I Would Like Someone Other That Hillary Clinton As Our Nominee... That Makes Me A Hillary Hater ???

[WillyT]

Is this just an Internet meme, that calls people "haters" ???

I don't get it... and I don't "hate" Hillary.

I like her a lot, for a number of reasons...

I just do not want her as the Democratic Nominee in 2016.

But I do not think my concerns/opposition should be taken as "hate".

And she would do well by announcing soon...

So we don't have to tear each other up on the way to a nominee.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Let the primary make the determination.

[HereSince1628]

7. I hope we get a primary with choices

[MH1]

73. What are the other choices?

Sanders (? is he running for sure?)
Biden (? is he running for sure?)
Webb (ideologically similar to Hillary, right?)


who else?


Whether you get "a primary with choices" in your state depends where your state is in the sequence.

Personally I want us to pick a Democrat who can beat the Republican and who will protect women's rights and put relative liberals on the Supreme Court. Everything else is a nice-to-have. I am fine with Hillary on the first point, not entirely certain on the second point, but she will damn sure be better than Jeb or any other of the clown car.

If it gets to my state and there is a good option other than Hillary, I will certainly consider it. I would like someone significantly to the left of her, to be sure, if I think that person will beat the republican. But I'm not going to run around trashing the person who is most likely our best chance of holding the line on women's rights. (Not to mention other people's rights, like LGBT for example)

[HereSince1628]

82. Really too early to know...typically the announcements fall ~june to ~oct of preceding years

so, on ALL accounts no one yet has any choice. And prognosis for my health don't leave much expectation of participating in anymore general elections.

I agree that the timing of primaries has the potential of making the late primary elections redundant.

I don't and won't run the schedule of the primaries. If I had my druthers I'd change it for people coming after me...

I'd bias the schedule and award the convention site relative to say either percentage voting turnout for the party in the previous general election or with relative improvement in number of voters voting for the party. I wouldn't always give earlier placements to Iowa and New Hampshire even while there are rationalizations possible for that. I'd likely be down grading convention cities that aren't party friendly in their policies and voting patterns. That could make things like a Honolulu or Milwaukee convention possible...

I'd be interested in using the primary season and the general election to create incentives to voting among voters who care about such things as the timing of their primary and to create national awareness of patterns of voter turnout.

I'd try to create 'primary conferences' that voted on 'conference Tuesdays' one each month over 5 months. The first conference to vote would be the conference with the highest turnout state.

I'd try to balance conference membership using some combination of electoral votes taking into account patterns of awarding them, and geo-demographic considerations. My first interest would be trying to keep the candidates honest in the balance of their message and promise making...aka within the timing of the conference campaigning, keeping them from -only- messaging particular issues to particular states, thereby making the overall messages apply to all the voters across the entire conference. Anything that keeps campaigning politicians honest is a good thing for voters.

I have my interests, but I know they aren't shared to the same degree by all party members. And as I won't be voting it's not a matter of single or few issues but, what I see as best possible process that creates a representative mixture of agendas and priorities of actual voters...something that yields not just a majority electoral college vote, but consensus of voters on who best represents their mixed interests.

[daleanime]

35. So it's not OK.....

to make my own decision?

[rhett o rick]

72. Like he can do anything else. nm

[treestar]

81. Yes, and before supporting someone, wait for them to declare they are running

and pay some attention to Congress. If is stays in Republican hands, it won't matter much who is president except for avoidance of unneeded wars.

[Yo_Mama]

93. I sometimes send money to candidates I want in the primaries even

if I know that they will not be the eventual nominee. That's because I want them in the primaries because there are things they are saying that need to be heard and I believe will change the nominee's priorities.

There is a lot of simplistic thinking about.

I think the absolute worse outcome of a Hillary candidacy could be that we don't have others running - not necessarily, but if it happened it would really hurt the Dem party. So I don't buy this trope that supporting another candidate or even trying to get another candidate to run in the primaries is betrayal, treason or Hillary-hatred, and I think anyone that does push this stuff is a bit politically naive.

The primaries provide a feed-back system for the party as a whole. It tells the eventual nominee what's important to the voters. In this era of top-down party bureaucracies, the primaries have become far more important to generate a winning party platform and to sustain the party as a whole.

If you WANT Hillary to run, and truly believe that Hillary will be the best possible nominee and win over the GOP-whoever, you should be looking to build a good base of primary contenders.

