Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


This is a presidential election, not a trust fall.
June 27, 2014 8:45 AM   Subscribe

A Woman Should Run for President Against Hillary Clinton. Or Many Women. (Rebecca Traister for the New Republic)
posted by box (179 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite

 
I don't know, I sort of totally disagree with this article. I think Clinton is going to handily win the nomination (and probably the White House) on her own merits, that will have, shockingly, very little to do with gender. I don't like the idea of political dynasties, but I was watching Ms. Clinton being interviewed this past week, and for someone who is going to be framed as too old and out of the loop, she has some interesting, progressive ideas.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:55 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


If we were a sane nation, Elizabeth Warren would win the nomination and election, but we are a nation of plutocrats and willing serfs, so Hillary will get the nomination with nary a fight, and I will stay at home election night.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:56 AM on June 27 [39 favorites]


Seems like America wants a Monarchy, or at least a line of succession. If Hillary gets elected, Chelsea will be old enough to replace her.

CHELSEA 2024!
posted by blue_beetle at 8:59 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]


WARREN! WARREN! WARREN!
posted by Sophie1 at 9:02 AM on June 27 [16 favorites]


I think Clinton is going to handily win the nomination (and probably the White House)

I'm with you on the nomination (though after her latest immigration comments, ugh) but I'll be shocked if she can win the general election. I guess the GOP could go full wingnut, but I doubt it.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:03 AM on June 27


I know TFA is about the primary, but yes, I'd love to see Clinton vs. Palin or Bachmann.

No, really. If we could pay attention past the obvious intelligence and experience differentials, it would put (more than) a few things into sharp relief - about our American values, and why we have them.
posted by Dashy at 9:03 AM on June 27


Seems like America wants a Monarchy, or at least a line of succession.

The point about a democracy is that the people gets to choose its political representatives. What is objectionable about a monarchy is not that the reigning monarch's first-born child gets to be the new monarch. What is objectionable is that nobody gets to choose whether or not they do.

American didn't "become a monarchy" when John Quincy Adams became President, and it didn't "become a monarchy" when George W. Bush became President and it won't "become a monarchy" if Hilary Clinton becomes President. This is a stupid, meaningless talking-point that ought to just die from its inherent inanity.
posted by yoink at 9:04 AM on June 27 [49 favorites]


. . . and I will stay at home election night.

I'm an early-morning voter too!
posted by Think_Long at 9:05 AM on June 27 [56 favorites]


As to the article itself, I think it badly needs some statistical analysis to back up its claim that a fiercely contested primary ultimately helps the candidate who emerges. It seems to me that far more often a hard-fought primary hurts the winning candidate because they've been forced during the primary to take positions that then hurt them in the presidential campaign. Clinton v. Warren, for example, would inevitably force Clinton to play for the left wing of the Democratic vote, which would be an immense gift to whoever the Republicans run against her.
posted by yoink at 9:08 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


This is a stupid, meaningless talking-point that ought to just die from its inherent inanity.

I don't think it is. Wealth, power and name recognition are incredibly important in politics.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:08 AM on June 27 [7 favorites]


I'd love to see Clinton vs. Palin or Bachmann

Well, me too, but only because it would be a guaranteed victory for Clinton.
posted by yoink at 9:09 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Wealth, power and name recognition are incredibly important in politics.

Of course they are. Which has precisely zero to do with America "becoming a monarchy."
posted by yoink at 9:09 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


I will stay at home election night

With eyes wide open, I can and will vote for Hilary Plutocrat over Marco Plutocrat or Jeb Plutocrat or Ted Plutocrat, just as I did with Barack Plutocrat over Mitt Plutocrat.

But I'll definitely vote Warren in the primary. That woman kicks so much ass.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:10 AM on June 27 [18 favorites]


Political dynasties are not healthy things and you will never get me to accept that they are. Hillary has been the presumed (nearly defacto) nominee for 2016 since she lost the nom for 2008. We've been hearing mutterings of a third Bush running for president since at least 2000. FUCK. THAT.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:10 AM on June 27 [21 favorites]


I'm an early-morning voter too!

You've got to be if you are going to spend the day rounding up felons and illegal aliens to vote under fraudulant names in order to keep the true American patriots down.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:11 AM on June 27 [13 favorites]


Political dynasties are not healthy things and you will never get me to accept that they are.

I'm making no attempt to convince you that they either are or are not "healthy things." I'm saying that in a democracy it is the people's right to decide whether or not they like political dynasties. If they decide they don't, they can choose not to vote for the scions of those dynasties. If they do, they can decide that they will vote for the scions of those dynasties. Pretending that the people's choice to vote for members of a dynasty is the same thing as a monarchy or is some kind step towards monarchy is mere propagandizing.
posted by yoink at 9:16 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


Well, you'll still never convince me that the people got to decide the 2000 election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:18 AM on June 27 [9 favorites]


But I'll definitely vote Warren in the primary. That woman kicks so much ass.

I'm not bashing Warren here, she certainly talks a good game has a good resume, but legislatively she hasn't moved a bill out of committee. The only thing she's gotten passed have been three resolutions, one condemning the Boston bombing, one saluting the victims and heroes of said bombing, and one congratulating the Sox on their 2013 World Series victory. As far as Senators go, that is not actually kicking any ass.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:19 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


Well, you'll still never convince me that the people got to decide the 2000 election.

What are you talking about? All nine votes got counted!
posted by Dip Flash at 9:20 AM on June 27 [9 favorites]


It's no more propagandizing then describing a former republic as a democracy. With voter turnout what it is, it's clear that MANY people are choosing not to vote the scions of these dynasties. I'll make you a deal, I won't call our system a monarchy if you agree not to call it a democracy, but rather what it is—a plutocracy.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:20 AM on June 27 [11 favorites]


I was watching Ms. Clinton being interviewed this past week, and for someone who is going to be framed as too old and out of the loop, she has some interesting, progressive ideas.

Wait... Hilary Clinton, progressive? Compared to who, Margaret Thatcher?
posted by Foosnark at 9:22 AM on June 27 [23 favorites]


I'm making no attempt to convince you that they either are or are not "healthy things."

Well, then it sounds an awful lot like you're just churning out prose to quibble over word choice.
posted by indubitable at 9:25 AM on June 27


but legislatively she hasn't moved a bill out of committee

Wouldn't you guess the reasons for this are heavily steeped in the extreme dysfunction of today's federal legislative bodies? And I mean that for both houses and both sides of the aisle.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:29 AM on June 27 [10 favorites]


I tend to agree that Hillary will probably win the nomination. I'm not as sold that her election is a slam-dunk. For one, her name alone is like catnip to conservatives, who will be assured to turn-out in droves to vote against her. For another, she's not exactly universally-loved by all Democrats, either.

I think 2016 will be a far closer race than people think. It all comes down to who the Republicans nominate.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:29 AM on June 27 [7 favorites]


yoink: "Clinton v. Warren, for example, would inevitably force Clinton to play for the left wing of the Democratic vote, which would be an immense gift to whoever the Republicans run against her."

Alternatively, if Clinton has a healthy enough margin to beat a hypothetical far-left challenger, Clinton could build up her reputation as a "moderate" during the primary cycle, which could bolster her chances in the general election.

Say what you want about political dynasties, but Hillary certainly knows a thing or two about how to politically position herself.
posted by schmod at 9:33 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Wouldn't you guess the reasons for this are heavily steeped in the extreme dysfunction of today's federal legislative bodies? And I mean that for both houses and both sides of the aisle.

Eh, at least regarding the student loan stuff from 2013, a bill actually passed and was signed into law. The main reason Warren's bill went nowhere is, frankly, it didn't make a hell of a lot of sense.
posted by dsfan at 9:34 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


The People can elect whomever they want, but all I'm saying is that sometimes the winner is evidence of a sickness in the entire system. Would Hillary be an option if she wasn't the mother of future president Chelsea Clinton?

I mean look as us here in Canada; we elected Stephen Harper, which is a pretty blunt way of saying that our system here in Canada is broken too.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:35 AM on June 27


I'm genuinely confused at the enthusiasm people have for Hillary. I feel the same way about her husband as well though.
posted by el io at 9:37 AM on June 27


> "Wait... Hilary Clinton, progressive? Compared to who, Margaret Thatcher?"

Compared to every Republican and many other Democrats?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd prefer someone to the left of Hilary Clinton just as I'd prefer someone to the left of Barack Obama, but there are many, many people far worse than Clinton in the mainstream of American politics.
posted by kyrademon at 9:41 AM on June 27 [11 favorites]


I think it badly needs some statistical analysis to back up its claim that a fiercely contested primary ultimately helps the candidate who emerges.

It certainly helped Obama -- the primary effort required a ton of organization and grassroots outreach and fundraising that motivated and mobilized a bunch of young/infrequent voters, and the length of the race kept Obama and the Dems in the news most of the year right up to the Conventions and the General.

It certainly did not help Romney four years later, but I think that's due to a different set of dynamics, GOP versus Democrats. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP doesn't need to motivate and mobilize as strenuously as the Democrats do -- GOP voters are more reliable (and the money is bigger). And the GOP fringe are nuttier than the Democratic fringe. Anyway, noisier. So, uh, you wanna get the "run right" part of "run right, run to the center" over with as quickly as possible.
posted by notyou at 9:43 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


 . . and I will stay at home election night.

Just putting in a plug for local and state elections. Your vote really does have impact. The national elections are so huge a to be sort of abstract. Locally, you can actually get to know the candidates, get decent people elected or at least prevent your town or city counsel from filling up with crazy people with too much time on their hands.

The people who do the gerrymandering are your state people. So if you don't want to vote in the federal election, don't fill in those bubbles. But for your community's sake, vote locally.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:43 AM on June 27 [52 favorites]


I am excited about a woman with a good chance of winning.
I'm excited about Bill Clinton as First Spouse.
I am excited about a candidate who has been in the game for a while and has been routinely shit on by Congress or parts of it all that while and probably is holding a grudge.

