier to grasp: Poll numbers that are reported for each candidate already take into account those who say that they would or would not for them. Some support is firm, some not so firm, which is why numbers change. But every poll that is published already takes all those factors into account. The Internals are important because they tell campaigns how to strategize to (a) keep those who already support them, (b) attract wavering voters, (c) go after certain demographic groups (e.g., women, blacks)...etc... Otherwise, the poll numbers ALREADY INCLUDE THOSE WHO WOULD NOT VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE, so that harping about it is not that smart.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 1:09 PM:Thank you, sonya -- I have added you to "The List of Unpardonable Sinners".
erasmus wrote on November 13, 2007 1:25 PM:Sometimes the lesser of two evils is all you've got. We have a two party system. If you're a lifelong democrat your failure to vote democrat is, itself, a vote for the republicans. You'll be able to feel good that you didn't vote for someone you think is bad, but you'll have effectively voted for someone who is worse -- even if you vote for some third party messiah.
Historically, when a "third party" prevails, the old party is supplanted and we end up back with a two party system, reorganized perhaps, but 2 parties -- I can't think of one example where a third party had any real durability as a "third" party. And I certainly do not see a burgeoning third party out there that can supplant the Democratic Party -- as badly as one could argue it needs supplanting.
Bottom line: your only real choice, as a left of center voter is the Democratic Party. Any other vote may as well be for the Republican. And I can't really think of anything we need less than 4 more years of republicans in charge of the Whitehouse.
I am not a pro-Hillary Democrat. I am a pro-Democrat Democrat. I'd love to see someone else as the nominee, but if it is Hillary, and it looks like if may well be, I'll vote for her as surely as if they'd resurrected JFK.
How about 8 more years of Republicans in charge?
P.S. I would vote for a resurrected JFK (I voted for him the first time around too : )
ColoDem wrote on November 13, 2007 1:44 PM:Huh? He says "No comment" or the equivalent, and you interpret that to mean "I refuse to endorse Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination". That's just ridiculous.
Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 1:59 PM:Jake D + cronies: Will, bm, Brian, joe subscriber, Michael Lafferty, Joe, Richard Joseph, IVoted4Nader, Outside the beltway, Mary, and RJ.....
Are you just anti-Hillary? I haven't seen any of you post anything even remotely PRO-anyone. Or if so, you have no rebuttal but baseless spin to the substantive posts seen by pro-Hillary folk. Are you all Edwards supporters? What gives? Where is your ammo?
I'm calling you out. How about you put up or shut up. B/c if spin and b.s. is all you have, theres plenty of fools over at the CNN "political" ticker (the biggest joke in political discourse since freeperville). Seriously. Let's have a fucking debate on facts or just leave and hand over the real political discussion to people who actually give a damn enough to contribute something of substance.
Elijah Trotsky wrote on November 13, 2007 2:03 PM:For those of you who wouldn't vote for a Clinton, then start volunteering at the VA, because the draft is coming and you or your neighborhoods legless, armless children are going to need your help....
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 2:16 PM:Yes, Ethan, I am an Edwards supporter.
Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 2:22 PM: luneylegume wrote on November 13, 2007 2:27 PM:When the Nominee is selected is the time to ask defeated candidates questions about supporting the candidate . The insulting nature of the question of a person who actively seeking the nomination to undercut his own stature by asking about his own putative loss is just infuriating . Almost as bad as the two thousand word posts to a topic requiring a little insight and an informed opinion on a single question . The weakness of the fulminators and their pet issues is biblical .
Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 2:29 PM:Cool Jake. Great. Why? We've come this far, lobbing blog bombs at each other, I'm sick of it and would like to hear why you think he is better than Hillary. NOT why Hillary is worse, mind you, but why you think JE is better and specifically what he plans to do that you find favorable to the other candidates plans. Thank you.
morris1030 wrote on November 13, 2007 4:18 PM:Edwards is being destructive and counterproductive. Remember Nader?
ann wrote on November 13, 2007 4:37 PM:TPM is always eager to publish anything that's negative about Edwards.