We got a two-term winning candidate from a wide-open primary in 2008, and I truly believe the primaries helped the president win and helped him craft a winning campaign agenda.

[treestar]

94. No one has declared

And as usual no one is paying attention to Congress; the presidency is not everything.

[Fumesucker]

2. It started with BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome

Anyone who actually noticed what a crappy job Dubya was doing was considered deranged because the M$M praised him to the skies.

[Enthusiast]

38. Dubya. Now there was a specimen.

[djean111]

3. Oh, better than that, my dear - you are also called a rat-fucker, a misogynist, a Republican troll,

and other names. Nice bunch she has supporting her, eh?
What you say is true - evidently, if you do not love her, you must hate her.
Can't expect more nuanced thinking from folks who use "alot" instead of "a lot", though. The primaries are going to be a real nasty experience. And in the unlikely event that the only contender is Hillary, ugh. I will not be involved or even interested.

[Scuba]

26. +1

[sabrina 1]

29. + 1,000 n/t

[daleanime]

36. Amen....

[KittyWampus]

67. So oblivious. I can't stand Hillary. She was my Senator. I backed Obama initially

as anybody but Hillary… and with all that said, I don't post shit-stirring crap about Hillary and Bill Clinton.

If there's something substantive about her record or FULL comments on a subject (not butchered or context free cites) then post it.

But many DU'ers are intentionally divisive. I try not to be divisive. And I don't use Democratic Underground to fill in an empty life and write endless OP's in an attempt to get attention and hearts.

And the OP is certainly an "either you love Greenwald or you hate him" type.

Hence the "so oblivious" comment. Definitely confirmation bias.

Those of us on DU who tend to be more interested in real conversations see what the ideologues are like. It's very obvious.

[Andy823]

77. All I can say is

Excellent post!

[merrily]

83. +1

[msanthrope]

84. It's 'ratfucker'....no hyphen. When you are correcting

people on their grammar, it's generally best to be blameless.

That said, I don't find the OP to be a ratfucker.

[madokie]

4. If after the dust settles she is the nominee

I'll happily vote for her. If a field of only other men I'll say Hillary has a leg up on them in my opinion, (I very much want to see a woman President)
but I'll vote for who my party puts up as our nominee. No questions asked. I trust like minded Democratic party members, like mysefl

[winter is coming]

5. Actually, I find the term "hater" very useful.

It tells me right off the bat that I'm dealing with someone who's intellectually lazy.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

86. +1 nt

[msongs]

6. one can stop tearing others up just by a decision, not related to any nominee nt

[wildbilln864]

8. I don't hate her but

I definitely don't want her if another candidate will throw their hat in the race.

[olegramps]

9. No,it just makes you want a filthy Republican to win. Give me a break!

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:53 AM - Edit history (2)

[WillyT]

12. You Forgot The Sarcasm Thingy... And Your Grammar Watch...

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. If she runs, I'm voting for Ted Cruz.

That'll teach ya.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. The word hate is is the most misued verb in our lexicon.

It has been so badly misused that, like the good old word "Fuck," it is meaningless.

"Hate," like "Fuck," is good for all occasions.

We could put it on a Valentines Day Card.

"Hate, Fuck, Piss, Shit! Be my hateful fucking valentine."

Hillary haters or Warren haters or liberal haters or any kind of hater is just a way saying that the other guy is so hatefully fucking depraved and abysmally, morally bankrupt that they only act out of Fucking Hate.

The word we should be saying is "I disagree with _______," but it is easier to attack by attributing everything to hate.

[Android3.14]

58. Now that is some truth

And it happens all too often. It seems, if you write, "I don't like okra", some of the folks who can somehow stomach that particular unpopular vegetation without throwing up at just the thought will respond with, "You are an evil, vile, depraved example of the worst in the vegetable eating segment of humanity and you deserve nothing but contempt. How dare you express a counter opinion you awful okra-hating monster. You should leave this forum, leave this site, delete your profile, sterilize your children and just fucking die. Who's with me?"

Cue the vampire sheep.

[Agnosticsherbet]

66. Oh, don' get me stated with EVIL!

Bring on the vampire sheep. I am pissed enough to eat one.

[oldandhappy]

13. no not a hater.

Maybe at this point you are a dreamer or a believer in fantasy! If there were to be other serious candidates, they would be obvious by now. You wish you had other choices. I understand. I do not think you are a hater.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. At this point in 2007 Hillary had a substantial lead over all other contenders.

