If you want people on the left to vote for HRC IF she's nominated, MAKE A CASE FOR HER!

[Ken Burch]

You can't just keep screaming "YOU HAVE TO! YOU HAVE TO!"

You should be pushing here to stop being right-wing on all the BIG issues(trade policy, war, the role of corporate power in this country, the supposed need for "austerity&quot while only being progressive on minor issues that don't threaten the powerful. Becoming a pro-peace populist wouldn't lower her poll numbers at all.

You should check your sense that HRC is simply entitled to the nom at the door. She has nothing more to offer than anyone else does, and she gets no votes that other Dems wouldn't get.

And you should treat those who are offended by the conservative aspects of HRC with respect, not sneer at them. Those are the people who will always work harder for Dem candidates than anyone else in the party, and they've earned the right to have their say and defend the values they believe in...NONE of which are unpopular, btw.

The way to win is through reaching out, not LASHING out. Don't treat the people the party needs to have on its side like an abuser treats his victim.

[gratuitous]

1. The short answer is always . . .

"Oh, I suppose you'd rather have President Knucklehead from the Republicans?" flourished as if it's the ace of trumps to finish off a grand slam.

[LWolf]

165. That would make a good drinking game

during every Presidential election.



Which would be better, though? For those who use that tired old ace to take the drink every time they trot it out, so we could watch them staggering to the polls, or to take the drink myself, every time I hear it, to anesthetize me to the rage it induces?

[JI7]

2. vote for whoever you want

I am on the left and don't need anyone to tell me why I should vote for her if she ends up nominee.

[tazkcmo]

3. Me either.

I'm on the left and would rather vote for Sanders which is why I encourage him to run as a Democrat for the Democratic nomination.

[n2doc]

4. She's the low information voter candidate

Name recognition. She has more than anyone else. And she could be the first Female President.

Not trying to make a case for her, since I am not a fan, but that is how I see her doing so well so far in polls. A Familiar name, and Icon of sorts, even.

[AgingAmerican]

29. Republicans won't vote for her

nt

[n2doc]

34. Who said anything about Republicans? n/t

[Agschmid]

138. That's a ridiculous assertion.

And somewhat frustrating to see someone on here spew the same shit Rush did about Obama.

[treestar]

5. I don't see why we have to beg them to vote for our nominee

while at the same time they consider themselves "the base."

They can vote as they please. Whoever is the Dem nominee is the best one to vote for if we hope to see any progress. This is reality in the United States at this time. There are plenty of voters on the right and they aren't going to stay home or vote for a third party.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. So true ... So true, all of that. eom.

[PeaceNikki]

7. I agree. And I'd add that people need look past a four year term. SCOTUS nominations last decades.

[tularetom]

21. Do you really trust Hillary Clinton to nominate progressive SCOTUS justices?

She isn't noted for making daring political choices. Hell, she wouldn't even come out and condemn the killing of Michael Brown until she saw which way the tide was running and then all she did was stick a toe in the surf. She's a firm believer in not pissing off the powers that be, and that is exactly what we don't need now.

Can we do better? Hell yes we can. Will we? The liberal media are doing their best to paint her as inevitable, hoping to scare others out of the race and so far it seems to be working.

It's a long way to 2016 and I'm hopeful that events will bring about some positive changes in presidential politics.

[AgingAmerican]

31. Yes

She would nominate progressive justices.

[Ken Burch]

33. Bill didn't...and she doesn't disagree with him on much of anything.

She'd just nominate "centrists"...which isn't anything.

[still_one]

58. Are you telling me you are disappointed with Justice Ginsberg?

[Ken Burch]

63. No.

She's ok.

But that was as good as it got.

Anyone HRC nominates will likely be to her right.

[still_one]

71. Do you even know Hillary record? The arguments that folks accuse Hillary of have the same depth as

many of those Democrats who speak against the left.

Hillary is NO republican. There may be some issues which are not in line with some progressive thought, but the vast majority of her record is liberal.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

That does not mean we should not have debates on the issues, or determine who the best candidate is, but to do so without misrepresenting a person whole record

[AgingAmerican]

80. Yeah, right

She favors people to the right of herself. Uhuh, if you say so lol.

[davidpdx]

185. I have to disagree with you

A quick disclaimer: I have said repeatedly that I dislikes Clinton and have vowed to vote against her in the primary if she runs.

While I disagree with her on many things, I do think on Supreme Court judges HRC would make good choices.

[AgingAmerican]

79. lol

If you say so.

[treestar]

107. You are stuck with centrists

for these kinds of things, since the Senate has to approve them. High offices are going to be filled with centrists, by nature. It involves the representatives of the whole country.

[MFrohike]

145. What?

Brennan, Marshall, Douglas, Black, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas.

Point out the centrist.

[treestar]

156. lol

you really think there are not people out there far to the right of Scalia?

[MFrohike]

158. Uh, what?

So, Scalia's a moderate because bigger loons exist. Hell of an argument you made there, chief.

[Phlem]

178. Hell No!

She a complete flake.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

39. Yes

I'm hoping she might put then-to-be-President Barack Obama on the SCOTUS, if he'd tale the job.

Bill's picks were good. I'd count on hers to be similar.

[treestar]

106. They have to nominate someone who will get confirmed

That means the Senate has to approve the nominee.

[DonCoquixote]

153. as much as I admittedly distrust Hillary

I doubt she would pick anyone the GOP would like.

I do remember how many people slammed Sotomayor and Kagan, saying they would not support LGBT marriage, but in the end, they did. They might be one of the few legacies Obama has left, but they are real.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

184. Yes, we can do a LOT better than Hillary, which is not saying much.

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. Because those asking are not really Democrats....they are the Independents that THINK

they can wrestle control of the Democratic Party by trying to take over DU. Because they do not have it in their power to get their own candidate a win...... The place is crawling with them....


If you cannot commit to voting for the Democratic Primary winner....they are NOT Democratic...they are Independents in disguise that ONLY vote for Democrats because their real party is impotent!

[Ken Burch]

36. Who do you think "their own candidate" IS?

Last edited Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)

(you know perfectly well it's not Nader...he doesn't freaking matter anymore)

Also...why do you think anyone would believe that DU runs the Democratic Party? I've never seen anyone here who thinks anything like that. For that matter, what issues do you think the rest of the party is massively to DU's RIGHT about? I see no grass-roots support for a militaristic foreign policy OR for "free trade" OR for deference to corporations. Do you?

And what would be so terrible if the Left DID "wrestle control of the Democratic Party"? Most of what people to HRC's left support is actually pretty popular in the polls...which of it do you personally oppose?

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. I mean their own Candidate.....in their own party....the Independents

because apparently they hate the Democrats....they cannot even commit to vote for them! So much so they are trying to ram one of them down Democrats throats! Desperation smells!

[treestar]

108. +1

And as usual they disregard Congress, and disregard reality. Republicans exist. They act as if the right Messiah can turn the right wingers into liberals with the right rhetoric. Bernie goes on MTP and says something they like, and bang! He should be POTUS, and that will solve everything.

