General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLook... The Problem With Hillary Is, That We Will Get 8 More Years Of Obama/Status Quo...
I'll vote for her over a Republican, and if I have no other choice...
I want another choice...
If for no other reason than to move Hillary to the left.
'Course Obama campaigned from the left, yet governed from the center-right.
What to do, what to do...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,619 posts)This is exactly the way I see it too.
I don't know what to do either.
Another choice would be great.
*sigh*
WillyT
(72,631 posts)It's like we got out of reverse gear (GWBush), but are stuck in neutral, or at least 1st gear...
And with democrats saying this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024470411
I just throw my hands up.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you willing to risk it? I'm NOT!
Two steps forward three or more back is a nightmare scenario!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)until democrats started to morph into republicans that is.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it....
Hello Ralph Nader!
If you cannot tell the difference by now...then lord help you...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Make the opposition's candidate so unpalatable (McCain-Palin, Romney-Ryan) that we will support a right of center Democratic candidate.
This is an excellent strategy and it works to perfection.
We must break the cycle.
cali
(114,904 posts)or even close to it. secondly, other dems are perfectly capable of running good campaigns and winning the Presidency.
The "hillary only" line is absurd.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
unblock
(56,198 posts)in truth i found little to go on in voting for obama over hillary originally, and i expect a president hillary would indeed govern largely as a rockefeller republican, much as obama has done.
but i suspect (a) that congress will be more agreeable, one way or another, and (b) that we can't yet get anyone to actually govern any further left. we have a lot of work to do on the media and other power structures before that can happen.
regardless, she'd be hands-down better than a member of today's republican party and the first woman president is a huge plus in my book.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)At the time, Obama seemed more likely to demand some justice for the banksters, or least that was my thinking. President Clinton had let all those BCCI criminals off the hook, even though Sen Kerry had them all set up for prosecution. I figured that pattern would definitely repeat itself if she were elected. (I voted for Edwards the day before he dropped out so I never had to choose.)
Autumn
(48,962 posts)I really don't think Hillary is going to run, it's going to be Biden I bet.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
cstanleytech
(28,471 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)they/we just got done re-electing Obama by a fairly large margin.
I, myself, was on the ballot with Obama, running for a county office. Obama got more votes in the county than I did.
The average Democratic voter is simply not informed well enough to be angry with Obama. Nor is the average Democratic voter informed well enough to be repulsed by Hillary. She has something like 90% approval among Democrats. And from experience, it seems to me that there is very little that those of us in the 10% can say to those in the 90% that will flip them to the other side.
I could put together my best attempt at a "Why I oppose Hillary" essay and even on DU, it would only resonate with the choir. Hillary supporters would just chime in to tell me how much I suck.
It reminds me of the Bush years. We used to wonder "What does Bush have to do to get people to stop supporting him?" That I would look at him and clearly see Medusa and they would look at him and only see Adonis.
It's mind-boggling and dis-heartening. Even on Valentine's Day. It's dis-heartening.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)and then forgetting to let it back in, and fill the food and water dishes.
A Presidential election is not enough...
BTW - Good on you for throwing your hat in the ring.
Mighty proud to know ya!!!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 11, 2014, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)
The electorate rejected you; but it's the stupid electorate, not your positions.
Maybe you are a front-runner ... Or maybe your positions are misaligned with your supposed base.
ETA: But I have to commend you for your effort.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...didn't get elected
It's like conservatives just don't understand
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I was pointing out that Obama is more popular than me, even in my own county.
Meaning I am disgusted by Obama. (and Clinton)
Some other DUers are disgusted by Obama. (and Clinton)
But actual voters, generally are not.
At least not in my county.
But Kansas IS probably more conservative than many other places.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)in favor of the Republican.
It wasn't me, or my positions since there really are NOT any positions, Republican, Progressive or Democrat involved with the County Treasurer.