And John Edwards was considered a serious candidate. How did that turn out, again?

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is.

I hope it isn't Hillary, and I won't be supporting her in the primary. If she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her in the general election. I'm sure that my position is one shared by a lot of people.

[SoapBox]

15. WillyT, I agree with you.

I just don't think she can win and want a candidate that can.

I can't bear thinking of a Puke back in the White House.

[RufusTFirefly]

16. You betcha. Also a misogynist and a Ted Cruz lovin' Paulbot, too

[the_sly_pig]

18. Only the Clintons and the Bushs can run this country...

Makes me wonder why we ever left a monarchy.....

[zeemike]

22. Yep, and that is what they want it to be.

A choice between two political dynasties of people who we already know will not change anything of importance to us...so there will be low voter turnout...Bush's best chance to win.

[Scuba]

27. Bingo!

[MrMickeysMom]

19. I don't get "absolutists" either...

I see the conversation Democrats are having on this board as nothing more than the debate that should happen in FRONT of the cameras. We all know that doesn't exist. Hell, I don't even get a chance anymore to have a REAL town hall meeting because most people, when they are back in the district don't WANT to be face to face with the ones they don't care to hear from anyway.

We have grown hopefully to a point where a Democratic forum can debate as to what a Democrat is supposed to stand for. If the party is fucked up just like the Republicans, it's because whoever got in power succumbed to the same power grab.

I don't hate HRC or anyone else, outside of Cheney/Bush Regime, Wall Street kings like Jamie Dimon, and the power elite behind world domination. The players like HRC who are caught up in the same things as Cheney/Bush/Wall Street and world power can pound salt before they get my vote…. doesn't mean much more than that.

We need leadership.

We need leadership.

We need leadership.

[randome]

91. So does the GOP. I think we have something closer to leadership than they have.

That's not the most inspiring state of affairs but it is what it is.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Stellar]

20. That's all I'm saying too.

I just do not want her as the Democratic Nominee in 2016.

[myohmy2]

21. "...That Makes Me A Hillary Hater ???"

....no, that would make you a patriotic, proud American!

....and God bless ya.....

[jalan48]

23. Looks like it's Goldman Sachs vs. the Koch Brothers in the main event.

[rhett o rick]

74. I don't agree. It will be the Koch Crime Family vs. Bush Family Evil Empire in the preliminary event

I don't think the upstart Kochs can defeat the BFEE. Then it will be the Oligarch Thing 1 vs. Oligarch Thing 2 in the main event. Oligarchs win either way. But we can be certain that we still are free because they let us record our vote. It may go directly into a shredder, but at least they give us the courtesy of allowing us to pretend. If they didn't, people might get upset.

[neverforget]

24. The nominee will already have been decided by the time I get a vote in the primary in

May 2016. I love Oregon's vote by mail but the late primary sucks. It's not fun watching others choose the next candidate.

[BrotherIvan]

43. Don't worry, the nominee is already decided before New Hampshire

It's who the financial backers and the power brokers want that matters.

[Thespian2]

25. Reading

about Hillary and understanding that she is currently a shill for Greedy Bastard corporations, does not make me hate her. Disagreeing with what she has done, who she aligns herself with, knowing that she is consumed by The Third Way and The Family, simply means that I have trouble stomaching her politics. Plus many other parts of her political being. Fortunately, I have never met her, so I could not possibly hate her as a person.

Good thoughts, WillyT.

[Moonwalk]

28. Your question seems to imply that anyone who favors Hilary is an asshole....

...who won't stand for anyone who disagrees with them. Which also implies that those who want someone else are not assholes. That they are gracious towards those who say they do want Hilary and never say mean things to them.

Ask the question the other way and I think you'll see what I mean: "If I don't want Warren, I'm a Warren hater...?" It implies that the person who doesn't want Warren is rational, but those who do are irrational. What's most problematic, however, is that it invites posters to say things like "Yeah, those Warren supporters are terrible! If you tell them don't want Warren they'll call you..." Fill in the insult. This long list of grievances makes Warren supporters look even worse. In other words, you're allowing people to reinforce their image of ALL supporters as irrational.

I know you wanted to get across the point that you shouldn't be attacked as a hater, and you're right, you shouldn't be. But the way you asked this question was such that you've just gotten those who don't want Hilary to circle their wagons against those who do, seeing Hilary supporters as all irrational. Meanwhile, those who do support her, and would have agreed with you, are seeing only that they're viewed as irrational (given your question) and so have no reason to respond.