[VanillaRhapsody]

190. EXACTLY.....they don't want a President.....they want a messiah that can fix everything....

and as soon as Bernie had to make a tough choice they oppose....Bang they are disillusioned and he is under the bus TOO! And WE Democrats are supposed to just get in line....F' THAT!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. Because not 'begging' is how you end up with the 2000 election?

If you don't actually do something to convince enough voters to vote for your candidate (and 'enough' means 'enough' to overcome disenfranchisements, political chicanery, and other candidates in general) then you end up not holding the office.

Gore's handlers didn't think he 'needed' the left. As a result, we never got President Gore. Pride goeth before a fall.

Be willing to 'beg' a bit, and get the voters you need.

[treestar]

109. This is true, but that's why the centrists

end up with the office, because they appealed to the average voters.

Trying to beg the far leftists, (who will never be satisfied anyway) is a waste of time - that's why the party is too "centrist" for these people.

Let them vote for the Nader-like candidate. If it causes a Republican win, that's on them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

115. I don't have to be 'satisfied' to win my vote (since I am 'a far leftist'.)

But I do want to feel that any candidate presented to me will push progress on at least one of the issues I feel are most important at that point in time.

Treating the process as a game, where you merely shrug off a loss as being 'on them', rather than the fact that your candidate who simply wasn't willing to try to appeal to enough voters and then turned around to blame the voters instead of themselves is irresponsible.

[treestar]

116. My candidate did win

that was because he appealed to the centrist voters. He in fact didn't waste time trying to please the un-pleasable.

I am farther left of the average citizen, but I know it and I know my interests are to vote for the Democrats and support them, rather than complain about them not being good enough. Because I am aware of the Republicans that exist and how fanatical they are and how much influence on other voters they have.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

118. And you continue to caricature the far left.

Saying it's 'wasting time' even trying to court our vote.

Again, that's the exact attitude that created the Bush White House, and accelerated the destruction of the country.

Any candidate who actually cares about the country enough will suck up their personal pride and simply try to get enough votes to win, not write people off.

Gore wrote 'the far left' off and lost.

Obama use leftist rhetoric and won the votes of the 'un-pleasable'.

That seems to suggest a flaw in your argument that the far left is 'un-pleasable'.

[treestar]

119. Again, why do we have to court it?

We won't get it or enough votes that way.

And admit that if we have to "court" your vote, then you aren't "the base." The base is the people who always turn up.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

120. I do always turn up.

I vote in every single election.

And I've voted for Dems probably 95% of the time over my voting history.

That amounts to a hell of a lot more Dem votes than people vote sporadically or are 'first timers'.

So you'd simply throw away my vote because you think you're 'too good' to be bothered with my votes? You'd drive off people who have voted for many hundreds of Democrats over the decades and sneer at them as not being 'the base' simply because they won't vote for a few crappy candidates?

[treestar]

123. But now you are saying it has to be courted

You voted before, but this time, you are saying, we have to beg you to do it. So you've changed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

124. I didn't always vote for the Dem before.

Like I said, 95%.

I always voted for the candidate I felt best for the job.

'Courting' as you call it, is nothing more than making more people think you're 'best for the job'.

And I'm not talking about 'my vote' - my vote didn't change the 2000 election. I'm talking about the millions of people around the country who aren't currently planning to vote for 'your' candidate, but might be willing to if you offered them something, anything, that might tip the scales on their vote. Every single thing a candidate does in campaigning is ''begging for votes'. I'm simply suggesting you be willing to 'beg' a bit on the left, just as you do on the right.

[cascadiance]

142. You are taking the same attitude that Rahm Emanuel did, implying "we don't have a choice"...

... and therefore we'll take anything given to us, so those "in control" with the money from corporate interests can "tell us what we should want".

Now, if the Republicans got smart, and put a clone of Dwight Eisenhower in as their candidate, they might lose a lot of their base that is off the right wing rails, but they'd have many of us over there for someone that did what Eisenhower did (which was MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN EITHER PARTY NOW!) in a minute! That's because the Democratic Party isn't showing ANY F'ING loyalty to those that in the past have given it power and it has worked for in the past. Therefore, unlike the past, you are sewing the seeds of dissension and disloyalty by dismissing us all of the time as "not important to care about" in the big picture of what gets done in the party's name.

Now, this election I'm not counting on the Republicans getting that smart, or making that kind of move just yet, but if they see a corporatist Democrat win, and a lot of us complaining about what we have to put up with, they might just make that move in a future election and completely change the party landscape like the Dems did in the 60's when they pushed away the racist southern Democrats out of their party.

[Phlem]

179. Then the average voter is clueless.

I will always vote to the left of Republican and, *sigh*, Democrat nominees from now on despite the average voter.

[Ken Burch]

23. Not "beg"...persuade. There's a difference.

There are some campaigns the party has run(1996 was the worst)when our nominee blurs the difference SO much, the party loses the right to expect the base to care about who wins.

It's just about respect. Is that asking too much?

(Besides, you can't just assume, at this point, that it's GOING to be HRC and that nothing else needs to be said).

[treestar]

110. They can't be persuaded

This is why the party runs the "centrist." That person will appeal to enough voters in enough states to win the election.

Begging a tiny minority that will never be satisfied is a waste of time.

Bernie is not going to be POTUS. A Republican, or as they insist, a "centrist" Democrat will.

Congress won't have a majority of Green Party or Socialists in 2016. This is political reality.

[sheshe2]

43. My main concern is voting in 2014!

If we don't win it there, no DEM elected POTUS in 2016 will stand a chance of getting much done. I will vote for the DEM nominee, treestar. At this point in time who knows who will run, yet I will say one thing it won't be EW. She wants to remain in the Senate to continue her fight, and she is doing a dayum good job. She is focused!

[treestar]

111. Yes, that's so true

President Obama could do a lot with a Democratic Congress. Of course they are paying no attention to that, and focusing on a Messiah for 2016, and ignoring the Congress of 2016 also. Same old.

[grahamhgreen]

183. Making a case is not begging. Make it👍

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. the ONLY case I need is she is a Democrat that will kick the Republican fields ASS!

what else do YOU need?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

17. No other case needs to be made

I grow tired of demands to justify my support of Hillary Clinton over an independent (Sanders) who would have to join the party to even run as a Democrat, or a former Republican (Warren) with no foreign policy experience.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. Exactly...How fucking dare these Independents declare that WE must convince them....

screw em!

[Ken Burch]

27. You can't just call anyone who won't unquestioningly back HRC an "Independent"

You're not entitled to deny their party identity(especially since you never do that to Dems who vote for people like Nixon, Reagan or either Bush).

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. IF she wins the primary and they don't.....they are an Independent by default sorry....

[Ken Burch]

46. What would matter is what they did on Election Day...NOT what they say they'd do today.

Denying that people you disagree with are Democrats serves no purpose.

The Peace Dems who felt they couldn't back Humphrey in the fall of '68(most of whom did in the end, as opposed to the Dems who disgraced themselves by voting for Nixon in '72)were just as much Democrats as the thugs who chanted "We Love Mayor Daley". Browbeating people into voting for a candidate whose nomination is bitter to them is uncool and doesn't work. They don't OWE you more than the right-wing Dems who vote for the GOP nom do).