I ran a lousy campaign, did not do nearly enough work. But of the three Democratic candidates, the Sheriff candidate did tons of work, had signs all over the place, bought a billboard on the main street, knew people all over the county from his past work, was very knowledgeable and well spoken at the forums...
and he still got shellacked about as badly as I did.
Generally it just seems like County voters voted for Romney, for Jenkins, and for Republicans all the way down the ballot, with very few net crossovers.
The reason Obama outpolled me, in my estimation, is because some Republican voters, who happen to be black, voted for Obama, but then voted for all the Republican candidates.
I make that guess, because when I worked in the Democratic headquarters in 2008, some black people came in and told me "I am a Republican, but I want an Obama yard sign".
Granted, that is pretty unscientific, and I might also note that on election day 2008 when I was doing GOTV that I talked to three black people who were not gonna vote, even after I tried to convince them to change their mind and goto the polls.
And really my effort just was, I wanted a better job. Winning the election would have doubled my pay, given me more normal hours and been in finance, something I have degrees and interest in.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I do not know what district you ran in; but do you really think that there were enough Black republicans that voted tribal (that's what you are really saying) to significantly move the poll numbers?
If so, I offer this may be the vibe you are giving off ... and with further due respect, as a Black man, having read a number of your posts, that is certainly the vibe you give off to me.
This might be a call to self-reflection.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)"with all due respect"
meaning, of course, with NO respect, since none is due.
You seem to be misunderstanding me.
Obama lost the county by
11,072 to 16,825 to 923 total 28,820
the Congressional Democratic candidate lost by
8,720 to 17,615 to 2,495 total 28,830
I lost the county by
9,664 to 17,606 total 27,270 with 1,560 voting "none of the above"
Thus, at least 1,408 county voters (and maybe more, depending on how many Romney voters I picked up) voted for Obama AND they voted for my Republican opponent and also for a Republican Congressperson. At least 2,352 voted for Obama but NOT for the Democrat running for Congress.
Although now that I look it up, I thought I came closer to Obama's total. Black voters were, at most, 15% of the total, or about 4,300 voters.
And I expect that MOST of them, by far, voted for me. Probably 80% of them are registered Democrats. Some though are Republicans, or independents.
I know that, again, because at our caucus organization meeting in 2008 some black people at that meeting talked about the need to change registration from independent to Democrat in order to caucus.
Again, I am personally aware, from experience, that some black people who claimed to be lifelong Republicans were supporting Obama in 2008. If it is 20% that could be about 800 voters who crossed party lines to vote for Obama. That could explain 800 of the 1,400.
And hell, when I wrote my earlier posts I would have guess that Obama beat me by 600. That's how I remembered it.
1,408.
TANJ. That kinda stings.
But at least I beat Schlingensiepen by almost 1,000.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)bulding "cred" ont he internet
"i'm the most liberal! those guys suck!"
"no, I'M the most liberal!"
and on and on it goes...
WillyT
(72,631 posts)The fast tracking of the TPP...
The underwhelming performance of the EPA,
FEC,
SEC,
Dept. of Justice,
the DEA,
and almost EVERY department that DEMOCRATS were instrumental in creating, or at least in supporting and using them for justice in the common good.
Again... I'm glad YOU are doing alright.
Must be comforting.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
progressoid
(53,179 posts)
I guess we're supposed to just pretend suddenly everything is hunky dory now.
Jeebus. I've been fighting this shit for 30 years. I'm not stopping now.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)What he's saying is that these are longstanding problems, not issues that Obama created. And furthermore, we elect Presidents in this country, not dictators who can do whatever they want.
American voters elect Republicans into Congress, who promptly cut social programs as Congress controls funding in our system. Yet you blame Obama.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I always vote, but if Hillary is the candidate, it will be difficult to make the effort. My vote doesn't mean much in California. This is a Democratic state.
JI7
(93,615 posts)makes them feel like a "cool kid". and the way they bring up those horrible BOG .