That makes for a very interesting president.
posted by BeReasonable at 9:45 AM on June 27 [9 favorites]


Of course, it might not matter if she wins the Presidency if the Republicans manage to take the Senate. If that comes to pass, Obama's Presidency will look like an orgy of bi-partisanship compared to what President Clinton 2 will experience. As unhinged as the right could be by then, I'd lay even money for impeachment proceedings within the first two years over some trumped-up offense or another.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:53 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


Say what you want about political dynasties, but Hillary certainly knows a thing or two about how to politically position herself.

Being married to the world's greatest Philandering Triangulator certainly helps, I'm sure.

A Clinton presidency would be more of the things I hate about Obama and none of the things I like.

I might vote for her, and I'll need to shower - so many showers - to get the stink off.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:54 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


Alternatively, if Clinton has a healthy enough margin to beat a hypothetical far-left challenger, Clinton could build up her reputation as a "moderate" during the primary cycle, which could bolster her chances in the general election

Yeah, but then that would not, by definition, be a "hard fought" primary, would it? That would be a case where Clinton is able to ignore the challenge and stick to a message tailored for the general election. If it's "hard fought" that would mean she actually feels a threat from her left and would then have to move left in order to meet that threat.

Well, then it sounds an awful lot like you're just churning out prose to quibble over word choice.

"Monarchy" means something. If what you object to is "people becoming major political figures because of the added name recognition they receive by virtue of being related to other major political figures" and you want to make an argument about the problems with that phenomenon, then argue about that phenomenon. But don't pretend it has anything, at all, to do with the nation becoming a "monarchy"--because it simply doesn't.

As for the thing you are complaining about which is not "becoming a monarchy" I'm not really sure why we are supposed to care about it. It's not as if Jeb Bush has been frittering away his days living the life of an international playboy and the sole qualification he is bringing before the voters is "hey, you kinda, sorta liked my dad and my grandpa!" He has a resume which would clearly put him in the conversation as a candidate for President regardless of who his parents are. Ditto Hilary.

Nor is it, in fact, true that the scions of major political families get an automatic free-pass into politics by virtue of those connections. Look what happened to Caroline Kennedy. Indeed, look at both Clinton and Jeb Bush; both of them know that their surnames are liabilities as well as assets in the campaign. Both of them know that there will be voters who vote against them because of those names as well as the opposite. Jeb Bush might very well have run in 2008 if it hadn't been for the toxic associations by that point with the Bush name. That's the very opposite of monarchical or dynastic privilege.
posted by yoink at 9:56 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


I think 2016 will be a far closer race than people think. It all comes down to who the Republicans nominate.

I agree, and good luck to them. I almost feel bad for Republicans, with all the in-party Tea Party nonsense. Can they find somebody conservative enough to capture energy in the primaries but who is moderate enough to win a general? I don't know. I wouldn't want it to be my job right now to look.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:00 AM on June 27


People keep saying "Warren!" but we should respect that fact that she says she doesn't want to run for president, at least not now. She has too much she wants to do in the Senate. After she has built up some experience in the Senate, I would be happy to vote for her as President, but I think it's too soon. (For the record, I felt the same way about Obama, but better him than the alternative.)

Also, bear in mind, President is essentially the last job you ever have, and it's 8 years at the most. Do you really want her out of government by 2024, after only a 12 year career? We need her in there and fighting for longer than that.
posted by pbrim at 10:07 AM on June 27 [24 favorites]


Clinton would make a good President, but her generation is the same as Limbaugh (4 years apart) who came to prominence under the Clintons, it will be a hugely disappointing to listen to Limbaugh and his ilk for the next 10 years bashing the Clintons (again). Limbaugh will be in the headlines a lot more with Clinton running. Obama made Limbaugh less relevant but that could change, a return to the 1990s and early 00s style politics. Not sure the voters will want to regress, a shiny-new-change candidate (from either party) could surprise, as Obama did.
posted by stbalbach at 10:08 AM on June 27


Warren is not running. She's not a regular politician who will say they aren't running and then run.

The Dems do need back up candidates though. All eggs should not be in one basket, given the alternative.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:08 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


A Clinton presidency would be more of the things I hate about Obama and none of the things I like.

I would still rather have it than the alternatives. I would rather have Hillary in office napping on the couch and eating cheetos and not fulfilling a single campaign promise for 8 years than I would any of her viable opponents in office and fulfilling even just one of their campaign promises or key party platforms.
posted by elizardbits at 10:19 AM on June 27 [65 favorites]


Hillary: Eight Years of Dorites!
posted by winna at 10:31 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


so relax
posted by elizardbits at 10:34 AM on June 27 [7 favorites]


Nobody's saying that the US is literally becoming a monarchy. Everybody already understands that we have the right to vote for people who are not named Clinton or Bush.
posted by Flunkie at 10:38 AM on June 27 [6 favorites]


A Clinton presidency would be more of the things I hate about Obama and none of the things I like.

I actually felt a similar thing when I voted for Obama: that his presidency would have all the things I didn't like about the B. Clinton presidency. And I was right!

I like the premise of the article, though. I'd rather have a primary with exciting candidates to choose from, and with dynamic debates. And I think it would be good for our country to have more strong women and POC as part of that debate.

The worst thing would be to repeat the Republicans' last primary: one heir-apparent (Romney then, Clinton now) and a bunch of fools who win in-turn the "anyone but Hillary" vote.
posted by kanewai at 10:40 AM on June 27


I think 2016 will be a far closer race than people think. It all comes down to who the Republicans nominate.

Naturally, some Republicans are more electable than others at the national level, and it's still early to make predictions about 2016, but Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over every likely Republican presidential candidate.
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 10:41 AM on June 27


A Clinton presidency would be more of the things I hate about Obama and none of the things I like.

Actually, I'm going to have to differ here. The Obama Admin has been unable to get anything accomplished exactly for the reasons Hillary said it would in the primarys, he lacks the political experience to get his agenda though. Clinton on the other hand comes complete with the Clinton machine. Political dynaties are nothing new in America. Political machines like the ones the Clintons operate have been around for a long time and often they've been filled with family members. The Adams, Harrisons, Tylers, Taylors, Lees, Tafts, Muhlenbergs, Roosevelts, Longs, Rockafellers, Kennedys, Daleys, Udalls, Romneys, Bushs, and Clintons are just a few examples.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:41 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


So who else is there on the Democratic side? Warren has been mentioned but I'm not thinking of too many well known and viable possibilities for the Democratic primary.
posted by octothorpe at 10:42 AM on June 27


there are many, many people far worse than Clinton in the mainstream of American politics.

The rallying cry of the side that loses. "Vote for Hillary! It could be worse!"
posted by 1adam12 at 10:44 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


So who else is there on the Democratic side?

Biden, Martin O'Malley, Cuomo, Mark Warner... there's a bunch but nobody's a stand-out.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:46 AM on June 27


What are you talking about? All nine votes got counted!

Actually, that's incorrect. Bush v. Gore was per curiam.
posted by gauche at 10:48 AM on June 27


yep. vote for anyone--perhaps a woman--rather than Hillary and help the GOP get a president in the White House. Just because all polls show Hillary can bea any and all challengers is no reason to nominate her.
posted by Postroad at 10:49 AM on June 27


I want to see Warren win the nomination and the presidency, because I hope against hope that she is proof against whatever it is that happens to freshly elected presidents to make them turn 180 degrees from their ideology.
posted by Mooski at 10:53 AM on June 27


The Obama Admin has been unable to get anything accomplished exactly for the reasons Hillary said it would in the primarys, he lacks the political experience to get his agenda though.
Ignoring that assertion that Obama has gotten nothing accomplished:

The Obama administration has been unable to get anything accomplished because he's black and a Democrat, and Republicans are effectively a monolithic racist block who demonize their opponents, follow orders blindly, and march in lockstep.

If you think that Hillary Clinton would have accomplished oh so many things that Obama hasn't -- Hillary Clinton, whom the Republican hate machine had spent nearly two decades convincing their base was an American-hating murderer -- because of her "political experience", I guess I disagree.
posted by Flunkie at 10:54 AM on June 27 [6 favorites]


we are a nation of plutocrats and willing serfs, so Hillary will get the nomination with nary a fight, and I will stay at home election night.

good for you for not being a serf! Clearly those who work within our political process for representation, however flawed that process is, are not as wise as you. Also, this attitude probably got Elizabeth Warren into office too.
posted by sweetkid at 10:58 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]


Hillary2014

It's interesting that so many progressives are falling over themselves to ensure the United States is led once again by a political dynasty.

Then again, many progressives actively support the Dalai Lama, a theocrat.
posted by four panels at 11:00 AM on June 27


we are a nation of plutocrats and willing serfs, so Hillary will get the nomination with nary a fight, and I will stay at home election night.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
posted by aught at 11:01 AM on June 27


her name alone is like catnip to conservatives, who will be assured to turn-out in droves to vote against her

What, and black Kenyan Muslim guy wasn't? That guy won twice.

Sure, there are "droves" of conservatives everywhere, but there weren't enough of them to get the seventy electoral votes they needed to elect Romney. Even take away the three close (blue) states, OH, VA, and FL, and the Democrat still wins. The problem, which exists for both parties in different forms, is that red-staters tend to be found more in ... red states. It doesn't help if a million pitchfork-bearing Texans show up to vote against Hillary if Texas was already a goner electorally.

She's no shoo-in, to be sure, and there's no counting chickensvotes before they're hatchedcast, but this is more the Democrats' race to lose.
posted by dhartung at 11:02 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


Yeah, I'm as disappointed in Obama as the next left of left guy, but to think that the whole "campaign in poetry and govern in prose" adage can somehow not apply to Clinton, Warren or anyone is sadly wishful thinking. It's not that their ideology changes overnight, it's that there's just a huge difference between what you can talk about getting done and what anyone can actually get done.

I would still rather have it than the alternatives. I would rather have Hillary in office napping on the couch and eating cheetos and not fulfilling a single campaign promise for 8 years than I would any of her viable opponents in office and fulfilling even just one of their campaign promises or key party platforms.

I don't disagree with that exactly, but I do think it sucks that elections have become these sort of exercises in Hobson's choices.