Nobody's a Naderite anymore, for God's sakes. And nobody deserves to be talked to like one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. to YOU maybe.....I don't know about you....but my agenda is to talk to Democrats

on DU....NOT Independents.....

and that IS your opinion who is acting "naderlite".....

Lest I remind you....Nader...the <air quotes>Lefty Left Left Left guy</air quotes> COST us an election....

[Ken Burch]

54. The Democratic ticket needs the support of progressive independents in order to win in the fall.

And it needs the enthusiasm(not just the gritted-teeth resignation)of people who are registered Dems, but who have felt(often since 1992)that the party no longer speaks for them on other than the local and maybe congressional level).

And there is little either of those groups would ask our party to back that would cost us votes in the fall. Left-populist views on military intervention, trade pacts and corporate power are not box office poison at the polls.

You aren't going to help HRC by denying people's party loyalty or by declaring that some simply shouldn't be heeded.

Progressive independents are voters our party SHOULD have...but the repeated nomination of non-progressive presidential tickets have driven them away(and not gained any significant numbers of voters anywhere else to make up for them).

ANY Democrat would have taken 43% in 1992, for example...we didn't have to nominate a poorbashing, anti-labor death penalty freak to pull THAT kind of a vote. And we would have taken 49% in 1996 without having our Democratic president sign a viciously racist, anti-poor, and anti-woman "welfare reform" bill(after pushing through a right-wing trade deal that almost nobody in the electorate actually wanted).

(BTW...My posts here are not part of the HRC vs. Obama discussion anymore. And given that Obama will probably endorse HRC in the primaries, I'm not sure why you still want to keep that particular intraparty feud alive).

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. but I don't have to just stand by and listen to their whiny asses complain about Democrats

when they cannot even elect one of their own!

All their Bullshit calling actual Democrats....NOT ONE! Or Rightwing...etc. Why should DEMOCRATS that DO agree to support who wins the Primary...HAVE to put up with their bullshit on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?

There are lots of Blog with which I could interact with them should I want to....(I suggest Discussionist...which I have no interest in whatsoever btw).

[Ken Burch]

59. Who, exactly, do you mean by "one of their own"?

It's not as though our anti-democratic electoral system really gave them a fair chance, after all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. INDEPENDENTS aren't they WHO we were talking about?

the PRIMARY IS our Democratic System....YET they want the RIGHT to come here and trash the Democratic front-runner all they want .......all the while knowing they WILL vote for them in the end....its hypocritical. And we are supposed to be tolerant because WHY EXACTLY? (Extortion???)

Get your own playground bullies!

[Ken Burch]

70. I meant who is the candidate that is "one of their own"?

And our primary system has been made more and more anti-democratic since 1972...a change that has mostly produced defeats.
We only won in 2008 because the candidate who generated enthusiasm and passion defeated the candidate of the party establishment in the primaries, in a fluke upset.

(Yes, that candidate was a let-down later, but the establishment candidate would have been too, and, having failed once on healthcare, was doomed from the start to fail on it again later.)

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. THESE Independents we were talking about....You know...those that cannot accept

whoever wins the Democratic Primary....that's the Democratic process! And WE ARE the Democrats.....that's life in the fast lane...

[Ken Burch]

78. A lot of the people who disagree with you are Democrats, too.

And 1992 proved that "just electing a Democrat" isn't anything at all.

We have to make sure that the party never lowers itself to that mindset again, because the results of "just electing a Democrat" then were an eight-year dead zone, during which nothing happened that couldn't have happened under a re-elected Gerald Ford, OR during Nixon's first term.

Is there something wrong with having standards?

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. NOT if they say they won't vote in the Primaries if so and so is the winner they are not....

the Primary IS our Democratic process...and WE are Democrats...

[Ken Burch]

91. There haven't been a lot of people saying they won't vote in the primaries.

There have been some saying that the primary process, with its pointless fixation with crowning a nominee as soon as possible, usually months before the convention, has anti-democratic characteristics and shuts out a lot of people. Do you really disagree with that?

We need more democracy IN the primaries, and we need open debate, including AT THE CONVENTION if necessary, about what our party stands for. The platform shouldn't be exclusively dictated by the nominee, with no real chance for the views of any other candidate to be included(especially on things like foreign policy, militarism, trade deals and the role of corporations in the governance of the country).

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. OH YES the hell there HAS! That is why I ask that question around here....

[cascadiance]

133. Independents? :( Maybe if the Republicans would nominate an Eisenhower (thought they won't)

... we'd ALL become Republicans for a candidate that values what traditionally Democrats have valued that used to also be favored by many Republicans too, much like many racists became Republicans when they left the party in the sixties and Republicans embraced racism then... We don't like being told that Democrats should act like Republicans and if we don't that we are "independents"!!

DINOs can take over the party in terms of power like they have recently through various means (a lot of it corporate money from people like the Koch Brothers did with the DLC), but if you try to claim that we are no longer "true democrats" because we don't embrace the corporatist mantra of these fake Democrats that many here claim are "THE" Democrats, then that is a recipe for losing a LOT of voters! Is that what you want? Maybe it is a stealth campaign that many here like because this is what the corporate backers WANT to happen!

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. YOU are the one calling them Corporatists...notice that those that REALLY support Democrats

are NOT?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you Independents should start your OWN Primary and quit riding OUR coattails IF YOU think you are soooooo much better than us!

Be our GUESTS.....

There are NO Democrats you even like....you want a NON Democrat for goodness sakes.

[cascadiance]

147. I am MORE of a Democrat than the so-called "centrist" BS Koch-based takeover of the party!

I support Democratic PRINCIPLES that so many seem to forget here when they treat Democrats as a name for a sports team here... Because they seem to care only if they "win" and not what they STAND FOR!

Those that have TAKEN OVER the Democratic Party with their CORPORATIST BS (corporate serving if that meaning escapes you, which DOES happen when you accept their BRIBE money), should have formed their own party if they thought that their formula was good on its own without having to HIJACK what used to be a decent party that stood up for the average people instead of for corporate dollars to "win"...

I want Democrats like Elizabeth Warren. And how is she a "Non-Democrat" compared to others that you claim are Democrats but who supported Republicans when younger, and is part of a family that ran the DLC which was supported by Koch brother dollars!

So perhaps you want to define who are "not" corporatists, and why they are not corporatists?

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. You are not more Democrat than someone who AGREES to vote for whomever their FELLOW Democrats

select in the Primary....and not whine like a spoiled brat if they DON'T get their personal favorite! Because apparently you don't understand how "democracy" works...

[cascadiance]

157. She hasn't declared herself a candidate yet, let alone win ANY primary elections yet...

... that aren't scheduled for years just yet! Why should we declare a "winner" of the nomination already and make the same DAMN mistake her people made in saying she'd win when she didn't in 2008? Those that say we are "independents" because we don't agree with corporate media mantras that she's "inevitable" are the ones that are distracting us from the need to win midterm elections in 2014! Not us! If the media and others wants to push this line, we WILL push back because we DO care about wanting to have someone who will lead our party and country in the direction of what Democrats like FDR did before, especially when it dealt with similar challenges that we do now, not what the Koch brothers have paid the DLC and other renamed entities of corporatist elements of our party try to claim our direction is now in their efforts to take over and push us out!