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I actually DO detest tax policies that favor the top 20%.
Democratic politicians pretend to when they send me donation letters. They claim to be "fighting for the middle class" or "for the working class" or "for ordinary Americans".
But then you look at what they actually DO, and it's kinda hard for me to NOT get pissed off at their perfidity.
Oh, and let's compare heart count here to see just WHO is a "cool kid". Because I'm with John Fogerty there - "it ain't me".
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Yet I must admit... I am damned cool.
FSogol
(47,623 posts) Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)billionaire tax cut extensions, chained CPI, fracking, union-busting, corporatie schools, and Arne Duncan.
You know, Republicanism
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's a straw man. We cheer for doing our best against a Republican majority and keeping them out of office so we don't get those things. Why are these posts made that act as if there are no Republicans voted in?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He is in favor of all of those things and many more Republican policies.
villager
(26,001 posts)Every good apologist for those things knows how to sneer in print, avoid actual discussion, and toss out snark in lieu of responding to actual issues.
As we in quite clearly in this thread.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)progressive Democrats would work harder to secure a decent Congress, they'd have a lot less room to be constantly critical of a Democratic President.....but then again, maybe not.
Marie Marie
(11,309 posts)She would make a great first woman President. Too bad she is not interested.
If the OP were close to the truth I'd be delighted but Obama and Mrs Clinton are hardly identical. OP strikes me as poorly informed.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Alas, I used up mine voting for Bill.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)But, I have doubts she will even run for president. I think all the "Hillary fear" and "Hillary hype" may turn out to be a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)It will shock me if she runs.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I also have started to think Biden may be the guy.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)I don't see Hillary going through another nasty primary.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I think I was wrong years ago, when I didn't like him. I think he would be a good president.
And I agree about Hillary. I'm not sure Hillary would want to do that again, and I think it would be a huge blow to run a second time and lose again. (If she did lose, either running for the nomination or the presidency)
hack89
(39,181 posts)It would be no contest.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Biden said he was thinking about it recently, and I don't see why he shouldn't seriously consider running for president.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He will back the primary winner. It's how it is done.
Even if the candidate(s) are a Vice President and a former Secretary of State.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Hillary rocks!
Yeah, the root of a lot of the anti-Obama stuff is Hillary admiration.
FSogol
(47,623 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)As time goes on, I can change my mind about these things.
lostincalifornia
(5,358 posts)health, she will run. She has the political backing needed to run for president. I suspect Joe Biden will also make an attempt, but if Hillary runs it will be tough for anyone to challenge her
hobie
(13 posts)We tend to forget the advantage of Hillary, Bill can put this humpty dumpty economy back together again.
But Hillary has, and can stand alone, she came up through the ranks and deserves the shot if she wants it. And she will tear a hole through the GOP if given the chance, pay backs for an impeachment are awesome!!
Go read her bio, and compare her to any right wing president in the last 50 years. She wins hands down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Harry Reid made the fatal mistake by refusing to get rid of the 60+ vote and the House was a hopeless cause from the first because the only thing the rethugs did was obstruction in one form or another.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Because there is no way we're going to have 61 Senators and more than 260 House members. IOW if the party can't get its way with the Congressional majorities it had in 2009-2010, it never will.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)leaving on her own.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to get everything we'd want. People need to get real - it's their fellow citizens they need to convince, rather than just whining about the politicians who can get elected in this environment.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And if most primary voters agree with you, the next president will not be Hillary.
However, if Hillary happens to win the primary, I would suggest that you vote for her in the general election as opposed to the Republican.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
harun
(11,381 posts)Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)I would quit my job sell my property and work full time trying to get them elected for the good of all humanity....but thats just me...
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Fortunately, even if it was Warren running, I think they'd be jockeying for a presidency that looks like Obama's third term - a president who has done more for this country than any since LBJ.
If that's supposed to make me fear Hillary, well...