If Hilary runs, she'll get the nomination. And I will vote for her, not too reluctantly, in the general election. But make no mistake - it will not be an easy or guaranteed win for her.
posted by Lutoslawski at 11:03 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


I haven't missed a national election in the almost 3 decades since I got the franchise. But if it comes down to Hillary vs. The Tea Party then I plan on staying home, too.
I suspect there are enough folks like me to make that reason enough not to nominate her.
posted by bashos_frog at 11:04 AM on June 27


If you think that Hillary Clinton would have accomplished oh so many things that Obama hasn't -- Hillary Clinton, whom the Republican hate machine had spent nearly two decades convincing their base was an American-hating murderer -- because of her "political experience", I guess I disagree.

It has nothing to do with HER political experience. The Clinton machine is very powerful and Hillary as the candidate would have it's full force and backing in addition to the backing of the dissenters within the DNC who have had their time. Meanwhile the only thing the GOP can agree on is a mutual hatred of Obama and that has gotten them nowhere legislatively as well. They may be monolithic in their rhetoric, but they are anything but in their ability to organize power right now. Obama has been useless in using this against them because he does not have the skills or the machine to get it done. We need LBJ, not JFK right now.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:05 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Maybe that guy who wears a boot for a hat will run again. I liked him.
posted by Lutoslawski at 11:05 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


But if it comes down to Hillary vs. The Tea Party then I plan on staying home, too. .

You mean folks who have little to lose under a right-wing agenda, I presume, for whom progressive values are a luxury rather than issues that seriously impact their day-to-day lives?
posted by aught at 11:07 AM on June 27 [12 favorites]


There's 5 or 6 UK bookmakers currently offering odds on who will be the Democrat nominee. As can be seen, it's pretty much Hillary and the rest.
posted by Wordshore at 11:07 AM on June 27


But if it comes down to Hillary vs. The Tea Party then I plan on staying home, too.

This is an attitude that I simply will never understand.

If it were Hillary vs Mainstream Republicanism, you'd go to vote?

(If it were Hillary vs full-on Nazism, you'd go vote? If it were Hillary vs Violent Cannibal Zombies, you'd go vote? etc etc)

What is it about Hillary vs The Tea Party that would make you voluntarily disenfranchise yourself during an election?
posted by hippybear at 11:09 AM on June 27 [15 favorites]


The Definitive Guide to Every Hillary Clinton Conspiracy Theory (So Far): From killing cats to faking concussions, all the dastardly deeds attributed to the former secretary of state and First Lady.

Via.
posted by homunculus at 11:10 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


There used to be Republicans I'd definitely vote for over Hillary. Today, I'm not so sure.

In truth, I'll probably wind up throwing away my vote on a 3rd party candidate, or writing in Warren.
posted by bashos_frog at 11:12 AM on June 27


Nobody's saying that the US is literally becoming a monarchy.

True, though speaking as someone who lives in the USA but whose head of state is a monarch, I'm of the view that the USA is more effectively a monarchy than, say England. That's why despite "democracy" the US so easily went to war against Iraq on such a transparent pack of lies - the culture that it was unpatriotic to question the head of state was extremely effective in shutting down due-diligence. The US head of state had that oldschool-monarchy combination of genuine political power combined with the kind of immunity from substantive political and press interrogation that is not granted to regular politicians. That's more oldschool-monarchy than some powerless figurehead kept around for the service of tourism and pomp and gravitas. (Ironically, the US going to war meant the UK was bound to follow despite their leader not having those powers enjoyed by the US president.)
posted by anonymisc at 11:12 AM on June 27 [16 favorites]


President is essentially the last job you ever have, and it's 8 years at the most. Do you really want her out of government by 2024, after only a 12 year career?

Actually, 5 U.S. Presidents had careers in government after their presidencies. Perhaps Warren will be another of these.
posted by Sophie1 at 11:13 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Actually, 5 U.S. Presidents had careers in government after their presidencies.

Been a long time since Hoover (or, if you want to argue, Taft).
posted by Chrysostom at 11:17 AM on June 27


I don't understand how people can sit and watch these terrible 5-4 decisions come down from the Supreme Court and then, in the next breath, talk like there's no practical impact from having a Republican president instead of the dreaded insufficiently liberal Democrat president.

Scalia is 78 years old. He can't live forever. Maybe he'll decide to take up fly fishing as a second career in 2018. Who do you want in the White House when that happens? Can you really not care about that? Do you think there won't be serious cases brought before the Court in the future?
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:20 AM on June 27 [40 favorites]


bashos_frog: "I haven't missed a national election in the almost 3 decades since I got the franchise. But if it comes down to Hillary vs. The Tea Party then I plan on staying home, too. I suspect there are enough folks like me to make that reason enough not to nominate her."

Citation needed.

Seriously, this sounds like the pundit's fallacy. Polling indicates Hillary Clinton is quite popular among Democrats, and popular with the public at large. Will those numbers go down in an election? Sure. Will she romp to a landslide victory? Probably not. But there's no particular reason to think she'll be dramatically less likely to win then any other Dem nominee.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:22 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


I will stay at home election night.
posted by entropicamericana


Well, if the election comes down to a tie in California, I'll know who to blame.
posted by John Cohen at 11:37 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


The Clinton machine is very powerful and Hillary as the candidate would have it's full force and backing in addition to the backing of the dissenters within the DNC who have had their time.

I keep hearing how awesome the Clinton Machine is, but look :

A. It got it's ass kicked by a no-name upstart, wasn't-even-born-in-America, Junior Senator in 2008.

B. That Junior senator then went on to hire most of the Clinton Political Machine, like Larry Summers and Rahm Emmanuel and so on.

Point B, I think represents the biggest of Obama's mistakes, because those people engineered all of his largest failures - from the Recovery Summer that never happened to TARP. The Clinton Political Machine is comprised of everything that is wrong with Establishment Democrats going back 30 years.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:37 AM on June 27 [12 favorites]


So who else is there on the Democratic side?

Russ Feingold. (I've voted for him.)
posted by John Cohen at 11:44 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


I don't understand how people can sit and watch these terrible 5-4 decisions come down from the Supreme Court and then, in the next breath, talk like there's no practical impact from having a Republican president instead of the dreaded insufficiently liberal Democrat president.

Scalia is 78 years old. He can't live forever. Maybe he'll decide to take up fly fishing as a second career in 2018. Who do you want in the White House when that happens? Can you really not care about that? Do you think there won't be serious cases brought before the Court in the future?


This. A thousand times this.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 11:47 AM on June 27 [13 favorites]


and I will stay at home election night.

Me too. I always vote via absentee ballot.
posted by homunculus at 11:55 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


People keep saying "Warren!" but we should respect that fact that she says she doesn't want to run for president, at least not now. She has too much she wants to do in the Senate.

I like Warren and I think this is wise of her if it's true. The Senate needs more liberal lions. And besides, she can avoid all the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing she'll get as President.

(I don't know if I have the heart for another few years of you-make-me-mad-and-i'm-staying-home. Maybe I'll take up something calming, like basket-weaving.)
posted by octobersurprise at 11:58 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


It's interesting that so many progressives are falling over themselves to ensure the United States is led once again by a political dynasty.

Damn straight. Once Teddy Roosevelt got elected, FDR had no business running for president. Nothing good came out of THAT mess.

Hoover all the way!
posted by happyroach at 12:04 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]



People keep saying "Warren!" but we should respect that fact that she says she doesn't want to run for president, at least not now. She has too much she wants to do in the Senate.


Maybe she'd rather be right than President.
posted by sweetkid at 12:04 PM on June 27


Scalia is 78 years old. He can't live forever. Maybe he'll decide to take up fly fishing as a second career in 2018. Who do you want in the White House when that happens? Can you really not care about that? Do you think there won't be serious cases brought before the Court in the future?
This. A thousand times this.


Do you think the republicans will ever allow another democratic nomination for dogcatcher little less supreme court?
posted by srboisvert at 12:05 PM on June 27


Do you think the republicans will ever allow another democratic nomination for dogcatcher little less supreme court?

Even the Republicans can't stall a Supreme Court nomination for too long. Sotomayor and Kagan got through with little trouble.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 12:09 PM on June 27 [3 favorites]


Didn't take long to start hippie punching in here, did it?
posted by entropicamericana at 12:17 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


But if it comes down to Hillary vs. The Tea Party then I plan on staying home, too.

That doesn't make much sense to me. In the primary I'll vote for anyone but Clinton -- really it's hard to imagine a mainstream Democratic candidate that I wouldn't vote for over her. But if she got the nomination, I genuinely can't imagine the current GOP putting forward a candidate that I'd be willing to vote for over her, or where I thought not voting was really a viable choice. She's shitty, but she's way less shitty than any GOP presidential candidate during my lifetime.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:19 PM on June 27


Do you think the republicans will ever allow another democratic nomination for dogcatcher little less supreme court?

Which is why we should allow the election of a Republican president! It all makes so much sense now!

Seriously, I suppose the next stop on the thread will be "We need to allow the Republicans to do whatever they want, because that will make things so bad that the Revolution will inevitably come!"

Just tossing that one out there before someone seriously suggests it.
posted by happyroach at 12:26 PM on June 27 [8 favorites]


Consider the options.
posted by chance at 12:40 PM on June 27


Didn't take long to start hippie punching in here, did it?

Criticizing the Clintons isn't exactly hippie punching, especially given that they and their political machine invented the term and the technique.

It's more like yuppie punching and frankly, they deserve every bit of the criticism.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:44 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Scalia is 78 years old. He can't live forever. Maybe he'll decide to take up fly fishing as a second career in 2018. Who do you want in the White House when that happens? Can you really not care about that? Do you think there won't be serious cases brought before the Court in the future?

I agree, and as an even more striking example, Justice Ginsburg, who's currently the oldest Supreme Court Justice, will be 83 when the next president is inaugurated. She's had serious health problems. My understanding is she's been pretty firm about refusing to step down prematurely based on who is president. Obviously we can't predict the future, but just as a hypothetical example, if we continue to have 2-term presidents of a different party each time (Republican 45th president, Democratic 46th president, etc.), and if Ginsburg remains on the Court beyond the Obama administration, that means she'd need to continue serving until she's 91 years old to be replaced by a Democrat. It's entirely possible that will happen — which would make her the oldest Supreme Court Justice of all time (Holmes and Stevens were both 90). And I'd be happy for her to stay on the Court till she's 101. But if you want to be realistic, face it: it's reasonably likely she'll leave the Court sometime during the next administration.