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. and Bernie is STILL not a Democrat....

next!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

149. You don't have to listen to anyone or anything, but be clear on this:

If your DU persona was how this country thought Democrats thought and acted, Republicans would never lose an election. They could run a Jindal/Nugent ticket and get 80% of the popular vote (even though only 8% of registered voters would show up for such a shit show). So yeah, rant on about whatever it is you want to rant about, but be aware that Democrats sometimes win elections in spite of people like you, not because of people like you. For my part, I'm relieved you don't have a larger audience.

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. It IS how it is....that is the difference between a Democrat who believes in Democracy

and an Independent who just votes for Democrats because Independents cannot get their shit together and vote their own damn candidates in....

Oh and I have no interest in an audience.....I am not here to entertain you...

[cascadiance]

166. I think you are confused and don't understand why newer democracies use parliamentary...

... systems to ALLOW third parties to have a chance at getting voted in. That or places like Australia where they've put in instant runoff voting. Bernie isn't stupid! He knows that running as an independent will likely only make him a spoiler in the general election given our rigged system, and he will run in the Democratic primary if for nothing else, to at least move the dialogue of the campaign to more progressive tones than the corporatist candidates or media would have allowed before.

And, if FDR were alive today, he'd probably vote for someone like Bernie as someone that represents his own Democratic values that he defined the party with for decades than some of the corporate shills we have had running lately. Call him "independent" if you want, but he's more of a REAL democrat in terms of values rather than just the label that you obsess about than many others are.

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. No actually I am not....

No FDR wouldn't.......my god you Independents do like to project!

[Beacool]

170. Hear, hear!!!

That's why I barely show up once in a while and only just to keep my account current. I'm tired of all the whining and moaning. If Hillary is the nominee, they can vote for her or not. I really don't give a damn.

[VanillaRhapsody]

174. its nothing but an attempted coup de tat by

Independents of DU. They think DEMOCRATS wont fight back. I however like a good verbal brawl. Randi Rhodes was my personal hero.

[Union Scribe]

82. Rarrrrrrr!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

22. You don't have to justify your support of anyone.

But if you want to convince others to vote for the same person you do, you might want to actually put some effort into justifying to them why THEY should.

And btw, before you start tossing 'former Republican' at Warren, remember that Hillary was a former Republican too, a 'Goldwater girl'.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

24. Hillary would have been -- what 17 when Goldwater ran??

You couldn't even vote until you were 21 in those days (1968 in Hillary's case).

I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren has quickly become a populist hero to liberals. Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s The Week, noted something in her background that “might surprise” her supporters: the fact that she has voted Republican in the past, and was a registered Republican in Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1996.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/27/3431303/warren-left-gop/

So she would have been 42-47 years old. I think that's fairly described as old enough to know better.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. She worked to elect Republicans.

You want to quibble over whether or not she personally got to vote for them, as opposed to getting others to do so? Fine, whatever, I don't care.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. as a fucking child.....now who has a strawman argument!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. Not me. You better go look up what 'strawman argument' actually means

before you go trying it on people.

Point of fact: HRC tried to get Republicans elected in the past. So did Elizabeth Warren.

You might not like those facts, or at least one of them, but you can't change them, even if you try to tell yourself they're 'different' because of the ages involved.

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. Yeah YOU.....you want to hold someone who canvassed for a Republican when they were

a teenager.....FUCK when I was young....I canvassed for Perot, though I didn't vote for him..So fucking what?

Thats whats straw...

[Mnemosyne]

155. Why would you canvas for a candidate you would not vote for, if I may ask? Thanks. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

161. because I was a KID!!!

Duh!

[Mnemosyne]

163. I just asked a question. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. and it was a dumb question....you thought it was a "gotcha"

but if you had read what I said.....you would have seen that is what I just said.

[Thinkingabout]

55. Yes Hillary worked for Goldwater campaign, she became disillusioned, voted in 1968 for a Democrat.

She was raised in a Republican home but has lived her voting life as a Democrat. She has experience serving as SOS, traveled the world in this position, met and talked with many world leaders, has negotiated in peace talks in the middle east, these are experiences not taught in the classrooms. She has served as Senator, worked across the aisles to get bills passed.

I dislike the accusations of being a corporatists simply because she gives speeches to places like Goldman Sachs, even if she is paid for those speeches it may have been a time they needed to listen to a Democrat. I also doubt those condemning Hillary for the speeches would have turned down the opportunity. Yes she was a director on Walmart board, while there she pushed for females to be elected, pushed the Buy American, since she has left the board we see where Walmart is not Buy America any more. Corporations needs smart people to serve on their boards, not just another rubber stamper of terrible squeezing ideas placed upon the American public.

She fought for civil rights as a college student, she has fought for women's rights, she has fought against violence against women, not only in the US but in other nations.

There is more, read the following link:

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

62. I wasn't pointing it out to 'diss' her.

I was pointing out that having been a Republican in the past is not necessarily a bad thing - I like Warren, and she was a Republican in the past too. Ditto Markos Moulitsos, the founder of Daily Kos. Lots of people have, at some point, been Republicans, and come to realize it was a bad idea. The comment to which I replied was using 'former Republican' as a way to denounce Elizabeth Warren while at the same time boosting HRC, so I pointed out her status as a former Republican booster to show the hypocrisy of the attack, not to attack HRC for her former belief that Republicans had good ideas.

[Beacool]

175. Idiotic argument.

Hillary was a kid, Warren was in her mid forties. Big difference.....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

188. Not really.

Some people simply cruise along, ignoring politics until something hits them and wakes them up. I was in my early 30s when I finally actually started paying attention to politics and did more than go in each election day and pull the same levers my parents had. So it took Warren a decade longer? Big deal. My point holds - being a former Republican is nothing to be ashamed of - it's what you do now and going forward that matters. Not what you did before you actually realized that politics mattered, and Republicans are screwing up the country and the world.

[Ken Burch]

25. It matters whether the candidate is more like them than not.

And you can't deny that HRC's recent rightward swing(her denunciation of Obama for not getting us into MORE wars and her praise of Kissinger)is a big problem.

[Ken Burch]

30. You don't even know THAT for sure.

HRC doesn't get votes any other Dem wouldn't get.

People who insist on a hawkish, invasionist foreign policy don't vote Democratic...neither do people who think corporations should dominate the country.

[Scuba]

40. Policies. And Hillary's are conservative Republican with the exception of a few social issues.

[still_one]

67. Really. Do you even know what you are talking about. Please tell me which of these issues in her

Last edited Tue Sep 16, 2014, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

record are the most conservative and offensive:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

One may not like her for her IWR and middle east policies, but to even paint it with the wording of the exception "of a few social issues"

is a gross distortion of the facts.

but if that is how you want to make your case, go for it

[Scuba]

86. She's a corporatists and a warhawk.

[still_one]

94. did you even read the link?