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It would be very good for there to be an idea-based challenge to Hillary from the left. But, do nothing that is useful to the Republicans.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)And in the END, most of you will like it. Consider the alternatives: Rand Paul, Huckabee, Cruz, Rubio, etc.. Scary stuff.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Instead of letting the "Centrists" claim traditional Democratic ideals are the "Loonie left" we need to claim the "center" so that they are deep in the right wing turf. They will need to come left to get back to "center."
RC
(25,592 posts)I don't understand how a corporatist can be a Liberal,or even Left of Center. Or even an actual Democrat. We get too many candidates that campaign from the Center, or campaign from the Left, telling us what we want to hear,then when they get in, act more like Republicans! They feed us excuses for why that can't do the job we hired them to do. I'm tired of it. Both parties do this.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We cannot AFFORD more corporate rule. America is being murdered right now with the corporate policies that continue to be expanded every day in this country. The corporatists who run our government now are not just protecting a status quo. They are busily and systematically removing every single avenue we have left to fight against the corporate takeover of this country and the selling out of our lives and futures.
I want to repeat that. They, like the administration before them, have systematically been removing every single avenue the people have left to fight back against the corporate looting of our lives and our futures. They are dismantling our right to privacy, our free press, our right to assemble and protest, our national sovereignty in trade and regulatory policy, our protections for journalists and whistleblowers... And today they signaled that they will not defend net neutrality.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4484820
With this next massive betrayal, we lose control of the internet...and the corporations gain the means to control our access to information and freedom of association. Look at the wasteland of cable TV. This is NOT just about costs. This is about control of information and communication. The free and open internet was perhaps our last hope for organizing and educating to take back our country from corporate fascism.
This administration has not just maintained the status quo. It has been consistent and aggressive in its work on behalf of corporations and against the interests of ordinary Americans. A Clinton administration would continue this aggressive dismantling of a democratic system that this nation already may not survive. We cannot afford to continue this malignant transformation of the United States of American into a corporate, authoritarian nightmare.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)to solidify the rightward policy shifts instigated by the Republicans.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Cruz-Trump 2016
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Chris Christie (until recently, but only because of damaged goods)...
Jeb Bush...
Mitt Romney... again ???
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
That's about the end of my list... am I forgetting anyone???
BTW - Interesting company, don't you think ?
antigop
(12,778 posts)don't care.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Johonny
(26,178 posts)vote them a MORE liberal legislative branch and stick liberal bills on their desk and I very seriously doubt they would veto them. Has Obama or Clinton veto'd much of the congressional liberal agenda in either of their presidencies?
FSogol
(47,623 posts)passed in 2016. 
WillyT
(72,631 posts)FSogol
(47,623 posts)
We shouldn't try to take back the House because Alex Sink (never heard of the pissant) doesn't think we can?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)bipartisan prayers long enough to declare that the Republicans own the House forever 'or at least until 2022' they say. Same folks said Chris Christie was so perfect and popular that there was nothing anyone could gain from strongly opposing him, they let Buono hang to dry because Christie, he was impossible to defeat. They are very certain that they know the future, even though they lose their own elections and occasionally give tacit or actual endorsements to corrupt Republicans moments before their scandals burst out like a volcano. They can be wrong 100 times today and they are still certain they are right 100 times tomorrow.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)zentrum
(9,870 posts)..years of the Clintons anyway. He has a little less fight in him than her, but the policies and personnel are the same.
If she is elected it will be like having Clintons for a possible 24 years. Waaay too much DLC style governance.
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Wish they would get rid of caucuses and make it all primaries.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)that are too often won by the candidate with the best advertising team.
Caucuses require that a candidate actually do some grass roots organizing and not rely as much on sound bytes. We would never have gotten Wellstone elected if we didn't have caucuses. Besides, the caucuses allow for discussion of issues as well as candidates.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)dflprincess
(29,341 posts)And the people who show up tend to be better informed than people whose involvement is limited to voting in the primary or general election.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Caucuses tend to only bring in the diehards in some cases.