It was another gotcha question from the media - when not one vote has been cast.
However, Edwards did clarify his comments today for the gotcha media crowd - he'll vote for the nominee and he expects to be the nominee.
TPM is always eager to publish anything that's negative about Edwards.
It was another gotcha question from the media - when not one vote has been cast.
However, Edwards did clarify his comments today for the gotcha media crowd - he'll vote for the nominee and he expects to be the nominee.
morris1030:
Nader did not run in the 2000 Democratic primary.
Ethan:
I'm not here to convince you about Edwards -- I am actually the Devil's Advocate -- have you read anything on his web site yourself?
gernger wrote on November 13, 2007 4:50 PM:For all those democrats who are going to refuse to vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee, just think about a few things. She will appoint an attorney general who will immediately stregthen the civil rights division. The republican won't. She will appoint a quality secretary of state. I would hope it would be Joe Biden. Who knows what war monger the republicans would appoint? There may be 3 0r 4 supreme court justice appointments. She would appoint liberals, the republican would appoint right wingers. This list does not include other cabinet positions, dozens of other federal judges, and all federal attorneys. If this doesn't make any difference to democrats, then by all means, sit out the election.
JanePoet wrote on November 13, 2007 4:51 PM:My candidate for President is with no doubt Dennis Kucinich. It is not appropriate to try to get John Edwards to make any definitive decisions at this time in the campaign process. Hillary, for me, represents more of the same. I do not and will not ever support her. If all readers will look into ALL of her voting history, you will see without a doubt a woman who will go with the MONEY! That represents no real change for our collective direction to restore America "OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE"! If we make no change with comprehensive election reform and continue to support "the lesser of two evils" EVIL is what we support! Peace
MizLiz wrote on November 13, 2007 5:07 PM:I'm a lifelong Democrat, but Lord, I don't want to vote for Hilary! I will, of course, but to me she's just another old-time backroom politician. Lots of handshake deals with the big contributors, lobbyists, and Corporations. And of course---whoever ends up being her Vice President might just as well go out and get a day job, because we all know who the REAL Vice President's going to be.
Bet when Hilary's president, though, all the interns are going to be fat and ugly.
strangelet wrote on November 13, 2007 5:25 PM:RJ wrote (November 13, 2007 10:49 AM):
>Yeah, let's talk about Roberts and >Alito. How many DEMs voted to put them >on the Supreme Court? You really don't >want to go down that road because the >DEMs have proven that they don't care >about the very issue you're trying to >use to justify your vote for them.
Since you don't seem to have Google, the answers are: 22 Dems voted to confirm Roberts, 22 voted against him, and 100% of Repos voted for him.
For Alito: 4 Democrats voted to confirm, and 40 voted NO. One R and one I also voted no; 54 Republicans voted yes.
At least in Alito's case, he was not confirmed because of Democrats; he was confirmed because the Republicans had a 55-44 (one independent) majority in the Senate.
This doesn't prove much about Democrats, but it does prove you shoot your mouth off based on what you think you know rather than the facts.
MizLiz:
Wasn't Monica Lewinsky "fat and ugly"? Wouldn't it be better all around if Clinton II interns were simply all males?
Josh,
How on earth do you allow people like this to work for you? Just disgusting. Please, at least try and *pretend* to be a journalist once in a while, Kleefeld. You hack.
Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 7:53 PM:strangelet wrote on November 13, 2007 5:25 PM:RJ wrote (November 13, 2007 10:49 AM):
>Yeah, let's talk about Roberts and >Alito. How many DEMs voted to put them >on the Supreme Court? You really don't >want to go down that road because the >DEMs have proven that they don't care >about the very issue you're trying to >use to justify your vote for them.