Justice Breyer, who's also solidly liberal, will be 77 when the next president is inaugurated.

Justice Kennedy, the most influential Supreme Court Justice (who's been notably favorable to gay rights), will be 79 when the next president is inaugurated.

If a Republican president replaces any of them, the Court could have a majority of fairly staunch conservatives. (You can nitpick at this — that assumes Scalia and other conservatives will still be on the Court; you could argue that Roberts is not 100% pleasing to conservatives since he upheld Obamacare, etc. — but the essential point still stands.)

Justice Thomas, who's a relatively young 66, has stated that "the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including ... Roe v. Wade ... has no basis in the Constitution."

The Supreme Court is likely to make a decision sometime in the next few years about whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

And if you happen to be strongly opposed to the death penalty (which I would guess is true of most members of this website), then you probably favor the liberal Justices in their numerous important decisions on that issue.

Hey, this might not be as big an issue for me as it is for a lot of Mefites: while I'm strongly in favor of legal abortion and same-sex marriage, there are some other issues where I might happen to agree more with Scalia than (his close friend) Ginsburg. So for me it might be more of a wash. But for someone with a clear preference for a more liberal Supreme Court, voting for a Democratic president is a no-brainer — even if you fail to see any significant difference between the candidates on any other issue (as astonishing as that would be).

Fears of obstructionism by Senate Republicans would seem to have little basis in reality — Obama's two nominees to the Supreme Court were overwhelmingly confirmed by Congress. (Sotomayor: 68-31. Kagan 63-37.)
posted by John Cohen at 12:45 PM on June 27 [17 favorites]


I'm of the view that the USA is more effectively a monarchy than, say England. That's why despite "democracy" the US so easily went to war against Iraq on such a transparent pack of lies - the culture that it was unpatriotic to question the head of state was extremely effective in shutting down due-diligence.

You recognize that the second war in Iraq happened under... unusual circumstances. I took to the streets and demonstrated against military action, but the run up to the war happened shortly after 9/11, which did extremely weird things to this country. Many people felt vulnerable, and were willing to defer to the president on matters of national security. The American people, now with 20/20 hindsight, recognize they got burned on Iraq.

Even Fox News is calling out the Iraq war architects as mistaken, now that they're coming out of the woodwork to beat the drum for intervention.

Wait... Hilary Clinton, progressive? Compared to who, Margaret Thatcher?

Hilary is to the left of Obama. Had she been elected in 2008, and had she pursued health-care reform, I guarantee we'd be closer to single-payer than we are now.

I'll grant that she's not the perfect candidate, but who is? Elizabeth Warren isn't running. Tommy Carcetti - excuse me, Martin O'Malley - is going nowhere. Joe Biden *might* be able to win the primary, and even though I love Joe, my guess is a great deal of the country has bought the "slightly drunk working man" persona the Onion has developed for him.

Russ Feingold. (I've voted for him.)

America is not ready for a twice-divorced Jewish president. Besides, he's waiting for Hilary to get elected so he can get nominated for the Supreme Court.
posted by rocketman at 12:46 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


Can we have someone be president that isn't named Bush or Clinton?
posted by hal_c_on at 12:49 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Because we've had so many generations of Clintons in the Presidency. I find the "dynasty" talk kind of weird. Hilary has been in politics for years and ran in 08. She's fought through a lot of nasty campaigns to discredit and malign her as a candidate and even a person. It's just not the same level as GWB and the other Bushes with their name recognition and legacy of money and power.
posted by sweetkid at 12:55 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


America is not ready for a twice-divorced Jewish president.

Hey, Russ Feingold is married! Did anyone care that Ronald Reagan had gotten divorced? And if America was ready for a black president named Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, I think America will be ready for a Jewish president in 2016.
posted by John Cohen at 12:59 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


The 2012 Gallup poll says the voting preference hierarchy goes:
Black
Woman
Catholic
Hispanic
Jewish
Mormon
Gay
Muslim
Atheist
posted by Peccable at 1:05 PM on June 27 [4 favorites]


The important thing about Clinton is that all of us on the left know that she's going to dismantle the national surveillance state (and pardon Snowden), stop the militarization of the police around the country, stop the war on drugs, stop supporting military dictatorships that have oil around the world, respect Islamic countries when they democratically elect leaders that don't align with the US, stop the US from being a leading exporter of arms, and most importantly drain our prisons so we aren't #1 in prison rates. After that she'll tax the rich, support welfare (ie: dismantle her husbands 'workfare' programs), and... and...

Oh, wait, you mean she'll be a cheerleader as judges independently continue to give gay folks more rights (just as long as you don't ask when she started caring about gay rights), and... Employ anti-gun rhetoric (not actually change gun laws or anything)... and... wait... um... Not select a scary person for supreme court (probably, maybe, although judges when granted lifetime tenure have a tendency to get a bit more independent - not all the reagan/bush judges siding for gay marriage).

I feel like the political battle in the US is between the theocratic police state warmongering plutocrats and the secular police state warmongering plutocrats.

I also feel that when I express my distaste for secular police state warmongering plutocrats that people want to conflate that with my supporting theocrats.

Yes yes, the parties are different. Just not enough.
posted by el io at 1:08 PM on June 27 [3 favorites]


(oh, i forgot to add, even though the Democrats are certainly not theocrats, don't even think of running for president unless you believe in god, or purport to)
posted by el io at 1:11 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


The 2012 Gallup poll says the voting preference hierarchy goes...

According to that poll, 4% admit they wouldn't vote for a black candidate, and 6% admit they wouldn't vote for a Jewish candidate. Not a huge difference.
posted by John Cohen at 1:11 PM on June 27


This reminds me of the joke in "A Boy and His Dog" where the kid is listing the presidents: "Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy!"

Same joke, different decade.
posted by happyroach at 1:12 PM on June 27


Can't even believe a woman has a chance after Obama. The reactionary rubber band is gonna snap so hard back to into old rich white men territory. Then the next 20 years we'll be hearing forever that everything's the fault of the black guy.

I'll wish and hope and vote for the best woman candidate, but I can't say as I have much faith.
posted by BlueHorse at 1:20 PM on June 27


Various paraphrased/straw-manned mefites:

Ew, political dynasty… her husband cheated on her! … triangulation… I'LL BE STAYING HOME COME ELECTION DAY!

me:

WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU TELLING US?

Representative democracy in a two-party system ain't beanbag. It also ain't American Idol nor any other reality show, and it's also not a tumblr about your favorite fucking fandom.

It has very little to do with pleasing you as an individual- the point of it is not to give you a statement you can make about your lifestyle or whatever by choosing a side. It's just not about what it says about you at all…

I don't know what to blame here, maybe Dr. Spock, maybe the damned internet, maybe the parlous state of public education in this country, but every time national politics gets discussed I have to listen to avowedly liberal, ostensibly politically-aware people go on and fucking on about how the national candidate doesn't exactly reflect their personal opinions or beliefs and therefore the system can just COUNT THEM OUT, how do you like them apples?

Well, I'm pretty sure 'the system' finds those apples PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, as it has for the last several decades, and somehow no amount of "well if enough people stay home the powers that be will recognize their own illegitimacy and there'll be big changes!" has actually happened, any more than "if we just allow them to increase the contradictions then this entire corrupt edifice will finally implode!" has done.

If you don't like the concept of voting for the lesser of two evils, well, you have choices. If the slightly-less-evil party involved refuses to nominate a candidate that you feel best represents your preferences in gender, economics, foreign relations and Cumberbatch-related LARPing or whatever, you could- theoretically - get involved in politics yourself, at a local level at first, try convincing people of things and see where that gets you.

Or maybe you could become a godzillionaire like the Koch Brothers, or maybe talk George Soros into funding a a national faux-grassroots Occupy party, that seems to be a viable strategy somehow. Or perhaps you could just start a really cutting-edge political blog and get a million twitter followers, possibly that automatically gets you membership in the Bilderbergers or something, I'm not 100% sure how that works these days... but it's probably worth a try!

Or, of course, you could flounce about it on the blue. Declare your overwhelming disgust with the whole rotten system, man! Take your ball and go home! That'll learn 'em! It always does!
posted by hap_hazard at 2:12 PM on June 27 [14 favorites]


I don't understand anyone who doesn't vote. Look, hokey and flag flying as it might be, lots of people died for your right to vote.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:37 PM on June 27 [5 favorites]


Hilary has been in politics for years and ran in 08. She's fought through a lot of nasty campaigns to discredit and malign her as a candidate and even a person.

Yeah. I remember when she laughed at Obama and said "community organizer...what's that?".

You wanna play nasty, that's your prerogative. Don't you dare think for a second that I'm gonna forget that. I'd prolly rather have ANY other democrat because of the nasty way she dealt with Obama in 08. But if it came down to it, I'd pick her over ANY other republican.
posted by hal_c_on at 2:58 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


America is not ready for a twice-divorced Jewish president. Besides, he's waiting for Hilary to get elected so he can get nominated for the Supreme Court.

I think America will be ready for a Jewish president in 2016.

I don't think the issue has anything to do with whether or not America is "ready" for a Jewish President. It has EVERYTHING to do with whether the Jewish guy's opponents will be all "hey ignorant America...do you really want a JEW in the office?!?!"

Be warned, opponents. Old people from Chicago used to tell me about how the public were told all sorts of rumors when Catholic Kennedy was running for the Presidency. And no, he ended up not making a tunnel from the White House to the Vatican.
posted by hal_c_on at 3:07 PM on June 27


I'd prolly rather have ANY other democrat because of the nasty way she dealt with Obama in 08.

I don't think Obama took it personally, considering he named her Secretary of State. Also, I'm pretty sure the Obama team gave as good as it got.