[Scuba]

97. She works for Goldman Sachs. She supports the TPP. She loves the war machine.

[still_one]

100. You have so much animosity you cannot even answer my question

No need for us to pursue this dialog further

Have a good day

[Logical]

96. LOL, good one! n-t

[treestar]

112. +1

Reality must be faced. The voters in the US as of this time are what they are. Just because people on DU think Bernie or Elizabeth is wonderful does not mean they will gain support of a large enough number to win.

[LondonReign2]

139. Umm, how about, you know, something about policies?

[Sheepshank]

154. She will kick Republican ass and protect and build on ACA

Republicans are avowed to go back to what we had before ACA...they have no real workable alternative.

we don't even have a picture or statement from HRC regarding her platform, yet your disingenuous request thay du'ers beg you for your vote really smacks more of the idea that you have already made up your mind.

The reality is that there israre ever 100% consensus on any platform issue from any candidate...ever, so any point worthy of note for one person is merely a target for attack from 5 other Dems who disagree with that particular platform.

So why don't you do some of your own homework and quit with the disingenuous attention whoring.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Somebody out there posted a long list of her accomplishments over the years

And she actually has been very good on women's rights, and to a somewhat lesser extent children's rights.

I don't see where she's going to be any better (using my own personal definition of 'better', of course) on any other issue than any other likely candidate on the left, and I already see her as being worse on several issues. I would be very surprised if she ends up being the 'best' available candidate for me personally to vote for in either the primary or the general.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. then you must not have read her accomplishments...

also on Healthcare...she was too the Left of Obama....which is why I supported her going into the Primary...FOR THAT reason only.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm




http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_Obama.htm

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. I read em.

I have different priorities, thanks. On the things I think we need in a President at this specific moment in time, I find her lacking.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. apparently not....

Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale) Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases: Favors topic 1
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too: Favors topic 1
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania: Strongly Favors topic 1
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice: Favors topic 1
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose: Favors topic 1
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare: Favors topic 1
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion: Favors topic 1
Supports parental notice & family planning: Opposes topic 1
No abortion for sex selection in China: Opposes topic 1
Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus: Favors topic 1
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women: Favors topic 1
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record: Strongly Favors topic 1
Expand embryonic stem cell research: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims: Favors topic 1
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance: Strongly Favors topic 1
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities: Favors topic 1
Ensure access to and funding for contraception: Favors topic 1
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception: Favors topic 1
NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP: Favors topic 1
NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime: Favors topic 1
YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives: Favors topic 1
NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions: Favors topic 1
YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Favors topic 1
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale) Some world leaders are still misogynistic: Favors topic 2
We’ve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go: Strongly Favors topic 2
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now: Favors topic 2
Human rights are women’s rights: Neutral on topic 2
Women’s rights are human rights: Favors topic 2
OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism": Strongly Favors topic 2
Equal pay is not yet equal: Strongly Favors topic 2
1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Argued with Bill Clinton about diluting affirmative action: Strongly Favors topic 2
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all: Neutral on topic 2
Sponsored bill maintaining role of women in armed forces: Favors topic 2
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Favors topic 2
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery: Strongly Favors topic 2
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 2
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements: Favors topic 2
Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue: Favors topic 2
Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination: Strongly Favors topic 2
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale) Increase America’s commitment against Global AIDS: Favors topic 3
DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union: Strongly Favors topic 3
I support gay marriage personally and as law: Strongly Favors topic 3
Let states decide gay marriage; they’re ahead of feds: Favors topic 3
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex: Strongly Favors topic 3
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards: Favors topic 3
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits: Strongly Favors topic 3
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation: Favors topic 3
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees: Strongly Favors topic 3
YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale) Partner with faith based community in empowerment zones: Strongly Favors topic 4
Tap into churches to avoid more Louima & Diallo cases: Favors topic 4
Community involvement helps, but only in short term: Favors topic 4
Link payments to good parenting behavior: Opposes topic 4
Allow student prayer, but no religious instruction: Opposes topic 4
Character education: teach empathy & self-discipline: Favors topic 4
Change what kids see in the media: Favors topic 4
Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning: Favors topic 4
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 4
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation: Strongly Opposes topic 4
NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration: Opposes topic 4
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale) Outcry if AIDS were leading disease of young whites: Favors topic 5
Lower costs and improve quality and cover everybody: Strongly Favors topic 5
Supply more medical needs of families, & insure all children: Strongly Favors topic 5
Medicare should be strengthened today: Favors topic 5
Smaller steps to progress on health care: Favors topic 5
Guaranteed benefits & focus on prevention: Neutral on topic 5
2006: If I can't do universal coverage, why run?: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care will not work if it is voluntary: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term: Strongly Favors topic 5
We need a uniquely American solution to health care: Favors topic 5
Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate: Strongly Favors topic 5
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care: Favors topic 5
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage: Favors topic 5
Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations: Opposes topic 5
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record: Strongly Favors topic 5
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn: Strongly Favors topic 5
NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium: Favors topic 5
NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit: Favors topic 5
NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit: Opposes topic 5
YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics: Favors topic 5
YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug: Strongly Favors topic 5
YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D: Favors topic 5
NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000: Opposes topic 5
YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Favors topic 5
YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare: Favors topic 5
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale) 1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Social Security protects families, not just retirees: Strongly Opposes topic 6
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency: Opposes topic 6
Create Retirement Savings Accounts: Favors topic 6
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 6
NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security: Opposes topic 6
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale) OpEd: Common Core recycled from Clintons in 1980s and 1990s: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fully fund special education & 21st century classrooms: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice; but not private nor parochial: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers drain money from public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fight with Gore for public schools; no voucher “gimmicks”: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Charter schools provide choice within public system: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers siphon off much-needed resources: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Parents can choose, but support public schools: Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice and charter schools: Favors topic 7
Solemn vow never to abandon our public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice: Opposes topic 7
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes: Strongly Opposes topic 7
YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies: Opposes topic 7
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
Clean air and water are property rights
(-5 points on Social scale) $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package: Opposes topic 8
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles: Opposes topic 8
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes: Strongly Opposes topic 8
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up: Opposes topic 8
Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act: Opposes topic 8
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale) Longtime advocate of death penalty, with restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 9
Address the unacceptable increase in incarceration: Opposes topic 9
Mandatory sentences have been too widely used: Strongly Opposes topic 9
Give kids after-school activities to prevent gangs: Opposes topic 9
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence: Opposes topic 9
Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You’re-Out: Favors topic 9
Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison: Strongly Favors topic 9
End hate crimes and other intolerance: Favors topic 9
Require DNA testing for all federal executions: Opposes topic 9
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program: Opposes topic 9
Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance: Strongly Opposes topic 9
YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program: Opposes topic 9
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale) Rein in idea that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers: Opposes topic 10
Get assault weapons & guns off the street: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre: Opposes topic 10
Congress’ failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run: Opposes topic 10
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs: Opposes topic 10
License and register all handgun sales: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Gun control protects our children: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Lock up guns; store ammo separately: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons: Opposes topic 10
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology: Opposes topic 10
NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence: Strongly Opposes topic 10
NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale) Rescind tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year: Strongly Favors topic 11
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget: Favors topic 11
GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students: Favors topic 11
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes: Strongly Favors topic 11
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset: Favors topic 11
YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates: Favors topic 11
YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction: Favors topic 11
NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut: Favors topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax: Strongly Favors topic 11
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale) Introduce a path to earn citizenship in the first 100 days: Strongly Favors topic 12
Consider halting certain raids on illegal immigrant families: Favors topic 12
Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic: Strongly Favors topic 12
Illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses puts them at risk: Opposes topic 12
Oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants: Opposes topic 12
More border patrolling on both Mexican AND Canadian borders: Opposes topic 12
Anti-immigrant bill would have criminalized Jesus Christ: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sanctuary cities ok; local police can’t enforce immigration: Favors topic 12
Comprehensive reform to get 12 million out of shadows: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill covering child resident aliens under Medicaid: Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill funding social services for noncitizens: Favors topic 12
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities": Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on establishing a Guest Worker program: Favors topic 12
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program: Neutral topic 12
NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on comprehensive immigration reform: Strongly Favors topic 12
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale) Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale) US support & no-fly zone, but UN troops on ground in Darfur: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Support UN reform because US benefits: Opposes topic 14
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N.: Opposes topic 14
Urged President to veto UN condemnation of Israel: Favors topic 14
Engage in world affairs, including human rights: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Keep Cuban embargo; pay UN bills: Opposes topic 14
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it: Favors topic 14
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US: Favors topic 14
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror: Opposes topic 14
YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods: Strongly Opposes topic 14
NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Opposes topic 14
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale) There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15
Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on voting rights
(-5 points on Social scale) Voter suppression revives old demons of discrimination: Favors topic 16
Stand for public financing and getting money out of politics: Strongly Favors topic 16
Presidents should reveal donations to their foundations: Strongly Favors topic 16
Move to public election financing, not banning lobbyists: Strongly Favors topic 16
Verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machines: Favors topic 16
Called for ban on all soft money in 2000 campaign: Favors topic 16
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting: Favors topic 16
YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations: Favors topic 16
YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads: Favors topic 16
NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity: Opposes topic 16
NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress: Strongly Favors topic 16
Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale) Smartest strategic choice is peace: Favors topic 17
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese: Favors topic 17
Foreign aid spending is only 1%; lead by remaining engaged: Strongly Favors topic 17
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have: Favors topic 17
Demand Bush to explain to Congress on his plan on Iraq: Favors topic 17
Deauthorize Iraq war, and don’t grant new war authority: Strongly Favors topic 17
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately: Strongly Favors topic 17
Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office: Strongly Favors topic 17
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not: Favors topic 17
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence: Favors topic 17
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq: Strongly Favors topic 17
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran: Favors topic 17
YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq: Strongly Opposes topic 17
NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007: Strongly Opposes topic 17
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008: Strongly Favors topic 17
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale) $100B per year by 2020 for climate change mitigation: Strongly Favors topic 18
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us: Strongly Favors topic 18
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA: Favors topic 18
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health: Favors topic 18
Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit: Strongly Favors topic 18
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases: Favors topic 18
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy: Strongly Favors topic 18
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances: Strongly Favors topic 18
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence: Favors topic 18
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness: Favors topic 18
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025: Strongly Favors topic 18
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards: Strongly Favors topic 18
Gas tax holiday for the summer: Opposes topic 18
NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill: Favors topic 18
YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%): Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Favors topic 18
YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning: Favors topic 18
YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Favors topic 18
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale) Medical marijuana maybe ok; states decide recreational use: Opposes topic 19
Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison: Strongly Opposes topic 19
Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts: Strongly Opposes topic 19
End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine: Opposes topic 19
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use: Favors topic 19
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale) Wealthy should go back to paying pre-Bush tax rates: Favors topic 20
Want to restore the tax rates we had in the ‘90s: Favors topic 20
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks: Strongly Favors topic 20
Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages: Strongly Favors topic 20
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005: Strongly Favors topic 20
End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good: Favors topic 20
Social issues matter; wrong time for tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 20
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium: Strongly Favors topic 20
America can afford to raise the minimum wage: Strongly Favors topic 20
Just Say No to GOP tax plan: Strongly Favors topic 20
YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million: Strongly Favors topic 20