There are irrational folk on both sides, and they will resort to name calling. I don't know the best way, here on the internet, to stop that. It's easier face to face. But I do know that when you ask questions like this, you preach to a choir that wants to hear wha they want to hear (Hilary supporters are irrational), rather than to those who need to be converted (irrational Hilary supporters who should understand that they're not helping their cause by calling people names).

[SheilaT]

62. Unfortunately, most Hillary supporters here

can be pretty vicious towards anyone who does not bow down to The Inevitability of Hillary. While that doesn't necessarily make them assholes, it does make them astonishingly intolerant. In 2008 her supporters stuck with her well after it was clear that Obama had the nomination, and they (her supporters) didn't care at all that they were dividing the party to the point where if we lost the Presidency, they just didn't care. PUMAs, remember? Party Unity My Ass. I fear it will be even worse this time around.

In '08 all those who questioned The Inevitability of Hillary were cast as ignorant Hillary haters who did not understand that Now Was Her Time, and anyone who stood in the way of the tide of history would be drowned in the Hillary flood. I keep on wanting to pretend I was kidnapped by aliens, or went into a coma at the end of 2007, and now that I'm back/awake, I'm eager to find out what wondrous things Hillary has wrought, since she must surely be in her second term by now.

What I find truly horrifying by those who don't question that Hillary will of course be the candidate, is that they just don't get her corporate connections, they don't understand that she is completely out of touch with the regular middle class, let alone the working and poor classes, and how much she is truly hated by the other side. People will blithely brush aside that last, saying that she's bullet-proof because she went through that all before, and so nothing can be thrown against her. Yeah? Not only will they (the Republicans) bring up everything they brought up before, but now there's Benghazi! You think the Swift Boaters did a number on Kerry? That will look like a love fest in comparison.

If I thought Hillary Clinton really were our best choice, I'd be working on supporting her, but she's not our best choice. She's a tired re-run from eight years ago.

I find it revealing that at this point neither political party has anyone new being touted as a Presidential candidate, other than Jeb Bush for the Republicans -- and he's a brother and son of Presidents -- and Elizabeth Warren, who repeatedly says she's not a candidate. The Republicans are moving further and further to the right, in response to their own extremists, while the Democratic Party for the most part is just following them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Nice strawman

Opposing her candidacy doesn't make one a Hillary hater, battering her 24/7 on internet boards does.

[cheapdate]

31. No, it doesn't.

It would, however, be hard to dispute the fact that "Hillary haters" do exist. The evidence of their existence is easy to find.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. You obviously haven't drunk the Hillary Koolaid. Try holdin your nose.

[NBachers]

33. I'll donate to, and support the Democratic presidential candidate in the 2016 election.

Please do the same.

[Enthusiast]

34. WillT, I don't hate her.

On the really important issues, the ones that really count for the nation's future, she has shown herself to be on the wrong side.

Obviously she is on the right side on social issues. I mean, in 2015 if you are still on the wrong side on the social issues you are clearly a Neanderthal. My apology to Neanderthals.

If the potential candidate doesn't come right out and advocate tax increases on the wealthy they simply have no chance with me. If they don't want to rein in the MIC why are they Democrats? Weasel words won't get it. I'm no fringe liberal, I'm a mainstream Democrat. We know the difference.

[MisterP]

37. war, fracking, GMOs, TPP, neoliberalism breaking the back of everyone who’s not already a

millionaire, a Meg Whitmanesque attitude towards how entitled she is to votes, and appealing to any and every right-wing cause that can advance her status BUT she doesn't think gays cause hurricanes

so if you're not coming buckets at the idea of this, you're allowing the guy who's for war, fracking, GMOs, TPP, neoliberalism breaking the back of everyone who’s not already a millionaire, a Meg Whitmanesque attitude towards how entitled he is to votes, appealing to any and every right-wing cause that can advance his status, and DOES think gays cause hurricanes to win

[chillfactor]

39. I am not a Hillary hater either....

but I think we need a younger,fresh face as a nominee

[pansypoo53219]

40. and what if we need Hillary to DEFEAT another damned bush? WINNING is our only option.

[Dragonfli]

41. Maybe you are just ready for someone else. I am , and in my case (being blue collar poor),

It is out of a need for self defense and has nothing to do with hate. Hateful is never a word I would use to describe your motivations, and this is based on years of reading your thoughts in posts you've made public.

