NASTY HIT: Top Sanders Adviser Questions Hillary’s Capacity to Appoint Scalia Replacement

[ProudToBeLiberal]

In a story in Sunday’s New York Times, Bernie Sanders’ top adviser, Tad Devine, took a very nasty shot at Hillary Clinton:

“She cannot be trusted to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who will take the issue of campaign finance seriously,” he said.

This is unacceptable. Democrats do not question other Democrats’ fitness to appoint Supreme Court justices. Period.

While Bernie keeps insisting he likes Hillary, he is presiding over a campaign of personal destruction against her. He has repeatedly questioned the dedication of her supporters. And his campaign is aided and abetted by a mob of trolls who bash Hillary incessantly and try to intimidate and silence her supporters.

We’ve said this before and we’ll repeat: Bernie is in the process of destroying his own brand, not Hillary’s. He’ll regret it later

More at http://bluenationreview.com/nasty-hit-against-hillary-from-sanders-aide/

Looks like the Bernie Sanders's campaign is throwing everything at Hillary Clinton to see what sticks. Let them throw the kitchen sink. Hillary Clinton is a fighter. It's not about getting knocked down; it's about if you can get back up. Bernie Sanders and his campaign is engaging in the progressive purity test again. By their logic, President Obama couldn't be trusted to appoint someone to the Supreme Court because he took money from Wall Street.

Like Hillary Clinton said, "I am not a single-issue candidate and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country."

[DavidDvorkin]

1. This is unacceptable.

[AgingAmerican]

93. NO it isn't

She is bought and sold by the Corporations. It's all about personal enrichment when it comes to corporate Dems.

[HooptieWagon]

2. That's not a concern...she can't win the GE anyway.

[krawhitham]

18. true

[peacebird]

29. True

[Beacool]

48. Really, we'll see........

[Betty Karlson]

59. So true. She's the biggest liability the party could nominate. She is 2014 incarnate, Debbie and all

n/t

[radical noodle]

92. Oh wait...

I thought I was on Democratic Underground. Must be Free Republic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I don't find it remotely surprising they would say that.

[ram2008]

4. I support Bernie, but I don't agree with Tad, I'm sure she will pick a good judge

I do not want her to run the country however.

[grasswire]

5. I tend to think it's true.

Especially as we read more and more and more reports of crony capitalism between the Foundation and her position as SoS.

Has Hillary said (as Bernie has) that she will ask her SCOTUS nominees to pledge to repeal Citizens United?

[moriah]

38. Yes, actually!

Recently:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court

And before that:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hillary-clinton-citizens-united-supreme-court-20150518-story.html

[azurnoir]

43. Before is the operative word here as in before it was a reality

but it comes down to will Hillary as POTUS pull up the very ladder she used?

[moriah]

52. Both articles were before Scalia's death. Nt

[ShadowLiberal]

89. Bill Clinton was considered a moderate, and look at his 2 SC justices

Ginsberg and Breyer are both considered reliably Liberal votes, despite being appointed by a Democrat considered a moderate by almost everyone. They also voted against the Citizen's United ruling you're most concerned about.

There's a lot of reasons to support Sanders over Hillary, but Supreme Court nominees aren't one of them. I trust them both to make great Supreme Court picks.

(I should also note I'm undecided about Hillary vs Bernie, I like both of them, and have concerns about both of them in a general election)

[TTUBatfan2008]

6. David Brock is pushing this?

After he played the race card against Bernie's TV ad? Really? Besides, there are very real questions about Hillary's connection to mega money corporate interests that have funded both her campaigns and her husband's campaigns over the last 25 years. They appointed Robert Rubin as Treasury Secretary.

[brooklynite]

80. So you're saying that Sanders' aide didn't say this?

Or are you saying that what the Sanders aide said wasn't important?

[TTUBatfan2008]

83. I am saying...

...that Brock is pushing it as some kind of huge scandal when it's not. I think the campaign guy is making a valid point about money in politics having an impact on the SCOTUS. Likewise, Hillary could go after Bernie on gun rights and the SCOTUS if she wants and I think that would be a valid point.

[brooklynite]

85. How is he pushing it as a "huge scandal"?

He's reporting that it happened. Voters can make of it what they will.

[TTUBatfan2008]

86. The headline "NASTY HIT"

No, Mr. Brock. It's not any nastier than the stuff you've been pushing in the campaign.

[mariawr]

90. If the news came from BNR, yes. Brock owns BNR. nt

[TCJ70]

7. I wouldn't say it in as many words...

...I'd use more. Look at how she's funding her current campaign. Look at what she says about her own finances. She doesn't want anyone to believe that money has any influence over politics...oh wait, just not hers. This is a conclusion people don't need help to come to, she's making that clear on her own.