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. tl,dnr.

Walls of copypasta don't intrigue me.

As I said, I already did spend my time reading one such wall, I have no interest in spending time doing so again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Its not just copy and paste if it is all readily publically available...

are you chicken to have a paradigm shift?

Weak argument indeed....."I cannot be bothered to read a list of positions....because it might screw up my pre-existing narrative"

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. Oh wow, playground insults! Chicken, yeah, that'll really make me change my mind.

Go ahead and 'double dog dare' me while you're at it.

No, as I said, I already read a list like that, so I'm not bothering to do so again. Not your strawman 'it might screw up my pre-existing narrative'.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. that is all that kind of thinking deserves.....

this alone should convince us...

Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 4


It would only be a strawman if I didn't have the facts on MY SIDE....and I even provided them for you!


Pre-existing narrative.....

[ZombieHorde]

37. Wow, a real answer to the question in the OP.

Thank you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. You are welcome.....

anyone who actually reads that and STILL sticks to their bullshit narrative about HRC not being Left enough is as Ed Schultz says...."not an honest broker"......

[Kalidurga]

103. Apparently I am a hard core liberal

So, of course Hillary is going to look not so liberal to me. But, she beats any R by miles.

[AtomicKitten]

186. How about linking to this wall of text

instead of spamming the boards with it repeatedly? That would be the courteous thing to do instead of being annoying as shit trying to scroll through it on a smartphone.

[VanillaRhapsody]

189. easy peasy I do it all the time...Its a WALL of FACTS!

In fact....let me give the "shit" to you with a pretty graph too...



http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

There.....satisfied? "courteous" enough for ya?

BTW am I supposed to care that you are on a phone? We are supposed to couch our responses to what looks good on YOUR smartphone now too? How many characters am I allowed?

[Politicalboi]

28. Let's concentrate on 2014 first

We need to win the house, and keep the senate. If we do that, the rest should fall into place better.

[Lil Missy]

32. Vote as you please. n/t

[MineralMan]

35. If she runs and wins the nomination, that

Will be the time to address your request. Still, I'm sure you're capable of deciding for yourself how to vote, so I won't try to convince you of anything if she's the nominee. My campaigning is all local.

[aikoaiko]

76. +1

[ZombieHorde]

38. Most of the responses in this thread are hilarious. nt

[Progressive dog]

45. Nominees always campaign (to my knowledge)

As far as I know, she hasn't deputized anyone to speak for her as yet. If the self described "left", "the people who will always work harder---", chooses not to work at all, that's up to them.

[KamaAina]

47. Well, for one thing, there's the Supreme Court.

If that doesn't do it for you, remember that she was a surprisingly good Senator from New York. The "carpetbagger" charge notwithstanding, she brought a lot of jobs to traditionally Red upstate NY.

[wyldwolf]

48. Another pouty OP

The case has been made over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean the question hasn't be answered.