It is OK to be ready for someone else, someone concerned about YOUR best interests.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Give a name please. "Someone Other" is not a winning candidate.

[stillwaiting]

45. The ready for "someone other" campaign isn't completely useless.

It lets other Democratic politicians know that there is a sizable part of the Democratic base that is not RFH.

Since so very few people have committed to running in '16, that is very useful and important information to be giving out at this time UNLESS you want Hillary to win. Hopefully the ready for "Someone other" campaign will continue to grow and we will get a few good options to choose from once the primaries actually begin. Which they haven't so giving a name right now isn't that crucial or necessary.

I'm Ready For Someone Other!!

I will vote for Hillary in the general if she wins, but I do not blame others who won't, and I won't be surprised to see Hillary lose in the general.

[BrotherIvan]

44. Unter bus!

[McCamy Taylor]

46. I've done my part. I am supporting Julian Castro. So, I want to hear everyone else's dream candidate

Come on. How will we draft any other Democrats to make this primary fun if you guys will only name people who do not plan to run?
Surely there must be so favorite sons or daughters out there that you would like to see get nominated?

[Caretha]

49. Not to worry

You'll get your wish eventually...Julian Castro is still being groomed, so you will have to wait a bit.

[wyldwolf]

56. Let's run down the list so far

Warren isn't running.

Sanders as a presidential candidate is the punchline to a very bad joke. (This is a commentary on our electoral system and institutionalized prejudice against socialism.)

Jim Webb - former Republican and confederate sympathizer.

Martin O'Malley - former DLC golden boy.

Joe Biden?

I can't think of a single candidate who mentioned by DUers who either is running, has a chance of winning or doesn't carry offensive 'baggage' to 'progressives.'

[randome]

47. Yes, Willy, the Internet hates you.

I've said many times that I don't want Clinton as President but I will vote for her if she wins the primary.

No one's called me a hater.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[McCamy Taylor]

48. Can I get an Al Gore? He no longer comes with a Tipper. That makes him new and improved.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. The primary cycle is always frustrating to those who do only negative politics.

For me, it's the best part of politics. I love the primaries. One thing I enjoy is seeing the control freak flag flying from so many people who can't seem to bear the idea that others might reach different conclusions than they do, who are always steaming mad that LGBT and people of color might ask questions they find uncomfortable.

[WhiteTara]

51. So F*ing early in the morning?

Couldn't you start with something that matters.

[wyldwolf]

52. No, your attacks on her make you a Hillary Hater

If your goal was someone else as the nominee, you'd be posting positive things about that person and not negative things about someone else.

And she would do well by announcing soon...

So we don't have to tear each other up on the way to a nominee.

So you think when she announces the primaries are over?

[randome]

55. There we go.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

53. Why yes it does Willy. It also makes you a RW troll.

and Hillary hasn't even announced.

[tridim]

54. Don't hate Hillary, don't want her as the nominee.

It's not difficult to understand why. History.

Now PUMA on the other hand... No comment.

[MineralMan]

57. Lots of people would like lots of things.

The only people I'd judge to be "Hillary Haters" are those who declare vehemently that they will not vote for her if she ends up as the Democratic nominee. We have primary elections that happen long before that. Hillary will no doubt be one of the candidates in those primaries. There will probably be other candidates as well.

Bottom line: What happens in those primaries will determine who is the eventual candidates. Those who would prefer someone other than Hillary have that entire primary season to promote their favorite candidate. Who will run against Hillary? That's hard to say. One favorite for many, Elizabeth Warren, says she is not running over and over again. I believe her. Another, Bernie Sanders, is out there talking, but hasn't declared either his candidacy nor whether he will run as a Democrat. There are other possibilities, like Joe Biden, Julian Castro, and others. We'll find out who's running fairly soon, I imagine.

The only Hillary Haters are those who insist that they will not vote for her if she is the official nominee. Some might change their minds about that, but I don't believe this is the time for those declarations. They won't affect the primaries one bit, and really accomplish nothing at this point.

[Puglover]

59. DU is the only place on the net I have ever seen "haters" used so ubiquitously.

And only by a certain contingent. It's a tactic. A failed one but nonetheless it gets trotted out all the time.

It just makes me laugh when I see it.