Since you don't seem to have Google, the answers are: 22 Dems voted to confirm Roberts, 22 voted against him, and 100% of Repos voted for him.
For Alito: 4 Democrats voted to confirm, and 40 voted NO. One R and one I also voted no; 54 Republicans voted yes.
At least in Alito's case, he was not confirmed because of Democrats; he was confirmed because the Republicans had a 55-44 (one independent) majority in the Senate.
This doesn't prove much about Democrats, but it does prove you shoot your mouth off based on what you think you know rather than the facts.
No, what it proves, Strangelet, is that NO DEM votes were required to confirm them, yet they still voted to do so.
Of course, you might have realized that if you weren't so busy attacking someone for pointing out the facts..........
Truthwhip wrote on November 13, 2007 10:47 PM:I'm voting for Edwards in the primary due to the fact that I'm a liberal progressive Democrat. I'm glad he's decided not to lick the boot of the MSM, or of Hillary.
I'd also be willing to vote for Obama, if he's the one who wins the primary instead. Both are smart, articulate, and seem to have a lot of integrity.
But the Clintons? Screw them. Who the hell wants Republican Lite corporate whores in the White House? Haven't we had enough of that running our government? I certainly think so.
If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I can't and won't vote for her. Period. And yes, my vote will also have to go to the Green Party in that event. Because the truth is, I'd much rather stick to my liberal principles than robotically stick to the label Democrat when it's being rendered meaningless.
If the Democratic National Committee is at all interested in getting everyone who still considers themselves a Democrat to actually vote for the party, they'd do well to inform members of the press that the race isn't over yet, and that they resent the way the media constantly talks and acts as though Hillary is already the preselected nominee that everyone must grovel to.
Gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
Honesty compassion intelligence guts.
No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.
- come on over Edwards, we know there is good in you!
dcshungu wrote on November 13, 2007 12:01 PM:
The people who would "sit this one out" are the far-left (fringe) lunatics, ...
dcshungu wrote on November 13, 2007 1:01 PM:
(quoting Reference Librarian):"If Edwards is the nominee I will not vote for him. Period. End of discussion. No way. And if this upsets the poor little Edwards supporters, too fucking bad. No tell me how terrible it would be if the Republicrats keep the white house in 08...."
(dcshungu's response:)
I just saw that absolutely powerful long post by our Reference Librarian (he is one in real life!), that I think should be packaged and resold as a "Pro Hillary" Oped piece.....Powerful and well-defended post; a must read and re-read!
Guess they're only "far-lfet (fringe) lunatics" if they sit the election out the election because of Hillary, eh?
And you complain about chutzpah ultima.
Don't even try to weasel out of this one with your tepid "urging" of RL to go out and vote for "any Dem candidate".
Not to mention all the rest of you who jump all over anyone who says they will sit out the election if Hillary is the nominee, but don't say jack when one of your pro-corporate cronies like RL says the same about Edwards.
Jim Martin wrote on November 18, 2007 1:32 AM:strangelet wrote on November 13, 2007 5:25 PM:
For Alito: 4 Democrats voted to confirm, and 40 voted NO. One R and one I also voted no; 54 Republicans voted yes.At least in Alito's case, he was not confirmed because of Democrats; he was confirmed because the Republicans had a 55-44 (one independent) majority in the Senate.
40 voted no, eh?
Hmmm... something about that number sticks in my mind.... oh, yeah, that's it! It's called a filibuster!
Which is exactly what the loony-left New York Times Editorial Board called for on the eve of Alito's confirmation:
Editorial
Senators in Need of a Spine
Published: January 26, 2006Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon....
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination....
Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
Now you know how Harry Reid bleats every time a vote comes up about "needing 60 votes" to get anything done?
Forty "no" votes equals a filibuster, and "nuclear option" be damned. You don't hear Reid talking about no nuclear option... because this ex-boxer apparently can't remember how to fight.
Yes, there is an enormous difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans fight. Democrats don't. And we all lose.