Also what if you can't make it at the appointed time of a caucus? With a primary you have 12 to 15 hours of voting to allow maximum participation.
Also you have early voting and absentee voting?
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)Asking people to spend a couple hours once every two years actually participating in their democracy is not asking too much. I have no doubt that we would have better candidates and a government more inclined to work for the 99% if more people cared enough to show up and do more than vote for whoever has the slickest ads.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)With a primary you get a larger representation and a higher turnout of the public which I think is important.
FSogol
(47,623 posts)Caucuses allow the establishment party members in an area to dictate who the winner will be.
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)What to do? Wolf PAC
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
Get money out of politics and the status quo becomes the will of the people.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Been promoting Wolf-PAC for sometime now.
Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=willyt+wolf-pac&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com
Martin Eden
(15,626 posts)Forget about 2016 and concentrate on 2014.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)don't forget 2016 ... Just wait to focus resources and thought until after 2014.
Martin Eden
(15,626 posts)It's just that all this talk about Hillary and 2016 really bugs me. Presidential campaigns are already Way. Too. Long. and the media focuses so much more on the personalities and the horse race than on critical issues and ideas of how to move our country forward. I had to turn Tweety off the other night because he was going on and on about Reince Priebus and the GOP anti-Hillary strategy for 2016. Nobody has even declared their friggin candidacy yet! 
FWIW, I will never vote for Hillary in a Democratic primary or anyone who voted for the Iraq War Resolution in Oct 2002 to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.
bl968
(360 posts)I don't want a second Clinton presidency any more than I want a third bush presidency. We have 300 million+ Americans in this country we can find someone better. If Hillary is the democratic nomination I simply will not vote. It's called voter apathy and it's something the democrats should be very very afraid of.
A run by Elizabeth Warren however would excite me and millions of other progressives in this country;.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Instead of Alito and Roberts. Yes I say 8 more years, BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!
Hekate
(100,133 posts)All the unbelievable griping here during some of the campaigns about how Dems and Reps are the same, their personal favorite didn't make it so what does it matter -- my answer is the same every time: SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS. The presidency is 4-8 years, but a judgeship is forever.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I'll take it thanks!
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)The political landscape, sewn over eight years, has to bring us a better candidate than Hillary in 2016, as it did in 2008. We can only put the weight of our vote behind who's there when it comes time choose.
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)who actually plan to run? Tearing her down 2 years in advance won't be helpful if she ends up being the nominee. Just a thought.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)He had to be careful with the implosion of our economy a month before, and right after the 2008 election.
He had (he felt) to continue the post-9/11 security state erected by Bush W after 9/11.
Which meant he felt he could not go after the abuses that occurred because of that.
He could not be seen as the "Angry Black Man" while holding the office...
He could not root out the headless nails implanted into EVERY Federal Department.
And dozens of others...
And yet he was smart, charming, funny... and many times, made me proud of him, and to be an American.
It's 12 years past 9/11, and 5 years past the first black president.
It's time to get back to work.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Those in place at the time?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)got a far right agenda.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Franken wasn't seated until June 2009.
Byrd was ill. Kennedy died.
And Brown won the special election for Kennedy's seat.
We had 60 votes for roughly 60 days.
Apparently, 30 years of GOP insanity was supposed to be fixed in those 60 days.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)Bush had 6 years where him and the Republicans virtually ran wild in Washington DC and Obama and the Democrats had 2 years to do what they wanted to do- and we're supposed to mercilessly criticize him for not being able to clean up everything in that time?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)They were elected to fight the Republicans and fix their mess. Instead they threw up their hands, sat in the corner and pouted.
All of the people who came out to vote for the first time in 2008 were rightly disgusted by their complete lack of ability to do the job they were mandated to do. Then the president introduced Heritage Care and campaigned for Blanche Lincoln, and the jig was up.