The only people here lashing out are the anti-Hillary DUers - your OP being a great example.

[Ken Burch]

50. HRC keeps undermining the case by moving further and further right

Would you at LEAST agree that she has an obligation to not get any more conservative on any remaining issues between now and the election? We already know that nobody to HRC's RIGHT is ever going to vote Dem again, so why bother?

If you're a hawk, if you're STILL pro-"free trade&quot despite two decades of evidence that globalization is solely to the benefit of the 1%) and you're ok with corporations dominating this country's life, you are going to vote for the GOP. It really is that simple. You can't hold those views and have any humane, progressive views on anything of any importance. It's not possible to hold those views and care about the poor, or to want working people to have a decent life, or to ultimately want a peaceful world(we've already established that war doesn't cause peace, especially in the Middle East).

[wyldwolf]

52. And THAT reply ^ is another example of quickly altering the point of your OP

It's just more of the same things you've posted here for years. Why would I want to engage in another protracted policy discussion with you when it wasn't the point of your OP?

Hillary supporters have made their case for her many many times on DU. You can't say with a straight face that you've missed them.

Further, it isn't the pro-Hillary people who lash out. It's the anti's.

[Union Scribe]

83. You're lashing out in this thread.

I know you don't get that though and accept that about you.

[wyldwolf]

87. I am being very calm

It's more of a 'ho hum' and "oh boy, more of this shit" than a lash out.

I know you don't get that though. Progressives seem to live in perpetual state of outrage and can't fathom anyone being any other way.

[JI7]

61. if you feel this way don't vote for her

[Ken Burch]

65. I've already said I'll vote lesser-evil for her.

It's legitimate to point out the problems, though.

And listening to people like me would WIDEN her appeal, if HRC actually was nominated.

They country isn't demanding that Democrats tell the left to eff-off.

[JI7]

69. many Hillary supporters are the left

I know many of them who are involved year around on progressive issues.

[Ken Burch]

73. How could anyone who backed peace and workers' rights

back the candidate who supports austerity, militarism and globalization?

[cascadiance]

134. This "left" just LOVES having H-1B indentured servant program grow doesn't it!

The left? SHEESH!!!

[Marr]

150. It's sort of a new "left"-- that grew alongside Fox News and talk radio.

They're not really left in their politics, because they don't really have any. They're basically just people who don't like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and most Republican media/political figures.

It's an oddly personality-driven sort of politics that has more in common with reality TV than anything else.

[arcane1]

51. But please wait until AFTER the 2014 elections to begin making your case

[Warren DeMontague]

57. If I wanted to argue with people who don't have at least a foregone assumption that they'll vote for

the (D) Nominee for President in 2016, whoever that turns out to be, I'd do it at discussionist.

Honestly, if you want to hang out at DU, yeah, you're pretty much supposed to have that squared away already. More or less.

Now, as for who to vote for in the primaries, that's a different story- and that's where I think the would-be HRC case makers ought to focus.

[pnwmom]

66. Agreed. n/t

[B Calm]

60. Walmart shoppers will be thrilled to have an ex Walmart corporate lawyer

as their next POTUS.

So will the DU globalists!

[pnwmom]

68. Because there isn't a single Repub who is to the left of her, and I'll vote for the most progressive

person in the general who is on the ballot in all 50 states. I won't vote for any progressive who will only run a half-assed campaign in order to draw votes away from another progressive.

[still_one]

74. The best case for her is her record. Here it is:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[drray23]

75. no need to make a case

If she is the nominee i will vote for her because i think she will be better than ANY republican by a long shot. The last thing I want is have a gop president.

Having the gop name the next supreme court appointees would enable them to roll back everything that was gained in the past 50 years.

Making the case for Warren or Sanders if he moves to the democratic party is just fine. I would vote for them too if they come out of the primaries as nominees.

[aikoaiko]

77. You already know the answer. It's the same one people gave you in every election since Bush 2000

Vote for the left most candidate with the best chances of winning.

It might be HRC
, but it's too soon to tell

[zappaman]

81. Did she announce she's running?

Was that today?
Haven't been up on the news...

[Phentex]

117. I can't even care until then...

my bad. I don't want to make a case for her or against her until I know that she is running.

[zappaman]

127. Exactly.

too soon!

[yeoman6987]

84. I am voting for Hilary if she gets the nominee

You think we need to convince you....please. You have a vote. It just seems pretty arrogant to demand information. Are you over 18? Then make up your own mind.

[Maedhros]

176. It's not arrogant to ask posters to make their case when imploring others to vote for Hillary.

That's the point of the OP. If a poster wants us to vote for Hillary, give us concrete reasons.

[yeoman6987]

180. I will but not until she gets the nomination

Right now we are speculating that she might run. Heck, she has not even announced yet. We all could be wasting our time and energy on nothing.

[noiretextatique]

85. she is not a republicon

and then there is SCOTUS. those scare tactics seem to work. nevermind the war mongering or the coddling of wall street.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. But..but..all she has to do is have a (D) after her name and be "not as bad" as a rabid piranha.

Which seems to be the thinking of some people here.

[LawDeeDah]

90. I don't think there is a case to be made.

At least I have not heard a believable one. I think that's why some fanpeople go wild and crazy when you ask that, because there is no answer and they get angry at you for daring to ask.

[still_one]

95. I think this OP is ridiculous. Her record stands on her own. See the link below

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

That does not mean she is the best candidate, but for sure she isn't the worst

[LawDeeDah]

105. That's quite the list.

But when I read this, as an example of many or most on that list, I am underwhelmed.

Arts education is needed in our schools. (Sep 1998)

I was hoping to see what Accomplishments Hillary has under her belt, not just agreeing or disagreeing with others as what that column of words basically is. What did she create and get the votes to pass that made a positive difference to the American people that she can call her own work?

[yodermon]

93. The "people on the left" you're talking about are not really DUers...

I think the vast majority of DU'ers who are not Hillary fans will still vote for her in the general.

It is the disillusioned rank & file Democrats out there, you know, the ones who sometimes don't even realize midterm elections *exist*, and the we rail against them for not voting... they are the ones that will need convincing to vote for another Clinton.

[NanceGreggs]

98. She can win.

She's a Democrat, and current polls and surveys indicate wide support for her candidacy, should she choose to run.

Does that sound simplistic? Yes, it does - and it is based on a simple truth: I'll take a Democrat as POTUS over a Republican every time.

Does Hillary have her flaws? Absolutely - just like every other (D). Will Hillary as POTUS at times disappoint me, cause me to scream at the TV when she promotes something I am against? Definitely - just like every other (D). Will Hillary say and do things as POTUS that I disagree with? You're damned real she will - which makes her just like every other (D) who will ever be elected to the Oval Office.

I am a realist. I have never expected any elected (D) to agree with me one hundred percent on every issue. And those who DO expect such are fools.

I will always vote (D) over (R) - and when poll after poll suggests that Hillary is the candidate that will get the Democrats out to vote for her en masse, she can count on my vote, too.

Better a (D) who will disappoint me SOME of the time, than an (R) who will enrage me ALL of the time.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

172. Sums up my thinking perfectly

Like in 2008, I'm still open to another candidate should one present him/herself but right now I think Hillary would be the best overall candidate if she decides to run

[choie]

99. over 90 posts...

and only one real response that makes a case for her candidacy....very telling.