That being said, it's probably not something that he should have said out loud.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

14. Bill Clinton took money from Wall Street and he appointted Ginsburg and Breyer.

They are two of the most progressive justices on the Supreme Court. Or are you going to argue that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer haven't stood up for progressive values and a living constitution?

[TCJ70]

31. As has been said many times on this board...

...Bill isn't running for president. We have a choice to make this time around: Incrementalism vs Go-For-The-Gold. The time for incrementalism is over. We won't even move incrementally with the current batch of Republicans. We need someone who will walk the talk, and it's not Hillary. We need someone who will match the Republicans "Do Nothing" attitude with a "Do Everything" attitude. That's the only way we'll find a true middle.

Hillary's middle-ground message will only move things further right-ward and there's no reason to believe that won't extend to her Supreme Court picks.

[LuvLoogie]

79. Why wait...

[bigtree]

8. politics as usual

...shocking.

Hillary Clinton Releases Broad Campaign Finance Reform Plan
Her plan goes beyond a call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-releases-broad-campaign-finance-reform-plan_us_55ee4c7ce4b093be51bbe7ea

[kristopher]

15. Her claims are meaningless in light of her behavior.

Has she rejected the money she claims she wants to get out of politics?

No, she hasn't. She has embraced it harder than anyone.

[bigtree]

30. what a sham strategy

...come back to me when Bernie disavows the republican money bombs in this primary directed at Hillary.

[kristopher]

47. What a sham argument.

Seriously, aren't you ashamed that you have to stoop to such nonsensical reasoning to defend her?

[retrowire]

51. He has criticized all participants in the primary race for ties to Citizens United....

Try again.

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. It's not just him, Democrats don't trust Hillary

Democrats and independents find Hillary somewhat untrustworthy for some reason .

[kristopher]

10. Given how tightly she and Bill have embraced the corrupt present system

I can't see how that self evident statement is an arguable point.

Are you saying she is NOT taking many tens of millions of dollars from corporate and financial special interest groups?

Are you saying, with a straight face, that Hillary is dedicated to changing the campaign finance system that exists and that she is so deeply beholden to?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

20. Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg and Breyer. Are you seriously going to use this argument?

Ginsburg and Breyer have been great Supreme Court Justices. Bill Clinton took money from Wall Street and that didn't stop him from nominating great Supreme Court Justices.

[kristopher]

39. Like Hillary herself, the system has evolved greatly since then.

I do NOT think she has any intention whatsoever to change the status quo.

[AgingAmerican]

95. That was before they took hundreds of millions from corporations

[Ferd Berfel]

11. I dont' beleive for minute that HIllary would appoint someone

who would kill NAFTA or TPP for that matter

Let alone money in Politics.

Kill my PAC's ???

[PonyUp]

21. Agree. Whatever she does there's always gotta be something in it for her. n/t

[Avalux]

12. It's a completely legitimate statement, considering Hillary is taking a crapload of PAC money.

She just held a big donor fundraiser with people tied to the fracking industry.

As someone who takes campaign reform seriously, I fully expect a guarantee with no wiggle room from her own mouth, stating that she'd appoint a judge who would, without question, overturn CU.

You should insist on that too.

The only ones taking nasty shots are Hillary's peeps.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Agreed.

[Kittycat]

76. Agreed. Has HRC put out a statement re: the DNC rolling

Re: the DNC rolling out the red carpet to lobbyists and reversing the ban on large scale contributions from special interests? Throwing it in Obama's face.

Glad to see Sanders calling on the DNC to reinstate the restrictions.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Bluenationreview again? And the "no true Democrat" fallacy?

That's Hillary's bought and paid for media outlet.

Way to catapult the propaganda!

[Kentonio]

24. But, but, Hillary's media outlet is outraged at this NASTY HIT at Hillary!

[beam me up scottie]

28. BREAKING: POUTRAGE ALERT!!!

I am SHOCKED that anyone would think Hillary would favour the finance industry! I mean it's not like she took millions of dollars from them, right?

[krawhitham]

16. I would not trust her either

She get way to much money from lobbyists to take campaign finance reform seriously

[farleftlib]

17. Nasty hit?

I'd call it a legitimate concern.

[krawhitham]

26. Yes, that is what Clinton calls the truth these days

[kath]

88. Soooo freaking true!

[MissDeeds]

62. Ditto

I've been concerned about that since she formally announced her candidacy.

[MohRokTah]

22. This just proves Sanders was not honest when he said he would not run a negative campaign. eom

[krawhitham]

27. so speaking the truth is now a negative campaign?

[MohRokTah]

35. There is not a word of truth in what was said. eom

[TTUBatfan2008]

40. How do you know?

There is more evidence to suggest that the Clintons will do the bidding of corporate America than evidence against it.

