Skip to main content

My guess is I'm not the only progressive who is going to have a hard time with any daylight between these 2 statements:

1. Absent any seismic shifts, I'm probably around 90% on the Hillary Clinton train. My primary vote is hers to lose.

2. I can't see myself supporting any candidate in the Dem primaries who doesn't share my views on the 4th Amendment, warrantless spying of American citizens, etc.

In the 2008 primary season, the Iraq War Resolution was the main issue that separated the establishment wing and grassroots progressives. What hot button issues separate those two factions now? We all seem to be on the same page on Immigration Reform, Marriage Equality. and Voting Rights...as surprising as unity would have seemed 10 years ago on some of those issues.

Even on economic issues, the most corporatist Dems seem to talk a progressive and/or populist game come election time.

The most apparent stumbling block for Democratic primary contenders could be trying to justify or cheerlead infringements on our 4th Amendment liberties in the protection of our national security. Or worse yet, defending any personal involvement in such actions, should they come to light.

It's possible that a candidate on the "pro-security" side of this issue could emerge out the Democratic field. But they would surely be fighting an uphill battle, and potentially come out of it bruised.

I'll admit I'm predisposed to supporting Hillary, because she's our strongest candidate. Emotionally, any bitterness from the 2008 season is dissipated. She was an admirable representative of not only Democrats, but of all Americans, over the past 5 years.

But when debate season rolls around and there's one candidate defending the NSA and PRISM, and another one reminding us about the 4th Amendment and Benjamin Franklin...that's going to quickly become the only relevant factor.

I'm not implying that Hillary is on a specific side of this. I legitimately want to know. My worry is she has positioned herself as the establishment candidate once before. And given the rhetorical performance of the establishment (especially MSM) on the surveillance issue over the past few weeks, a Dem candidate would not be doing themselves any favors being associated with the establishment position.

Too much hand-wringing given that it's only 2013?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Our recent experience with Barack Obama (10+ / 0-)

    should make us more cautious about this, though.  As I recall, he was on the human rights 4th amendment bandwagon all the way... Until he got elected.  And now we know what he has been doing in secret for the last five years.

    So even if she does make all the same sounds, that will not be enough to make me believe that she is sincere about this.  We've been lied to once, and we'll probably be lied to again.

    And I really hope she doesn't get past the primary stages again.  I voted for Obama because I thought he was less likely to be an establishment insider protecting the status quo.  Although I'm disappointed in him, that doesn't mean my original assessment of her was wrong, too.

    We need more candidates.  It's too early to coronate her.

    •  And weren't the Hillary/Obama wars something? (3+ / 0-)

      Yeah, Dumbo.  Cautious.

      I agree with the OP's point #2 - and to a considerable degree with pajoly's assessment below: that I could easily become a single-issue voter in re the Patriot Act and the 4th, etc.

      But what does that leave?  Russ Feingold - and that's about it.  Because I'm pretty damn tired of the walk not matching up to the talk, if you get my drift.

      Yeah.  Feingold.  That's a dream.  And that's the world we inhabit.

      Hey!  I know!  Let's see how Warren votes?

      * sigh *  We got nuttin' but a fantasy Dem League right now.  And Clinton is such a lightning rod...

      It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

      by Jaime Frontero on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:59:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It is a fair question and we can't be afraid (5+ / 0-)

    to ask it. Before all this,I'd have said I was already in the tank for her. She's smart, jaded, tough and respected around the world. My biggest issue with her was her Iraq vote though.

    Now this happens. I am pretty sure I know what her position would have been prior to all this -- she'd be supportive of a bulky NSA. She's no dove. Luckily for her, she's not the SecState now and has an opportunity to "grow" on this issue.

    For me, this is the only issue that might make me a single issue voter: Full repeal of the Patriot Act and the NDAA, plus a formal rejection of the Bush Doctrine.

    May the Conservative Supremes share Paula Deen's heart-stopping culinary tastes as much as they share her cultural ones.

    by pajoly on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:40:00 PM PDT

    •  Put the question to her early and often. Mock any (0+ / 0-)

      equivocating answer repeatedly. Either she'll get the hint, or we'll get bolder challengers.

      Either would be good. Obama's leaving too badly damaged a record for a prospective Democratic nominee to bootstrap on.  Not sure even Hillary would want Obama's endorsement now.

      "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

      by Superskepticalman on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 04:14:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Some presidents (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    letsgetreal

    slack on principles when they get into the office and some toughen them up.  One can only hope, since it appears the culture will not advance enough by 2016 to elect anyone better.

    He who would trade liberty for security deserves great customer service.

    by Publius2008 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:51:10 PM PDT

    •  Not being contentious... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nuclear winter solstice

      ...but I can't recall any Dem since FDR who toughened up their principles after being elected to the presidency.