Apparently you want to completely absolve them of the fiasco that was 2009-2010, despite their huge majorities. But regardless, we are not going to have majorities like again that for many years. So if you say that 60 senators and 259 reps are not enough to do anything, you've given up.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)The stuff that got passed- ACA, Dodd-Frank, etc. wasn't ultra-progressive to be sure but far right?
Your definition of "far right" and mine don't match.
Marie Marie
(11,309 posts)Just would rather have someone less centrist as our next President. That plus the hatred the GOP has for her and Bill in general spells out 8 more years of obstruction just because of that hatred. Big Biden supporter here - he would make a great President and I think that his years in the Senate have earned him some support and respect even from the other side of the aisle.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)There's time, and we don't have to attack our own party. The Republicans are doing it for us for all the wrong reasons.
They don't want a liberal, and they think she is, and we want a liberal, and we think she isn't.
Problem solved. Let it cook and simmer slowly for best taste.
Hekate
(100,133 posts) WillyT
(72,631 posts)And the signals of 2016 have to be sent out now... not when it's a fait accompli.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)No Dem has the courage to come up against her now while her ratings are so high. They would not be forgiven as those who backed obama in '08 are still not forgiven.
The Reps are moving their convention up so I heard, and when they settle down on one candidate, everything either Clinton did will hit the fan, and her polls will do down if they show that the Rep candidate is moving up. They have ads now that are going to hurt.
At that point, her support will dwindle, and we have to be ready to jump in with a few nominees. We have plenty. If their ads do the harm I think they will, she may even be gracious enough to help another Dem candidate win...
Wait till the Reps pick one. Our party thinks it has picked one, but they will be proven wrong....her supporters will be crushed and I feel bad, but that's the way I think it's going to go down.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)And it will be the same excuses next time and so on and so forth.
That, is how they've moved the country to the right.
Calling it like it is.
Great job WillyT.
-p
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)that we will get candidates that will serve them only.
lostincalifornia
(5,358 posts)Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)is the mayonnaize that separates the good cop from the bad cop, and what provides the lube that keeps you from choking on the endless "lesser of two evils choice", shit sandwich -- like most of the rest of us.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that's about as succinctly as it can be said
well done
Hekate
(100,133 posts)It's Congress that has been the problem.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)idendoit
(505 posts)*sigh* My dream ticket is Sanders/Ellison. Bernie can talk 'em all down, Keith can put out their lights. I'm proud to say that Keith is my rep. I've admired Sanders ever since his filibuster got turned into (word for word) a book.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Hillary might say a few slightly more "leftist" things in a primary if she's forced to, for political considerations. But Hillary is a mature politician and totally set - and will never "evolve" in the timeframes left to her. She is what she's made herself to be, what she's proven to be, both in politics and on the speech circuit. If a person likes that in a politician, if a person thinks she's better at that than other candidates, then the choice is clear. But to vote for her in total contradiction to one's own political beliefs "because she's an X and there's no other choice" doesn't make sense.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Take a clue from the movie world...
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
That works for our politics too I guess...so we are told.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
Link: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...because not everything he said in that speech happened NOW NOW NOW.
In fact, it was Obama, who you hate, who actually finally delivered on that "right to adequate medical care", FDR never did.
I'll not go into the whole internment camps, anti-foreigner, in-political-bed-with-racist-southern-lynchers business. Just judging FDR on the economy (which was still not healed after 8 years in office), you'd likely be screaming for blood.
Hell, you'd likely have been screaming after a year.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
gordianot
(15,772 posts)For me I still remember the last Republican candidate who became (in spite of losing the first election & maybe his second) President and he advertised his compassion.
IAmKirak
(36 posts)I will look carefully at the Democratic options during the primaries. I will vote my conscience, not my fears.
When the general election arrives I will have the luxury of voting my conscience again, as I don't see a Republican candidate capturing California any time soon.
struggle4progress
(126,147 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Or committing suicide by the dozens...