Plus, I like the fact that she's a fighter who takes no prisoners. (Her husband, too.) Imagine how much fun it will be when the candidate on the receiving end of their campaign pugilistics is Ted Cruz or Chris Christie!
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:12 PM on June 27


I don't think Obama took it personally, considering he named her Secretary of State. Also, I'm pretty sure the Obama team gave as good as it got.

Plus, I like the fact that she's a fighter who takes no prisoners. (Her husband, too.) Imagine how much fun it will be when the candidate on the receiving end of their campaign pugilistics is Ted Cruz or Chris Christie!


I disagree, particularly with your first paragraph. Maybe Obama didnt take it personally, but Chicago sure did. Also. As loud as her bark is, I don't really see how harsh her bite is.

But that's the great thing, you can vote for whomever for your reasons, and I for mine.

USA! USA!
posted by hal_c_on at 3:23 PM on June 27


Had she been elected in 2008, and had she pursued health-care reform, I guarantee we'd be closer to single-payer than we are now.
No offense, but this claim seems delusional.
posted by Flunkie at 3:28 PM on June 27 [5 favorites]


how the public were told all sorts of rumors when Catholic Kennedy was running for the Presidency.

They pulled the same with Kerry. But, you know, a big chunk of this country is actively and openly anti-catholic. The KKK was an anti-papist organisation, after all - in addition to their other boogeymen. Even today, it is way easier to be openly anti-catholic than it is to be anti-semite.

So, I wouldn't expect Feingold to have any issues with his religion - but then, I never fail to be impressed with the depths of conservative mendacity. That being said, how people might vote is a different question. I like to believe that Russ' jewishness is less of an issue than, say Barack's blackness or Hillary's womanness. I have no evidence that reality maps well to that belief, however.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 3:36 PM on June 27


The Obama Admin has been unable to get anything accomplished exactly for the reasons Hillary said it would in the primarys, he lacks the political experience to get his agenda though.

Other than his entire agenda less Gitmo closing.

Stimulus
End of Don't Ask Don't Tell
End of DOMA
Pulled out of Iraq as promised.
Pulling out of Afghanistan as promised.
Dodd-Frank
Ending the life of Osama bin Laden
Increasing income taxes

and,

motherfucking Obamacare. That's so huge.

Whereas,

Hillary has never accomplished anything. No offense but she hasn't. She tried healthcare. Failed. What other signature anything does she have? Name one thing she's actually done.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:06 PM on June 27 [4 favorites]


Put another way, compared to Obama's near complete enacting of his agenda, what did Bill Clinton pass? Ending welfare as we know it, stupidly.

He did raise taxes and balance the budget, I will give him that. But got nothing else done.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:07 PM on June 27


Had she been elected in 2008, and had she pursued health-care reform, I guarantee we'd be closer to single-payer than we are now.
No offense, but this claim seems delusional.


Certainly not provable. And scoreboard. She failed to pass Hillarycare. That was her baby, that was her one job.

She was crushed.

Obama, on the other hand, did get Obamacare passed.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:09 PM on June 27


Hillary has never accomplished anything. No offense but she hasn't. She tried healthcare. Failed. What other signature anything does she have? Name one thing she's actually done.

Here's the thing. This is what I'm thinking, but I fail to say it because I haven't really followed her like I have followed people I like.

Did she accomplish anything?

I do remember her being on the wal-mart board of directors or something back in Arkansas, and despite her claims of "fighting the good fight", the other members remember her as "going along with the rest of us".

So can anybody back up or refute any of this stuff?
posted by hal_c_on at 4:19 PM on June 27


To be fair, I don't know if it was the board of directors, or just some kind of community outreach. That's not right, I should not say she was on their board of directors. Sorry, everybody. That's kinda unfair.
posted by hal_c_on at 4:24 PM on June 27


Pretending that the people's choice to vote for members of a dynasty is the same thing as a monarchy or is some kind step towards monarchy is mere propagandizing.

I mainly agree with you, but there is a complication: the presidential nominee isn't purely chosen by the people. In the Democratic Party, some delegates are chosen by politicians — including former presidents.

That said, I'm not trying to criticize Hillary Clinton here. I think she may be uniquely qualified among the candidates if she does run, and it's well past time for a woman to be president, so I tentatively plan on voting for her.
posted by John Cohen at 4:25 PM on June 27


Am I missing the part where Obama got a bunch of national policy enacted before 2008? Or am I logged in to alternate universe MetaFilter where President Hillary Clinton hasn't done much with her six years in office so far?
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:25 PM on June 27 [4 favorites]


I think Hillary would make a pretty good president, and I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, even though I've never been a huge fan.

It's unfair to say that she didn't get healthcare passed, however. That was in large part due to the fact that she was The First Lady at the time rather than a legislator, and there was all that BS about "a woman's place" and what a First Lady "should" be doing. I think Michelle Obama learned a valuable lesson from Hillary's failure in the mid-90s -- even though she's arguably as smart as her husband and could be proposing real policy rather than a "soft" issue like childhood obesity. (Not that it's not a serious issue, but it's more traditional First Lady stuff.)
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 4:27 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


Hey Guys,

I've been lurking around here reading mefi comments for like a decade, but I paid my 5 bucks so I could ask why she gets a pass for voting for the Iraq war? There is no mention of that in this thread. There is some talk of Iraq, and how '9/11...did extremely weird things', but no mention of her vote. I read a lot of this kind of shit, and her Iraq vote doesn't seem to come up much, and I legitimately find that shocking. Am I on an island here thinking that anyone who voted for the Iraq war should have no future in the Democratic party at the very least. I am obviously not going to vote for the Palin/Cruz ticket or whatever other sociopathic imbeciles the tea party comes up with, but come on can't we do better than someone who voted for what was obviously a disastrous policy based on a rationale that was demonstrable false. If democratic politicians can't oppose something that horrible, what good are they?
posted by Colby_Longhorn at 4:29 PM on June 27 [12 favorites]


It's unfair to say that she didn't get healthcare passed, however. That was in large part due to the fact that she was The First Lady at the time rather than a legislator, and there was all that BS about "a woman's place" and what a First Lady "should" be doing.

True. But then you can't have it both ways. Don't say she has been involved in politics since back then, and then say "well of course she didn't get anything accomplished, she was a First Lady".

She either was involved in politics and didn't do jack, or she wasn't involved in politics so that "experience" doesn't count as working within a political role
posted by hal_c_on at 4:31 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


I've been lurking around here reading mefi comments for like a decade, but I paid my 5 bucks so I could ask why she gets a pass for voting for the Iraq war?

She certainly didn't get a pass in 2008. However, she was a very good Secretary of State, and compared to the (probable) hawk she's going to be running against..
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:34 PM on June 27


Here we go again.

Days Since "Moral Purity" vs. "Gritty Realism" Debate
134 0


posted by benito.strauss at 4:46 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


I get the whole 'lesser of two evils' stuff - if she is the nominee I will vote for her (I voted for Nader, not a life lesson I will soon forget). My frustration is that democrats are even entertaining the idea of her running. I know there was likely no hope of stopping the Bush/Cheney war machine, but when this country needed prominent voices to say that it was not only wrong, but down right nuts, all she gave us was cowardice. Yet in discussions about her candidacy the conversation is whether or not she did enough on single payer (she didn't, and neither did Obama, but oh well). To me the Iraq vote is her defining moment, and now, a few years after the fact it's like it's old news or something.
posted by Colby_Longhorn at 4:51 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


why she gets a pass for voting for the Iraq war? There is no mention of that in this thread.

My feeling (which may or may not be accurate) is her vote for war hasn't been said because it goes without saying. She'd be a pretty good candidate in most ways but people have to really hold their nose to vote for her because of things like her military/intelligence positions. I know that I'm disgusted by positions she's taken on issues I care about, not her name. I expect her to be less awful than the GOP offering, but it would be nice if the dems could do better.
I do like the idea of a woman in the Oval Office though; another barrier cracked.
posted by anonymisc at 5:08 PM on June 27


"Moral Purity" vs. "Gritty Realism"

Well I'd phrase it as something more like "imagining your 'moral purity' has any political salience whatsoever" vs "understanding and/or caring about the practice and consequence of actual US electoral politics", but tomato/tomahto I guess.

Don't get me wrong- I was a Sam Steiger libertarian for several months when I was 20 or something, but that had mainly to do with how quxotic and hilarious of a thing that seemed to be. Now, though, having seen decades of the results of electing R presidents and representatives in this country, and how it's resulted in actual harm for people, and also no longer being 20 and therefore having a less-than-infinite time horizon, I no longer think that way.

But of course your vote- or choice to abstain from voting, as though that was also a meaningful political gesture- is entirely your own decision.
posted by hap_hazard at 5:10 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


That was in large part due to the fact that she was The First Lady at the time rather than a legislator, and there was all that BS about "a woman's place" and what a First Lady "should" be doing.

That's funny. I don't remember a single person saying that back then and I was in my mid-twenties. I remember her making zero allies in industry and not reaching out to congress and completely mishandling the rollout. I remember actors in a commercial who said bad things about the healthcare plan and I remember the Clintons bailing quite quickly.

I also remember Obama hiring the same actors to say his plan was good and continuing to press for it for almost 2 years before it passed. I also remember it being a raging success.

Not to say she can't be great, but we haven't seen it yet. And we need more folks running. All our eggs cannot be in this one basket.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:14 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


Days Since "Moral Purity" vs. "Gritty Realism" Debate

Yes, this would be the main debate within the left side of the political spectrum.

I don't know if anyone noticed but the right side of the political spectrum is in near all-out war amongst themselves because of their own moral purity faction.

So count me amongst the gritty realists.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:17 PM on June 27


BTW, I'm really curious: any GLBT activists out there that were around during Clinton's presidency? I'm just wondering if the 'community' has a positive view of him (as a whole).

Because DOMA was signed into law under him (if I recall he used lots of discussion about 'compromise' to pass landbreaking anti-gay federal legislation)... And before he passed 'DADT' into law, the president had the power to unilaterally change the rules of the military if he wanted. So, I saw Clinton give a ton of lip service to the gay community, but when paper came to pen (ie: signing shit into law) he was horrid. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this topic.