[MohRokTah]

44. Hillary Clinton was the target of a Citizens United smear in 2007.

That was the case that was brought before the SCOTUS and which destroyed campaign finance reform.

She has a PERSONAL interest in the issue.

So the Sanders campaign made a conscious decision to LIE about her.

[TTUBatfan2008]

50. A personal interest...

...and yet she funded her 2008 campaign largely through maxed out contributions from corporate donors. I would certainly hope that she would be willing to use Citizens United as a litmus test for SCOTUS, but I don't think there is any guarantee of it. Not by a long shot.

[kristopher]

56. WHAT??!!??

So what? How in the world do you make that leap across the tens of millions of dollars she's taken?

[Beacool]

46. That's not truth, that's merely an opinion from his campaign manager.

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)

[Broward]

23. I think his lack of trust is well founded.

[PonyUp]

25. Should we compare nasty hits? n/t

[Arazi]

32. She'll be better than any republican by far

but Bernie would be best imo

[Koinos]

33. Tad Devine is Bernie's worst enemy.

[berni_mccoy]

34. OMG Someone Criticized HILLARY ABOUT HER LACK OF COMMITMENT TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!111!!

Call DWS RIGHT FUCKING NOW! This Can't Be ALLOWED!!1! OH NOES!1!1!

[mmonk]

36. What did the DNC just do?

[frylock]

37. Brock Nation Review.

[Broward]

57. Brock is the owner huh? Too funny.

[thesquanderer]

41. What nonsense. Classic straw man argument.

He did NOT question her fitness to appoint Supreme Court justices. Therefore, he did not do the thing the author says is unacceptable.

Rather, he questioned whether she could be counted on to appoint a justice who would be eager to take on campaign finance.

I think that's a reasonable perspective. After all, she has not spoken out against the DNC's rollback of Obama's restrictions on lobbyist contributions, while Sanders has.

And unlike Sanders, she is embracing SuperPACS--even coordinating with one (Brock's), by taking advantage of a loophole that ostensibly makes it technically permissible, even though it is against the spirit of the SuperPAC rules.

Does anyone really think the "getting the money out of politics" is as big an issue for Clinton as it is for Sanders? I don't see this as an illegitimate concern.

If you disagree, and think Hillary would appoint someone just as tough on campaign finance as Sanders would, fine. Either way, there's no "nasty hit" here, except the author's strawman hit on Sanders.

(As for what Democrats do or do not question other Democrats about, I seem to remember a particular "Shame on you, Barack Obama" quote regarding health care...)

[Quixote1818]

42. It's a ligitimate concern because she benifits enormously from Citizens United because of her ties

to Wall Street. It's certainly not an out of bounds issue to bring up for discussion and for the American people to ponder.

GMAFB!

[Bread and Circus]

45. News flash, there is a political campaign underfoot...drawing differences is what they do.

[GreatGazoo]

49. Citizens United and campaign finance reform are major issues

It isn't "nasty" to mention them.

[retrowire]

53. Hahaha, more "single issue candidate" attacks.

lmao

Remember that part of Bernie's campaign where he is against Mass Surveillance and is for Immigration Reform?

They totally have to do with Wall St. NOT.

[Nanjeanne]

54. What a crock

What was reported in the NY Times was:

But Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s support from a “super PAC” and her acceptance of donations from Wall Street executives.

“She cannot be trusted to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who will take the issue of campaign finance seriously,” he said.

So basically he is saying that because of her acceptance of donations from Wall St. etc. she cannot be trusted to appoint someone who will take the issue of campaign finance seriously.

I think that's probably very true.

Doesn't mean he questions her ability to appoint a justice that takes abortion rights seriously. Or . . . the right to vote . . . or something else she believes in. But campaign finance? Yeah I don't think he's off the mark.

I'm still waiting for Hillary to join Sanders in demanding that the DNC reinstate Obama's bans on lobbyists - and that hasn't happened. Or did I miss it while I was waiting for her to release her private speeches to Wall Street transcripts?

[Jester Messiah]

55. I find it perfectly acceptable.

I mean really, which former Goldman or Citigroup counsel WOULD she appoint to the highest court in the land?

[ThePhilosopher04]

58. Preach it Tad!

Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted to do anything that puts the interests of the American people ahead of her own as far as I'm concerned.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Where's the "nasty" part?

[Indepatriot]

61. Deeds, not words. Devine is absolutely 100% correct.

The company you keep.

[cui bono]

63. Another Rovian attack them for what you yourself do move.

Brock is even using the same words. He could at least try to be creative. We all know who's throwing everything and the kitchen sink and who it's being thrown at.

Right wing tactics from a right wing tool.