      It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

      by Jaime Frontero on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:02:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LBJ (3+ / 0-)

        The man who voted with FDR to defeat a ban on lynching in the 1930s, was responsible for passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.

        LBJ was also responsible for the increased US involvement in Vietnam.

        Politicians, like most of us, rarely live in a yes/no, black/white decision-making world.   Most of us find life is more grey than anything else.  

        My view is that single issue voters are usually happy with themselves and miserable with almost everyone else.  

        I will make my choice for whom to vote for when the field is a bit more settled, so I can make my choice amongst the assembled field and against which potential Republican is fielded against us.  

        Curiously, both my parents voted for Nixon because they were opposed to the Vietnam War and wanted it to end.  Was that the right choice?  My father, a lifelong Democrat, went to his grave believing that that vote was the worst thing he had done in his life.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 04:51:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Humphrey might have won if LBJ had been willing to (0+ / 0-)

          … tell the public, "Our intelligence agencies have discovered a Republican cabal that is engaged in sabotaging the Paris peace talks."

          Democrats lose when they cover up for people who act in the shadows for political gain, against the interests of the American people.

          The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ☮ ♥ ☺

          by lotlizard on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 05:32:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What an election that was. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard, unfangus

            It's depressing to think that Wallace (the Wallace of then, not the Wallace of later) might very well get more than the 13% or so that he got in 1968, if he were running today.  I honestly don't doubt that.

            It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

            by Jaime Frontero on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 05:39:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  * sigh * LBJ. (0+ / 0-)

          What a bagfull of contradiction.

          I dunno.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  He may only have resolved that question in not running for another term.

          It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

          by Jaime Frontero on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 05:34:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LBJ (0+ / 0-)

            was an interesting figure, a brilliant success and a brilliant failure.  

            He and FDR were often cited on this site during the Health Care wars as Democrats Obama should emulate, describing both of them as "can do" "ram it down their throats" "uncompromising" Democrats who used their majorities to advance progressive causes.  Of course that's true and also true that both made horrific compromises and choices, as well.

            FDR traded lynching, segregation/Jim Crow, denying the Holocaust and Jewish refugees, and incarcerating Japanese American families for votes for the New Deal and for the War.  He had super majorities and still he traded to secure Dixiecrats votes.  

            LBJ, ah, LBJ traded everything he did for a War that destroyed him and the lives of 50,000 young American boys, and de-stablized Cambodia to such an extent that allowed for the emergence of the Khymer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide.

            I actually find LBJ a more historically compelling figure because while FDR went against his class to create Social Security, and the New Deal, LBJ went against a deep culture of Southern white racism, to advance Civil Rights and the Great Society.  LBJ continued to use the "n" word throughout his life.  And as horrible as his cultural attitudes to blacks were, his racism, as a Texan in a state that was once part of old Mexico, toward Latinos was unfettered.  But without LBJ, we would not be as far as we have come on race relations in the US, even if it is still not far enough.

            "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

            by Uncle Moji on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:00:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  She will support whatever is popular (2+ / 0-)

    That's what politicians do. If people care she will support ending the programs. If they don't she won't. It's up to us to help her decide.

    And if she doesn't support ending the programs you'll have to ask yourself whether you trust her or a Republican more to oversee them. I say this as someone that could never support her in a primary.

    Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about. Mark Twain

    by Deathtongue on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:57:04 PM PDT

    •  she saw how many people were against war around (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard

      the world and at home and went for it anyway since it's more profitable to stick with the plan than to be a lone ranger.

      I would love to see a woman run, but Hillary lost my vote way back. What good are State secrets if the people who are authorized to read them before they vote won't even do so? The NIE was not a big book like the Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. She could have chosen to read it in one afternoon.
        The idea that she not only didn't read it, but then tried to grab some "plausible deniability" because she wasn't sure exactly what it said, and then she voted for us to go sacrifice the lives of our people and theirs to the oil wars?
      No Way. Down with Hillary, starting NOW.

      Can we please just drop her into the round file and start a fresh page maybe headed by Warren/Davis? They have a couple years to solidify their start, especially if we can just leave Hillary to the previous century. Thanx.

      We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

      by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 04:02:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Doesn't matter who runs. (10+ / 0-)

    No President is going to give up powers gained by the former President. Until congress and the courts start taking them away we will be electing someone who will use them.

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:05:32 AM PDT

  •  Good question (3+ / 0-)

    At this point it's difficult for me not to be cynical:

    Say the bare minimum required to avoid endorsing a surveillance state, and, once in office, continue in the same manner as her two predecessors.

    Major new developments between now and then, notwithstanding.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:06:30 AM PDT

  •  well, from personal experience.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superskepticalman

    if she deems Snowden a Traitor, she'll be HR'd many times. :(

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:20:21 AM PDT

    •  If she deems Snowden... (3+ / 0-)

      ...a traitor, it will be a serious indication of whether she intends to run, or not.