[Kalidurga]

101. She is not a Republican

I will work on the rest of my list later.

[JoePhilly]

102. You have this backwards.

I would happily vote for Hillary. And as things stand, I'll work to get her elected.

And I'll focus on getting moderates to voe for her and not some Republican.

You want me to change and support some other Democratic candidate ... but one you can't name.

See the problem yet?

If you have a better Democratic candidate, convince me to support them and not Hillary. I'm already prepared to go fight for her.

If you could provide a better alternative, I'll go work on folks in the middle to support that candidate over the Republican.

But the onus here is on YOU.

You claim that Hillary will only get the votes that any Dem would get. How can you make that claim while not naming an actual alternative candidate ... hint, you can't.

[Half-Century Man]

104. I am concerned about HRC, if for no other reason than the mass media's onslaught to ensure

HRC as the democratic candidate.
My current working hypothesis is, she is as far left as the conservative corporate masters of media is willing to speculate.

Another concern I have is some of her stated positions are right of center. Some of her associates are deeply right. She is far too connected to those super wealthy right wing political manipulators. Whether this is due to political expediency or her personal preferences, I don't know. I would like some clarification prior to voting for her in a primary.

[99Forever]

113. I won't hold my breath waiting for that.

I also won't be voting for HRC, based on her history on the issue important to me.

[theHandpuppet]

114. Again??

Didn't we have exactly this thread topic a week or so ago?

[99Forever]

121. Perhaps.

Did the request get answered?

Not that I'm aware of, but if it did please link to it. Thanks.

[theHandpuppet]

122. Yes, it did. From multiple DUers.

Just posting the same OP over and again is beyond tiresome. It simply becomes another round of Hillary-bashing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025445451

[99Forever]

125. Fail.

Nothing in that thread met the challenge. HRC is on the wrong side of almost every issue I care about. As such, you should EXPECT to see this kind of OP repeatedly here.

[theHandpuppet]

128. And your response is why some won't bother to post on this thread

It really didn't matter what reasons anyone gave, no one else's opinions or reasons supposedly "met the challenge". These types of threads become little more than venues for Hillary-bashing. Not playing anymore, thanks.

[99Forever]

136. Then don't post on them.

Problem solved.

But don't expect to post snide replies without pushback. HRC and her supporters have to sell us, not the other way around.

[theHandpuppet]

140. Pot, meet kettle.

Dismissing my rather tame posts as snide seems rather odd considering what you responded to me. But I will repeat what I contend -- there IS no amount of persuading that would satisfy the Hillary bashers. Threads such as this one simply provide another segue for some to continue bashing Clinton and her supporters. I just think its odd to read over and again HRC supporters addressed on a democratic forum as if they are the enemy. I haven't spoken against anyone's candidate nor demanded they justify their choices.

[Maedhros]

177. Disagreeing with abysmal policy is not "bashing."

It's called "paying attention."

[JoePhilly]

126. Notice they are not trying to get Hillary supporters to switch.

They don't have an alternative candidate.

If they want us to switch, then they need to argue for their preferred candidate.

I've already got a candidate I like, and if things remain the same, I'll be voting for her.

[theHandpuppet]

129. These types of threads are having the opposite effect on me, matter of fact

I find the tone to be belligerent and condescending. The more some folks bang the anti-Hillary drum, the more I'm going to tune them out. After a while the Hillary bashing becomes counterproductive.

[JoePhilly]

137. Same here.

They don't seem to grasp that the onus is on them to get Democrats to move towards another candidate, not just to move "away from Hilary".

Folks who liked Hillary before still do. To get them to switch, you'd need a compelling alternative. Just screaming about how evil Hillary is won't work.

But here they are. Demanding that we convince them to vote for Hillary, when it should be them convincing us that their alternative candidate (which they don't have) is sufficiently compelling for us to switch.

[theHandpuppet]

141. There are a number of candidates who I believe are qualified and I would vote for them

I just really resent the level of Hillary bashing around here, not to mention the assault on HRC supporters. It's really off-putting.

[wandy]

130. I haven decided if HRC would be my choice in the primary..............

I CAN give you 11 good reasons why I would vote for her if nominated!
http://www.livefreeordiealliance.org/VoterResources/2016_Presidential_Candidates.aspx?office=u.s.%20president&contest=2016&party=r&gclid=CLKsn8LK6MACFcZDMgodhUMAnQ

Now if we had a two party system HRC might not be my pick.
But like 'da man said.
Read 'em and weep.

[beachbum bob]

131. easy. she defeats any GOP candidate hands down

[cascadiance]

135. And how many Democrats if nominated wouldn't say the SAME THING!

The Republicans are WEAK and a minority party with their extreme views now! NOW is the time to not compromise and get someone that will support the interests of the 99% (that INCLUDES many Republicans and independents that ALSO complain that Obama hasn't prosecuted any banksters and that he's "in bed" with them!). Many of them will complain about Hillary in the same fashion, whereas they won't be able to use that line against someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

[upaloopa]

132. There will never be a dream candidate.

This idea of only voting for someone who matches your idea of what a candidate should stand for is foolish to say the least. Therefore the OP is foolish or at most fantasy.
A realistic point of view is that there will be someone elected. You have a say in that. It won't be a person you prefer. Now the ball is in your court. Don't demand that other people do your thinking for you!

[AngryAmish]

148. SHE CAN YELL REALLY LOUD INTO A MICROPHONE

And yelling really loud is a qualification to lead a republic .

[armed_and_liberal]

152. Why the hell should I waste my time.....

..trying to convince someone who already made up their mind? Go ahead and beat the drum for Bernie Sanders or whom ever else grabs the Progressive pennant and runs with it I love Bernie too but he has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being elected POTUS.

Hillary may be a crook and liar to many progressives but she is as close as we will get in 2016 to having any progressive influence at the executive level.

[Generic Brad]

162. Not my job, sir

Vote for who you want. Don't vote if you don't want to. I respect your opinion and do not feel an obligation to make you go against your conscience.

[joshcryer]

164. She can raise $2 billion.

Easy. No one comes remotely close.

[Beacool]

169. Vote for her, don't vote for her.

I don't personally care.

[MohRokTah]

171. I'm REALLY not interested in making the case for my preferred candidate prior to about Feb, 2015.

I've got a midterm to be far more concerned about right now.

[Octafish]

173. It's her turn.

Money trumps peace.

http://firedoglake.com/2011/06/03/hillary-clinton-hosts-iraq-opportunities-party-for-war-profiteers/

[MissMarple]

181. Are we talking suitcase, legal case, brief case...hand bag....traveling case?

...She can make her own case. She's a big girl.

[LuvLoogie]

182. Because they'd be idiots if they didn't?

How's that?

[Warren DeMontague]

187. How about we deal with the primaries, first?

Thats the time to get the nominee we want.

It is reasonable to expect people will eventually support the as-yet-undecided eventual Democratic nominee, on Democratic underground. While premature, that should come as no great surprise to anyone who has read the rules of this place.