[forthemiddle]

60. No more Clintons - No more Bushs

I am not against Hillary as President, if that is what happens, but I am so turned off by any dynasty for our Country, that I am so hoping that neither of them are the ultimate candidates.

Our Country has so many talented, capable people I can not believe the consolidation of power this country tends to have.
There are so many families that have become leaders that it isn't a coincidence. Starting back with the Adams, on to the Roosevelts (yes I know they were distant cousins only) to the Kennedys, Bushs, and now the Clintons? Just say no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama was such a breath of fresh air not only as the first African American, but also the first in a long time without a family lineage.

Out of the hundreds of millions of American citizens why must we only have a pick of a few families? Talk about the 1%!

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Obama was not the first in a long time not to have a family lineage. The only President who had

such a lineage in my lifetime was GW Bush. Bill Clinton had no lineage in Congress or the WH,. Nor did Jimmy Carter, or for that matter none of the Republicans in my lifetime had 'family lineage' either, Reagan had no such lineage, nor did Nixon nor Ford. Even Bush 1 was in fact Bush 1.
FDR was the most recent President with 'family lineage' prior to W, and FDR was a great as W was awful. JFK was the first elected Kennedy and thus had no lineage but provided it to his brothers.

That said, I do not at all care for any of that and it is why I went with Obama over Clinton the last time. My family lineage taught me to oppose family lineage in politics.

[forthemiddle]

79. I worded that wrong

What I kind of meant was that Obama didn't have any lineage during the last campaign, which made him the breath of fresh air.
I know that all of the above were "new" families, that doesn't change the fact that I want to continue to have new people, and not same old, same old.

I am against Bush and Clinton because they are both part of political families, and I am so sick of that, not that there haven't been those without.

Sorry for the confusion. I post so seldom because someone else always says it better than me!

[LWolf]

61. It's a meme, and it's an excuse

to attack.

[earthside]

63. That's the way is was in 2007 and 2008.

Hillary partisans seem to be quite hard-edged, brittle and intolerant of other candidates.

I'm not sure shy that is, but even seven-eight years ago the Hillary supporters did not have the same joie de vivre towards the competion as did boosters of other candidates.

[Katashi_itto]

64. I will not vote for her under any circumstance.

[TheNutcracker]

65. This is an ongoing issue, showing a real lack of enthusium creating edge for republican win.

[KittyWampus]

68. I'd say it's more the numerous OP's that attack Democrats that would tend to have some DU'ers

using "Hater".

Who DO you want for nominee? Post about them and their campaign and record.

If you DON'T want Hillary post actual FULL information about her with context to talk about.

That said, I try not to use phrases like XYZ-Hater. It ends up being a poor substitute for actual conversation. It gets used more like school yard taunts like "poopy-head".

[L0oniX]

69. I will only vote for whoever is going to work to remove the oligarchy from our government.

[winter is coming]

70. Yes, it makes you a hater. Also, a booger-eater and fartknocker.

Opinion is still divided on "poopyhead".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. No. It makes you a good citizen making your decisions based on what you believe.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[randome]

88. A decision implies one or more alternatives.

Just saying, "No! No! No!" all the time does not a decision make.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. There are alternatives.

Voting for someone else.

Not voting.

Reading a good book.

Playing The Internationale on a banjo.

[progressoid]

75. Nice post Adolph.

[leveymg]

78. George Bush said it best:

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

[treestar]

80. So long as you don't insist she is a conservative or a Republican

That's unhinged. If you want to support someone else who is running, I don't see how it could be a problem, so long as they are a Democrat.

If you are looking for someone else who does not exist because you that much dislike a nominee who the majority of Democrats want, that's another story too.

It's just too early, and we don't know who is running, even Hillary. Just shows the usual obsession with the Presidency as the be all and end all in spite of 6 years of lessons that Congress counts too. But let's have the Republicans have that because the President isn't liberal enough. That makes sense.

[maxrandb]

85. No, I think it makes you

an enabler for the current crazy-ass Repuke majority...not only in the Federal Government, but in the States as well.

To me...that's even WORSE than being a Hillary Hater!

[libdem4life]

90. One thing for sure, the Republicans aren't shying away from their "royalty" going for a three-fer.

And our disdain for our as-yet only perceived "Royalty two-fer" will likely grant them their wish...many, many of their wishes.

[Yo_Mama]

92. I don't think it makes you a hater.

I love my husband dearly, but neither he nor I believe he should be president!