And Hillary doesn't want to accept the fact that money needs to be out of politics if you want to start to change things because she is already beholden to it. Of course, she and her campaign are going to use whatever dirty attempt they can to minimize this and make Sanders' position on it a bad thing.

But really, talking about policy is attacking with everything but the kitchen sink? All she is doing is making herself look weak. No one wants a weak leader who plays dirty politics and is beholden to big money.

Fail.

.

[Gothmog]

65. You do know that Karl Rove is supporting Sanders and running ads against Clinton

[cui bono]

70. Oh please.... Rove does not support Sanders. This just shows how much the GOP hates Hillary.

Which is a big reason why having her in the general would be a huge mistake. She has a 6% trust rating among Dems, she has a negative likability rating, the GOP hates her. All this adds up to less Dem turn out and record GOP turnout just to cast a vote against her.

And you missed all my other points in my previous post. Hillary is using several different Rovian tactics in her campaign. We all complained about it when he did it, time to stop supporting them when the chosen one does it. Deal with reality and stop with the strawman arguments.

.

[Gothmog]

64. Nominating an underfunded out of mainstream candidate who is vulnerable to neg. ads is also dumb

President Obama was against Citizens United but had to use a super pac in 2012 to keep the contest close. Hillary Clinton is against Citizens United and has committed to only appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to overturn this decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.

This is the only practical way to undo the damage done by Citizen United in that it will be impossible to get a constitutional amendment through congress and the states to undo this decision. That means that if you want to get rid of Citizens United, then one must support a candidate who can win in 2016 and support the most viable general election candidate.

[cherokeeprogressive]

66. I'm more concerned about the death penalty than campaign finance.

And since Hillary supports it; she's out.

[Bjorn Against]

67. So the Hillary campaign is now referring to Sanders' supporters as a "mob of trolls"

It is quite ironic that Blue Nation Review which is directly funded by the Clinton campaign refers to Sanders supporters as a mob of trolls in the very same article in which they complain about negative campaigning.

She better hope she doesn't get the nomination or else she might just need the votes of this "mob of trolls".

[Fearless]

68. I agree with the assessment.

You can't be a life long part of a system you want to destroy

[NCTraveler]

69. They have been going scorched earth for a while.

This is how low they will go. Damn near every Sanders supporters and the Sanders campaign itself has made direct link to President Clinton. They won't be able to help themselves in going after Ginsburg. It's right around the corner.

[TTUBatfan2008]

73. President Clinton...

...makes the direct link by campaigning for her, fundraising huge amounts of money for her, and helping run the campaign strategy. In fact, in 1992 he told voters that Bill and Hillary are a package deal. She was not a typical First Lady, she was almost a co-President. She publicly supported and advocated for some of the 1990's policies that are hurting average folks today.

You want to talk about scorched earth? How about the race card against Bernie Sanders that has been coming from Clinton people like David Brock?

[passiveporcupine]

71. Nothing nasty about it

It's the absolute truth. She cannot be trusted with anything to do with campaign finance reform, wall street reform, or anything military.

And I recenetly discovered, here, that she cannot be trusted with women's rights either.

She is not the one we need in the whitehouse, making crucial decisions on things like supreme court nominations.

[restorefreedom]

72. sorry, but its not nasty when her own track record suggests it may be true. nt

[brooklynite]

81. Provide the evidence of her "track record" on judicial appointments

I'll provide the evidence that Clinton said she'd pick Justices to overturn CU two weeks before Sanders did.

[restorefreedom]

91. i was speaking of her track record with wall st.

i have no doubt she could pick someone qualified. and sorry, until she swears off her superpacs and big donors, releases her speech transcripts, and says that she opposes the tpp PERIOD WITHOUT CONDITION, her intent to pick a judge to overturn cu or to be against corporate world has no cred

[doxyluv13]

74. Seems like a fair point.

And random shit-throwing it the Clinton's trademark btw.

[Joe the Revelator]

75. Quote: We’ve said this before and we’ll repeat: Bernie is in the process of destroying his own brand

not Hillary’s. He’ll regret it later'


What does that even mean?

[Live and Learn]

77. I agree with him! nt

[mcar]

78. K&R

[QC]

82. The guy who called Anita Hill a crazy whore will not tolerate

"personal destruction"!!!

[TriplD]

84. Seem like a fair criticism

Seeing how Debbie had to roll back Obama's rule blocking corrupt money, you have to wonder if she is so dependent on it now then why in the world should we believe that at some time in the future she'd decide to give it up? Because she flip-flops on everything else?

Nasty??? Lies, misstatements and this sort of bullshit doesn't reflect well on the candidate you back.

[kath]

87. if you think HRH's corporate donors would let her select a SC justice who wants to undo Citizens

United, I have a bridge to sell you.

[HooptieWagon]

94. Blue Nation Review is David Brock