      Those who consider him anything but (as I do - but that's a different argument) would turn on her pretty quick.  She knows that.  It would probably cost her the election - due to that cohort of Dem voters, which is probably that big - and she knows that too.

      The other thing she knows is that she could kiss Rush Limbaugh's unclothed ass on live TV, and it wouldn't get her a single Republican cross-over vote.  If she runs and wins, she does it on turn-out alone.

      So my fearless prognostication is that if she says Snowden is a traitor, she ain't running.

      It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

      by Jaime Frontero on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:13:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My reading of the matter is that if she (4+ / 0-)

      has no conclusive evidence that Snowden has indeed given "aid and comfort" to an "enemy" of the United States, and calls him a traitor anyway, then she is constitutionally (yes, that's a pun) or politically too immature to be worth voting for.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:36:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  She won't give up powers, that's for sure (0+ / 0-)
  •  Maybe she'll bail you out by not running. (2+ / 0-)

    That way you can be betrayed by someone new.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:31:33 AM PDT

  •  she sided all to quickly with BushCo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nuclear winter solstice

    Back when THAT was fashionable.

    My guess is anybody who becomes president promises to 'uphold the Constitution' which largely means lying about massive spying and endlessly supporting the war on drugs.

    That's what presidents do.

  •  Progressives Don't Have a Potential Candidate nt (0+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 05:19:19 AM PDT

  •  She won't run on (0+ / 0-)

    the Security State, because polling shows people don't care about it.  She'll run on the economy.

    Of course, no one is going to tell the truth about the economy either.

    190 milliseconds....

    by Kingsmeg on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 05:28:22 AM PDT

  •  It's not going away, and no one is going to (0+ / 0-)

    dismantle it.

    That needs to be made clear at the outset.

    It's the oversight and the scope that are the issues.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 06:02:27 AM PDT

  •  doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ahumbleopinion

    Nobody who is against all the domestic spying will have a chance. Just like there won't be a candidate who will actually regulate the financial  industry. Domestic spying is tied very tightly to corporate interests and when you need a billion dollars to run for president, you don't make the sort of money from $20 donations.
    Unless there is a radical change, the best we can hope for is the corporate, NSA vetted candidate who is in favor of some rights for gay folks and women.

  •  Add the 2nd amendment (0+ / 0-)

    and I think we're on the same page.  I'd rather sit out an election or go third party than support someone opposed to our basic civil rights.

    •  But alas, sitting out elections is how we get (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JamieG from Md

      people in office who are even more opposed to our basic civil rights.

      There is a decision making tool where people list the items that go into making a choice and rate them:

      Important, no difference
      Important, one choice better than the other
      Not important, no difference
      Not important, one choice better than the other

      The idea is to focus the choice on what is important to you while ignoring the noise.

      My most important issue is civil rights - for women, for workers, for voters, for gays, etc.  I'm not willing to throw away protection of those rights because there is an issue where the parties are not as clearly differentiated.  

      Hillary will be better than the Republican candidate on virtually everything I care about.  What will make my decision on Hillary is if I think she has the best chance of winning and hopefully if she has the longest potential coattails.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:38:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm tempted to ask, "why start now?" (0+ / 0-)

    I guess the answer might be "because we're finally fed up with this crap."  Which is fair enough, but let's not pretend that any major party has a history of nominating strong civil liberties advocates.  It's just not something that most voters prioritize highly when choosing a candidate. I'd be all for trying to change that, but I don't think I'd be willing to sit out a general election in protest.

  •  I desperately hope (0+ / 0-)

    A better candidate emerges. She has been on the poll driven conventional wisdom side of every important issue since she entered politics. And changes with the wind when politically convenient. That she hasn't spoken on the issue tells you all you need to know.

  •  Sorry folks, but (0+ / 0-)

    taking information held by a third party, that you know is held by a third party, is not a Fourth Amendment issue. If you know the provider is keeping metadata, e.g. telephone numbers called, telephone numbers calling you, length of call, location of callers (in other words, exactly what the provider shows you in your monthly cellphone bill), then you have no expectation of privacy. If you have no expectation of privacy, there is no Fourth Amendment issue. This was decided in 1979, long before cellphone were ubiquitous.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:15:06 AM PDT

  •  She's Just Another Coporate Democrat (0+ / 0-)

    She'll say whatever she needs to say to get elected, then fall into line behind the same oligarchs that throned her husband and BO.  She's nothing more than a mouthpiece and a figurehead.  Her husband: killed Glass-Steagal; pulled the rug out from under unions with NAFTA; chipped away at Social Security; and, oh yeah, LIED to Congress and America when confronted with his sleaziness concerning an airhead intern.  

    Oh, but she'll be different, Right?  Right.

    "There is no confusion like the confusion of a simple mind." F. Scott Fitzgerald

    by upperatmos on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:50:47 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site