Because there are thousands of people that lost there homes to foreclosure, to banks that were willing to rip them off, while being bailed out by those that they were ripping off, and the rest of us.
Because if you are sick, and have no insurance, you go to the emergency room and get tagged for a bill that is significantly higher, that you cannot afford, and is ultimately paid for by the rest of us. (Currently being fixed.)
Because if you are a women, a black, latino, young, old, LGBT, or anybody else that cannot contribute SERIOUS money to a Federal Politician... you do not count anymore.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)
kwolf68
(8,452 posts)Won't it be exciting when Hillary goes against Jeb....in a nation of 300 million we can only find decent candidates from 2 families...How awesome.
I want someone with some new ideas...no, wait. ... forget it, nothing much will change.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)To do so is a slap in the faces of all the millions of victims of that War Crime. My conscience won't allow it.
We need to move on from the old, warmongering, torturing, (remember how HIllary prevaricated on torture? I do.) criminal, neocon disastrous, not just for us, but for millions of people worldwide, and start taking steps from those medieval policies, into the future. The world is leaving us behind. They are moving forward. And we are mired in middle ages brutal wars and torture and old, failed Imperial policies, all of which Hillary is a part of.
To support ANYONE who participated in this terrible era of regression, would make us complicit. I could never do that.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You would not want to be complicit.
And so what if Bush won in 2004.
Your conscience is clear I guess.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)so I'm not as convinced, as many of you are, that her presidency would just be more of the same. Time will tell...
wocaonimabi
(187 posts)and I do not believe for one second Former should be used as a adjective to Goldwater Girl
enough said
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)does that disqualify her?
wocaonimabi
(187 posts)She did NOTHING to advance workers rights while there, in fact one could say she turned a blind eye to it.
What about her 6 figure 'speaking' fees from Goldman Sachs? What has she done to fix the problem this country has with the banksters?
How about her votes for War and the Patriot Act? They were not were not very progressive or liberal votes were they.
If you want to vote for Hillary, go for it, I know I will not be voting for her. She is IMHO to the right of Pres Obama and I find Pres Obama way to Conservative for my tastes and no I do not consider Pres Obama very Liberal or Progressive either.
If the Democratic Party wants to suppress voter turn out, go ahead and nominate Hillary, there will be no motivation for most to not vote when the choice is Corporate Lackey (D) or Corporate Lackey (R).
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Just retire, Hillary.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)as its own thread of course.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024486678
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)In any sense of the word, she is a liberal. She voted liberal in the Senate, and she has high marks from all the "liberal" ranking groups.
The Unions, women's groups, etc.
BKH70041
(961 posts)More coin in my pocket.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)made history today:
NCD Hails Inclusion of Workers with Disabilities in Minimum Wage Executive Order As “Necessary Move Forward”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024489594
...and there is good news about Obamacare.
Obamacare Enrollments Continue Piling Up In January, Now 3.3 Million
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024489320
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)is an insane and recalcitrant Congress (mostly in the House) and only had 2 years of a Democratically-controlled Congress to push though the big and important initiatives. If Hillary has to deal with the same band of bigots and obstructionists that Obama has, I would not expect a whole lot in terms of big progressive initiatives. Congress is the key IMHO. If we get a nice big Democratic majorities in both chambers to send her (or any Democrat, really) some progressive legislation, do you think that she'll just smack them down and veto them?
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)If Hillary is nominated once gain I'll likely vote for her but actually it will be more about voting against whoever she would be running against. Some of us are pretty tired of that choice between right of today's center(D) and far right kook (R).
Plus - we fought a war to get away from a monarchy so maybe Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is not the way we should be going.
I so want another choice too, a real bona fide truly progressive candidate.
This thought that center right and pure right shouldn't be our choice is prevalent and growing. Inequality must be quashed, I'm hoping we are reaching critical mass to drag things back hard left.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)It will be interesting to see how it all works out.