The arguments I've hear on the 'pro-Hillary' side - 'She's a woman' (um, yeah, so is Palin) and 'She'll be better than the Republican candidate' (which you could say about a half-ripe turnip with a D after it's name).

It's weird that people are already using the language of inevitability when describing her candidacy, but I have yet to hear anyone articulate what policies she would promote or any brave stance she has taken about anything.
posted by el io at 5:57 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


With the exception of social issues there really does seem to be not much difference between the parties. This country seems to ratchet one way - to the right - with every election. That being said, the Democrats ratchet slower and do occasionally put up a fuss when the GOP does something especially stupid and/or evil. I don't self identify as liberal or left wing but it seems like madness to not vote for the Dem candidate in the general election; unless you live in a state that is solid blue anyhow.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:00 PM on June 27


Sorry, I was catching up on the tread and was meaning to respond to people up-thread who were saying they weren't going to vote at all. I should have quoted them to make my intention clear. I totally see the value in debating who the Democrats should nominate. Apologies for muddying things.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:05 PM on June 27


This country seems to ratchet one way - to the right - with every election.

I know, with those right wingers forcing tax increases on us and making us accept their gay marriage. Especially their hated increased EPA enforcement, Dodd Frank, and government programs to massively increase access to heathcare! What's a real Democrat to do!
posted by Ironmouth at 6:20 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


This country seems to ratchet one way - to the right - with every election.

That's how I see this next presidential election. Ratchet.
posted by hal_c_on at 6:34 PM on June 27


With the exception of social issues there really does seem to be not much difference between the parties.
The Republicans actually shut down the government. Because, freedom. Or Kenya. Or something. And this is not really an isolated event - they went to the brink a bunch of times, and likely will go there again as soon as they get the chance. And beyond that, a large number of them view shutting it down as an end in itself rather than a means.

They debate among themselves exactly how many cabinet-level federal departments should be completely eliminated. Department of Education - eliminate it entirely or just cut its budget to zero? Department of Energy - eliminate? Or defund? How about Health and Human Services? Commerce? Labor?

And I'm not saying my crazy uncle says he wants to do these things at Thanksgiving; these are the kind of things that Republican presidential candidates discuss with each other during their primary debates. Exactly how many cabinet-level federal departments should be completely eliminated. Candidate Ralph says three. Candidate Mel says five. Candidate Fred says all but Defense. Candidate Joe says Fred goes a little too far, but he's on the right track; maybe we should keep Defense and Homeland Security.

And even ignoring things like the above, "With the exception of social issues"? Really? Really? Other than that, how'd you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
posted by Flunkie at 6:47 PM on June 27 [6 favorites]


I kind of hear the 'I won't vote at all if it's Hillary' as the equivalent of 'I won't listen to your feminist arguments if you don't speak to me with the perfect dulcet pandering language.' It's an exclamation of the privilege of not being personally implicated.

As a woman of childbearing age, without great personal or family means, accessibility of birth control and abortion is literally a life and death issue for me. I can get as theoretical as the next over educated Mefite about parties and politics and Overton windows. But what seems like a small difference to someone else ("social issues," per mrbigmuscle) is in fact something that could affect every day of the rest of my life (and how long that life is).

There's definitely a time and place for discussing (and bemoaning) how far from left the 'left' is. But minimizing the differences between the parties is effectively minimizing the life and death concerns of, well, usually people with less power, money, and, yes, privilege, than the ones doing the minimizing.
posted by Salamandrous at 6:47 PM on June 27 [9 favorites]



There's definitely a time and place for discussing (and bemoaning) how far from left the 'left' is. But minimizing the differences between the parties is effectively minimizing the life and death concerns of, well, usually people with less power, money, and, yes, privilege, than the ones doing the minimizing.


Exactly. It's frankly nauseating. it reminds me of people who wanted to move to Europe during the Bush presidency, where people/things very negatively affected by Bush's Presidency (poor minorities, poor women, poor LGBTQ people, the environment) didn't have the option to move across town, much less Europe.

They are stuck and if you don't vote you are leaving them.
posted by sweetkid at 6:56 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


They are stuck and if you don't vote you are leaving them.

This is true, and I agree with you, but a TON of people, both Republican and Democrat, don't see themselves as needing to contribute back to society in that way. They believe their taxes are more than enough. Maybe a stint on the PTA.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


You know, down here on the ground in Texas where tonight we are just barely allowing ourselves to hope (but preparing to be crushed, because we're used to that) that Wendy Davis might become governor, or that any Democrat might get a major office....

..we do not give a flying fuck about Clinton's flaws. We are fighting for our survival down here. We are clinging on with all we have and hoping that demographics and phone banks and filibusters and the arc of goddamn justice or whatever the fuck will rescue us from this nightmare of Republican looting, racism, gun-fucking and uterus-jailing.

Clinton has the best chance of winning. She is our only hope right now. It's her or goddamn Handmaid's Tale. There are many reasons this sucks! Just like it would suck to having nothing but stale peanut-butter sandwiches between you and starvation. But sitting around bitching about how much better a steak would be isn't going to make it any better.

I know that the crappy Democrats survive thanks to the horribleness of the Republicans, and they both survive thanks to the shitty two-party system and the electoral college, and apparently, the goddamn Civil War that is never going to be over. But it doesn't make two shit's worth of difference to us. These fuckers would stick us in jail for miscarrying, and stone homosexuals to death, and force our kids to go to Jesus School, in a fucking second if we let them.

She's a politician, her hands are not clean, she likes war too much, and [insert list of problems here]. But she's our fucking stale-ass peanut butter sandwich, and it's her or starve.
posted by emjaybee at 7:28 PM on June 27 [22 favorites]


It's her or goddamn Handmaid's Tale.

This isn't even an exaggeration, I don't think.
posted by sweetkid at 7:52 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Hillary Clinton is hardly the only Democrat that could win. The Republicans have won the popular vote in exactly one Presidential election since 1988. Demographic trends make it almost impossible for Republicans to win elections at the national level in the parties' current form. They will be lucky to take back the Senate this fall, their last chance for control of the Senate for a long time. Add to that the fact that Republican front runners keep dropping like flies in the face of scandal, and it becomes extremely difficult to see how the Republicans can win in 2016.

I'd say the Republicans would have a better chance in 2020 provided there is some economic, political, or foreign policy scandal/disaster and they manage to run someone who is sufficiently moderate to appeal to a national electorate. That is why it is important for Democrats to nominate the right person in 2016. I really don't think Hillary Clinton is that person.

That being said, it would be foolish not to vote for her in the general election should she win the Democratic primary. To name just one reason, the Supreme Court is about to remind us all on Monday why it is important.
posted by eagles123 at 8:48 PM on June 27


I think that the fact that not one person in this thread has mentioned Amy Klobuchar - despite her being both mentioned and pictured in the article - is one of many reasons that she would be a great president.

But realistically, The Democrats put Hilary forward because she can win. I like Elizabeth Warren too, but there is no way she could get elected as president unless she moves more to the middle. And if anyone thinks she can, they've really underestimated how conservative this country really is. Hilary is a safe choice because she's a centrist Democrat and liberals will vote for her anyway, despite the Iraq War. And she'll probably be able to pick up some of the mythical undecideds as well, depending on who the GOP puts forward. There's not a chance in hell of Elizabeth Warren doing that.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:25 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Hillary Clinton is hardly the only Democrat that could win.

I note that not a single other potential candidate for president from the Dems is named in your comment.

If not Hillary, who?
posted by Ironmouth at 9:44 PM on June 27


I kind of hear the 'I won't vote at all if it's Hillary' as the equivalent of 'I won't listen to your feminist arguments if you don't speak to me with the perfect dulcet pandering language.' It's an exclamation of the privilege of not being personally implicated.

Please don't paint those that don't support her as anti-feminist. That's just not cool. That's like calling me racist because I'm not a fan of Obama. Certainly there are plenty of mysgonists that hate Hillary, and plenty of racists that hate Obama, but there are also a ton of people (on both sides of the political spectrum) that have issues with these folks for reasons other than gender/race.

To all those that are concerned with reproductive rights - good! But... The conservatives have taken the battle of reproductive rights to the state level, and the national politicians (ie: democrats in senate/house/presidency) haven't done much to slow down the awful last few years of reduction of reproductive rights. I have no idea why anyone thinks that Hillary can stop the states from doing the awful shit they are doing (which is plenty, on many levels).

Reproductive rights seem to be at a crisis level right now in various places in the country; but I really think that local (ie: state) elections are the key to changing this tide (it's certainly been the strategy of the anti-choice/forcedbirth crowd).

And while I certainly acknowledge that Hillary's candidacy brought out the most vile mysogonist language I've ever seen in my life in a political campaign (as Obama does now with racism), my lack of support for her has *nothing* to do with her gender.
posted by el io at 10:03 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


Sibelius/Warren 2016!
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 10:43 PM on June 27


I voted for a woman in the last presidential election, and I hope I'll have the chance to do so again; certainly not for Clinton, though.
posted by threeants at 10:45 PM on June 27


Whoever gets the nomination in 2016, I think Mark Warner is a lock for the veep spot. He's got the moderate credentials, was and is an immensely popular figure in his purple home state, and has his eyes on bigger prizes. As a Virginian, I'm not sold on him, but he's the obvious choice.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 11:11 PM on June 27


I note that not a single other potential candidate for president from the Dems is named in your comment.

If not Hillary, who?


I'll come right out and say it. I think Elizabeth Warren could win. I don't think she is "too liberal", or anything like that. What exactly about her is "so liberal" that it would turn off people off? Is expanding social security too liberal? Is raising the minimum wage too liberal? It isn't 1988 anymore or even 1994 anymore. The country has changed. We've been through one foreign policy disaster and one economic disaster.

She would be my choice, but there are other candidates. If want a list, here it is:

Biden
O'Malley
Schweitzer
Sanders
Cuomo

Those aren't all necessarily all candidates I would support over Hillary, but they are alternatives.

I could just as easily turn around and ask who the Republicans are going to run. Christie? The base hates him and he'll be lucky to escape indictment? Plus his entire "bi-partisan get er dun" persona has been completely destroyed. Walker? The guy has the charisma of a plank of wood and would be completely out of his depth in a national campaign. Plus, he'll be lucky to be re-elected in his home state. Jeb Bush? His own mother doesn't even want him to run. He probably doesn't even want to run. Romney again? Why? He couldn't even beat an unpopular sitting President in a down economy.

Beyond them, who?

In the end, it doesn't come to individual candidates except in boundary cases like an economic/foreign policy disaster, scandal, or an exceptionally charismatic candidate. Short of Reagan coming back from the dead, the last case is not going to happen for the Republicans. If the first two cases happen, the Democrats are screwed anyway.....

The math in the electoral college is simply insurmountable for Republicans right now short of a massive political realignment. 2012 was their best shot to win outside of a complete disaster because at least they were running against an unpopular president in a weak economy.
posted by eagles123 at 11:24 PM on June 27


I don't like Clinton. But god damn it, I'm going to vote for her if she's the dem's choice.

What I don't like is that DESPITE all of her shortcomings, she seems to be:

1. the only woman who is throwing her hat into the ring.
2. the only democrat who is ambitious enough to want that oval office.

i mean shit...why can't we get all sorts of smart ambitious democrats (male and female) being all "ummm hi, i like to fight republicans and sailors at bars"

i hate how she tries to make it sound like she and her just-out-of-the-white-house hubby were all "poor", and didn't have enough money for "houses". but i would choose her over any republican any god damn day.

you know this motherfucker's gonna fight. just put her in the ring and let her go.

you are an idiot, not a democrat if you don't vote for her because you have issues with her.
but seriously, its better that you stay at home than vote for the stupid republican, so at least there's that.
posted by hal_c_on at 4:35 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


I don't want Elizabeth Warren to run because I can't handle another Senate race in MA. Please. Also, and more seriously, we need her in the Senate for a decade or two first.

But I say this as someone who is very excited to vote for Clinton. And someone who gets hives everytime the dynasty spiel rears its (in this case) sexist head: she is Bill Clinton's wife not his daughter or his protégée. She was a Senator. She was Secretary of fucking State. Vote for her or not, but don't diminish her career, accomplishments, and politics to serve a point.
posted by lydhre at 4:58 AM on June 28 [5 favorites]


If voting didn't matter Republicans wouldn't be trying so hard to stop people from doing it.
posted by Mick at 6:22 AM on June 28 [7 favorites]


It's kind of amazing how many people have really strong opinions about politics but apparently don't watch the process at all. At this point, with significantly partisan politics and a GOP committed to never giving an inch, it's all about having enough Dems in Congress to pass legislature. There's no magic power the Clinton machine has that will make the Republicans less obstreporous, and the ACA was the most liberal plan that could have possibly passed (it's also the most conservative plan that could possibly work, but that's where we are right now.) I forget which pundit coined "the Green Lantern theory of the presidency," but I've seen it several times in this thread--the idea that if the president demonstrates "leadership" or has enough "willpower" he or she can force legislation through Congress. It's nonsense. There is nothing you can do to make Boehner or McConnell compromise. I wish we had a parliamentary system, but we don't, and that means in a partisan era with divided government, nothing big will pass. There's no magic power that overcomes the math.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:59 AM on June 28 [3 favorites]


Matt Yglesias coined the Green Lantern theory.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:25 AM on June 28


I tend to vote my conscience in the primary and whoever the nominee is during the general. My far lefty picks never seem to win the primaries, but at least I tried. So I'll probably vote for someone other than Clinton during the primary (depending on who runs of course), but if she wins I won't hesitate in voting for her in the general vs whatever nutjob ends up the Republican nominee.
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:12 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


If Hilary Clinton is nominated and you don't want to vote for her, and the other SCOTUS arguments here and elsewhere don't convince you, consider what SCOTUS has done to voting rights recently. Consider the millions and millions of people who have already been systematically disenfranchised. Consider that fucking with the voting process is the only, last chance the Republicans have to remain an actual party in the face of a changing (and changed) country. Consider that they are just getting started. Consider that you might want to vote in a different election one day and even if you are not in a targeted group you might still find yourself a victim of broader voting restrictions. And if you don't want to vote for yourself, please vote to let someone else have the chance.

Regarding Elizabeth Warren, I'm looking forward to her presidency as much as everyone else but think that a Warren presidency in 2016 would be a waste. Right now I want her in the Senate, doing stuff, not waiting for the Congressional Freak Show to send her a bill.

the idea that if the president demonstrates "leadership" or has enough "willpower" he or she can force legislation through Congress. It's nonsense. There is nothing you can do to make Boehner or McConnell compromise.

Hey, there's always the executive order!
posted by Room 641-A at 9:37 AM on June 28


Biden
O'Malley
Schweitzer
Sanders
Cuomo


If elected, Joe Biden will be 74 years old when he is sworn in. He would be 82 if he served a complete 2 terms.

O'Malley is not that strong a campaigner--I've watched him from just over the Maryland border. I think he'd be a good president but he has near zero name recognition.

Brian Schwietzer? Not ready for prime time as this last month has shown. Can't control himself on TV and says stupid shit constantly.

What party is Senator Sanders going to run for office in? He's not a democrat and never has been. He has no constituency in a party he has never joined. He would have no staff, no money, no ability to woo delegates in caucus states, and is simply not capable of winning the nomination. He's older than Biden and would be a 75 year old man on his first day in office. He'd be 83 upon leaving after a second term.

Cuomo isn't charismatic enough to lead this country, flat out.

Any list that actually has Bernie Sanders running for the Democratic nomination on it cannot be taken seriously.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:20 AM on June 28


I forget which pundit coined "the Green Lantern theory of the presidency," but I've seen it several times in this thread--the idea that if the president demonstrates "leadership" or has enough "willpower" he or she can force legislation through Congress. It's nonsense.

Love how LBJ is trotted out as an exemplar. LBJ had 68 Dem senators in 1965 and the House was a staggering 295-140 Dem. If we get to compare LBJ to Obama, does Obama get those numbers nationally? It was the largest House majority since 1936. The claim that Obama hasn't been "tough enough" is bullshit. He got his programs through with a much smaller majority than LBJ or FDR, both of whom had titanic majorities.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:27 AM on June 28 [3 favorites]


That was in large part due to the fact that she was The First Lady at the time rather than a legislator, and there was all that BS about "a woman's place" and what a First Lady "should" be doing.

That's funny. I don't remember a single person saying that back then and I was in my mid-twenties.


Not that it really matters, but I absolutely remember this. Well, not so much the "woman's place" thing, but the controversy about what a FL "should" do was pretty huge. The health care initiative came soon in the Clinton presidency very shortly after Bill Clinton's "two for the price of one" crack that didn't go over so well for half the country. People were very suspicious of this unelected, unconfirmed appointee heading up such an enormous and controversial task force, and even more so after she held hearings behind closed doors.

HRC's being FL very much played into all of that. For an initiative that was going require huge public buy-in, all of the suspicion and criticism may well have been enough to doom it even apart from the mistakes she made.
posted by torticat at 11:22 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


"Any list that actually has Bernie Sanders running for the Democratic nomination on it cannot be taken seriously."

I yearn for the day when the overton window would make Bernie far too conservative for the Democratic nomination, when the only place he would have in party politics would be with the Republicans.

But yeah, currently the actual progressives aren't even allowed to be part of the policy debates, let alone be considered 'serious' enough for Washington.
posted by el io at 12:11 PM on June 28 [1 favorite]


Note: Actual Progressives tend to sit next to True Scotsmen at dinner parties.
posted by el io at 12:14 PM on June 28 [3 favorites]


Cuomo isn't charismatic enough to lead this country, flat out.

I weakly disagree about him being uncharismatic (dude has more magnetism than GHWB at least), but the usual ethical consequences of being involved in NY politics for so long won't help him, and I'm not sure how people our parents' age would react to a presidential candidate who's shacking up with someone. I'd hope it doesn't matter, but still.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:48 PM on June 28


Any list that actually has Bernie Sanders running for the Democratic nomination on it cannot be taken seriously.

As I made clear in my comment, the list was not meant to be an endorsement of the each of the candidates against Hillary Clinton, but merely to illustrate that there are alternatives.

Every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. To complete your analysis of the known possible Democratic candidates, I'll give Hillary Clinton's:

Strengths:

Lot's of Connections
Strong "brand"
First woman President would be a great thing
Experience at being a national figure
Polls well (at the moment)

Weaknesses:

Not an inspiring speaker
Not always personable
Has a tendency to get defensive, which results in stupid, distracting fights
Has a weird tendency to stretch the truth/lie in really stupid ways
Poor campaigner as evidenced by her performance in 2008
Lot's of baggage from the Clinton years

I actually agree that Schweitzer has a persona that doesn't generally translate well to a national campaign, as evidenced by his poor week in the media, but I also think that Hillary's disastrous book tour highlights her weaknesses.

She (1) got into a stupid fight over whether she and her husband "struggled" after her husband left the White House, and (2) got into a needlessly testy exchange over gay marriage, and (3) somehow managed to give an insulting/insensitive answer concerning immigration. In short, her book tour was unsuccessful, and the actual book itself was a disaster if you judge by its sales.

All of this is beside my overall points though, which are that (1) the demographics of this country make it extremely difficult for Republicans to win a Presidential election, and (2) the Republicans do not have any credible candidates. Had Bridgate not happened it would be a different story because I think Christie could have been a credible candidate, although I would still be confident of a Democratic victory, but it did.

I'm still interested to know what makes Elizabeth Warren "too liberal" and who the Republicans have to run that Democrats should be afraid of.
posted by eagles123 at 1:03 PM on June 28


Not that it really matters, but I absolutely remember this.

As do I. I still see it labeled as "Hillarycare" sometimes, even now.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:06 PM on June 28


Also, I want to emphasize that I would never endorse Andrew Cuomo for anything, ever. He (and maybe Biden) are the only two people on that list who I would choose Hillary over in a primary with no reservations.
posted by eagles123 at 1:13 PM on June 28


I don't want Elizabeth Warren to run because I can't handle another Senate race in MA. Please. Also, and more seriously, we need her in the Senate for a decade or two first.

YES. You may not take our senior senator, and Ed Markey cannot be our senior senator, and we cannot have another goddamn special election for Senate plz.
posted by rollbiz at 5:48 PM on June 28 [2 favorites]


Also, thanks to a bunch of people for giving me new ways to articulate the fury I feel when people don't vote because they think it's some grand political statement or something.
posted by rollbiz at 5:49 PM on June 28


"Any list that actually has Bernie Sanders running for the Democratic nomination on it cannot be taken seriously."

I yearn for the day when the overton window would make Bernie far too conservative for the Democratic nomination, when the only place he would have in party politics would be with the Republicans.

But yeah, currently the actual progressives aren't even allowed to be part of the policy debates, let alone be considered 'serious' enough for Washington.


The reason Bernie Sanders cannot be the Democratic nominee for president is that he is not, and has never been a member of the Democratic party. How a person who is not a member of that party is going to be the nominee of that party is beyond me? Legally, he cannot run as a Democrat. And that has been his decision, no one else's. It has nothing to do with being a true or "actual" progressive.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:02 PM on June 28


Put another way, compared to Obama's near complete enacting of his agenda, what did Bill Clinton pass? Ending welfare as we know it, stupidly.

Have we forgotten the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, i.e., the financial deregulation that played a major role in either causing the 2008 financial crisis or at least making its consequences a helluva lot worse?
posted by jonp72 at 10:29 PM on June 28 [1 favorite]


I see the monarchy thing and I think, if she was actually some kind of exemplar of progressive politics, those same posts would be "I mean, yeah, she's yet another Clinton, but..."
posted by jason_steakums at 10:47 PM on June 28


Legally, he cannot run as a Democrat. And that has been his decision, no one else's. It has nothing to do with being a true or "actual" progressive.

Is that true? I thought that Ralph Nader ran under the Green Party even though he was not a member of the party. (I could be wrong, and I'm too lazy to read Nader wikipedia entries)
posted by el io at 11:28 PM on June 28


I told my husband the other night that a part of me, a small but not-insignificant part of me does not want a woman president this next election. Because I don't want the backlash. I don't want the brutal, hateful anti-woman rhetoric that would go along with a woman president.

Does it make me a coward? Yeah, it kind of does.

I will likely still vote for Hillary, and a Hillary/Warren ticket would be dreamy. But I also know that means a lot more shit for women, in the same way that Obama's administration has been plagued with an undercurrent of racism that is just below the surface. Too many privileged white men getting angry over some perception of being wronged because a black dude is telling them what to do. Then follow it up with a woman telling them what to do? I see a lot of anger towards woman.

Of course, that's all the more reason to vote a woman into office. But I don't think it's an unreasonable fear.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 11:57 PM on June 28 [1 favorite]


Also re:Warren running. Around this time (Maybe a little earlier), people wanted Barrack to run, but were worried it was sort of a fantasy/dream and he was too inexperienced. Then he ran, and everyone though there was no way he'd win the primary. And so on.

My point is I agree Warren probably isn't going to run, but I also wouldn't count her out.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 12:05 AM on June 29


Waren is lovely, but she's too far left to gain any traction with the mushy middle.

As for those who are taking their ball and going home: grow up. Do you not realize that, in your two-party system (yes, ok, Greens, but they cannot and will not win the Presidency anytime soon) not voting for whoever the Dem nominee is exactly the same as voting R?

Do you really want to wish the massive disenfranchisement and social spending slashing that would happen under an R president, with most likely an R majority in the house, and quite possibly an R majority in the Senate?

Seriously?

"I'm not voting because ew Hillary" is telling the rest of the country: fuck you, QUILTBAG people and your rights, fuck you women and your right to decide what to do with your own body, fuck poor people in general especially if your skin is darker, fuck you and the healthcare you deserve, fuck you for thinking you deserve a government that at least tries to do positive things for the people instead of lining their own pockets, fuck you people who aren't Christian.

It's saying "Fuck you, I got mine."

I thought progressives on Mefi were less selfish than that. MetaFilter, I am disappoint.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:33 AM on June 29 [2 favorites]


In the last election a lot of progressives followed the strategy that if you live in a swing state you should vote against the Republican (and thus for the Democrat), but if you live in a solid blue state you should vote for a third party candidate. That approach seems just as logical in a hypothetical Hillary election.
posted by homunculus at 9:50 AM on June 29


The reason Bernie Sanders cannot be the Democratic nominee for president is that he is not, and has never been a member of the Democratic party. How a person who is not a member of that party is going to be the nominee of that party is beyond me? Legally, he cannot run as a Democrat.

Sanders was the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2006 and 2012, so this specific argument holds no water at all.

More broadly, you can run for a party's nomination without being a member of that party because American parties don't have anything that really corresponds to the idea of "membership."* This would be especially true for presidential candidates, which of necessity cross state lines. For people with previous political office, you can look at which party nominated them, but candidates are free to seek other nominations, and in some states candidates can simultaneously be the nominee from multiple parties. Or you could look at their party registration, but many states don't have party registration. A requirement that you cannot run in the Democratic presidential primary without being registered as a Democrat would mean that nobody from North Dakota or Michigan could legally run.

Parties typically have formal rules that require their nominees to actually believe and espouse something close to the party line. However, in practice, actually enforcing these provisions seems to require substantial legal action.

*Going further, there's also not a single national organization that one could be a member of.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:19 AM on June 29


Waren is lovely, but she's too far left to gain any traction with the mushy middle.

That may be true right now... but if the progressive left can find a way to get their message out incrementally over a number of years, pushing the needle of what is acceptable and even desired slowly to the left (the same way the needle has been pushed to the right by the perhaps-not-coordinated-but-certainly-effective right-focussed media engine), she could easily be a viable candidate.

She's not that far to the left, actually. She's advocating for things which are pretty middle of the road -- a fair wage, protection from predatory lending practices, transparency with the information gathered about people's finances that is used for determining credit...

None of this is even close to controversial, it's just that the wind that has been blowing for the past many years makes all of these seem somehow radical.
posted by hippybear at 10:35 AM on June 29 [1 favorite]


The reason Bernie Sanders cannot be the Democratic nominee for president is that he is not, and has never been a member of the Democratic party. How a person who is not a member of that party is going to be the nominee of that party is beyond me? Legally, he cannot run as a Democrat.

Sanders was the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2006 and 2012, so this specific argument holds no water at all.

More broadly, you can run for a party's nomination without being a member of that party because American parties don't have anything that really corresponds to the idea of "membership."*


Someone hasn't read state election codes.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:21 PM on June 29


Some of them certainly state that you have to be registered with a party to run in its presidential primary. Obviously this would pose only the most trivial of obstacles to Sanders, who at most would have to change his registration. And nobody in the Democratic party gets to refuse him registration, at least not without an expensive court fight.

Even if he didn't, those statements are almost certainly inoperative as there are many states where it is impossible to register with a party. Insisting on registration would mean that nobody from Georgia, Michigan, or other states without party registration could be nominated.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:57 PM on June 29


She's not that far to the left, actually. She's advocating for things which are pretty middle of the road -- a fair wage, protection from predatory lending practices, transparency with the information gathered about people's finances that is used for determining credit...


In the USA of today, that is practically socialism. She is, at this time, unelectable as President--which is a sad commentary on US politics today. Plus she doesn't want to run.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:26 AM on June 30


If we were a sane nation, Elizabeth Warren would win the nomination and election, but we are a nation of plutocrats and willing serfs, so Hillary will get the nomination with nary a fight, and I will stay at home election night.

What if she doesn't even run?

Even if she does run and loses, a Hillary nomination would almost certainly include an endorsement and campaigning by Warren. Does that make her a plutocrat and willing serf? I love EW but doubt she's so ideologically pure that she'd pull a Jerry Brown and refuse to endorse Clinton.

Either way, if Hillary Clinton is nominated, who do you think Elizabeth Warren is going to vote for?
posted by Room 641-A at 10:28 AM on June 30


I will probably, like I have in every election in my life except for 2008, hold my nose and vote Democrat in the general election. But I don't have to like it, and I'm not going to pretend Hillary is remotely progressive. A more accurate description would be to say I won't be voting for Hillary, but rather against the Republican.

Oh well, at least I won't have the crushing disappointment I had after 2008.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:53 AM on June 30


Either way, if Hillary Clinton is nominated, who do you think Elizabeth Warren is going to vote for?

That's between her and her ballot, but I bet she'll make a lot of appearances standing on stages near Ms. Clinton up until election day.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:27 AM on June 30


entropicamericana: I will probably, like I have in every election in my life except for 2008, hold my nose and vote Democrat in the general election. But I don't have to like it, and I'm not going to pretend Hillary is remotely progressive. A more accurate description would be to say I won't be voting for Hillary, but rather against the Republican.

As will I, but that's not what you said at the very top of this thread, it's not the verbatim quote I included in my response, and it's not what I (and many others here) were responding to.

Nonetheless, I am genuinely glad you changed your mind because if all the angry and frustrated Hillary '08 supporters stayed home we'd have President Romney.

Democracy: Hold my nose and vote.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:54 PM on June 30 [1 favorite]


Please don't call me a Hillary supporter.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:48 PM on June 30


Seems to me you folks have been voting strategically since McGovern and the country's in the toilet. Keep shaming everyone who's had enough, though.
posted by Trochanter at 4:29 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]


Nope, I spent quite a few elections voting my conscience. It achieved fuck-all.

See, your vote, by itself, is nothing. Absolutely nothing. It only accomplishes something when combined with sufficient number of other votes going the same way. Show me the sufficient number of people who had enough and I'll join them. But I've been voting since 1980 and it has yet to have the desired effect.

And if we try, and it doesn't work, it's not "Oh well, nice try, maybe next time." There will be a president for the next four years and more people will die.

So you can, and will, come to your own decision. Me, I've decided "fuck my conscience, this is other people's lives".
posted by benito.strauss at 4:55 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]


« Older Film director Guillermo del Toro has confirmed tha...  |  The Pitchforks Are Coming… For... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments