IF Hillary declares as a candidate for President of the United States, I will

[mfcorey1]

vote for her. No candidate will be perfect and we can nitpick all of them. What is disconcerting is this effort to derail her, especially by some who seem to want to plant the seed of discord. Flame me and I am just collecting my thoughts as are those who feel she is the second coming of evil.

[marym625]

1. nitpick?

Wow.

[Scuba]

12. Calling her out for being pro-war and cozying up to war criminals is just nitpicking. Yeah, sure.

[marym625]

14. yep. silly us.

Let's just concentrate on the oligarchs. Oh wait! More nitpicking.

[cali]

2. It's not that she's not perfect. It's that she's bad. Awful.

and no, she's not the 2nd coming of evil. But her history and her positions (such as they ever changing are) and her lousy record as a campaigner, not to mention her baggage, make her a lousy candidate for nominee.

[mfcorey1]

4. I respect your opinion.

[cali]

5. thank you, and I respect yours.

[marym625]

7. I don't understand

I truly don't. What happened to wanting the best. The best to represent our party? The best to win not based on cow towing to the conservatives? Debate?

When did we decide to have a coronation instead of an election? And when did our platform become "who cares about the bad stuff! She can win!" She can win because she will get Republican votes. And not because she is middle of the road but she is a Republican.

I want to cry.

[asiliveandbreathe]

56. I am so not busy today so......I invite you to

read comment #44 by NYC Liberal at WilliamPitts blog "I don't want Hillary Clinton to be Dem nominee (DU) - just food for thought...
WilliamPitt challenged everyone to debate this issue....just sayin

[marym625]

70. I have read it

And I stand my ground.

When someone can justify Larry summers being her main adviser, her being a warmonger and a shill for the banks, her cow towing to dubya and now Gingrich, I might change my mind. Until then, she is not who I want, or would think any liberal would want; as their nominee.

This call to her coronation disgusts me. At least some want an actual primary that also want her. And that is the ONLY way we will get the best person for the job.

[asiliveandbreathe]

89. Great! opinion respected...my fear is a Republican in the WH

Do I totally agree with the Prez on TPP - for the sake of argument - NO, and Hell NO! KXL no way, no how..

I want the same thing as you - the Best for our country - who will not be a shill to the banksters or a warmonger..who will do the most good for the most people (by Alan Grayson FL)

I don't have a first choice yet - and I haven't taken anyone off the table..I am proud of my home state of Massachusetts Senator Warren - BUT, who can win? - we don't even know if she is running...we do know Warren isn't - although, the Boston paper editorial has an article RUN WARREN RUN!

Sometimes we don't always get what we want, but if we try real hard, we just might find, we get what we need..I know you know where that came from...

Here in AZ when Gov.Napolitano left - we have had crap thrown at us - (retired from Mass. and one of the most liberal countys in the country) - I have no representation to turn to here..all I can do is work the voter registration efforts...which I did in 2012..and attend local district Dem meetings - we did manage to get Mayor Stanton in Phoenix. - I digress...be well..

[marym625]

99. Thank you

I don't want a Republican in the white house either. Even one that is liberal on social issues

[sheshe2]

152. There is a Repub that is liberal on social issues?

I don't want a Republican in the white house either. Even one that is liberal on social issues

I don't think so.

[marym625]

153. sheshe,

I believe you know what I meant.

You and I disagree on some things as strongly as we agree on others. I respect you. I also know that neither of us will change the others mind on the things we disagree about.

I don't want to argue with you. As I said, I respect you. Can we agree to disagree on this?

[sheshe2]

154. Yes we can, marym. nt

[marym625]

155. Thank you, with respect! eom

[sabrina 1]

124. I'm with you and if the Dem Party loses it will be the fault of the leadership not the voters.

[marym625]

127. Damn straight it will!

Thank you.

[1monster]

97. THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[marym625]

98. Thanks!

[treestar]

107. Every voter has their own idea of "best."

That'll be decided by the primaries and caucuses.

[marym625]

109. Let's hope.

[840high]

116. ...^ that

[leftofcool]

9. Maybe you can convince Warren to run. Or maybe Mr Tax O'Malley

[cali]

27. O'Malley is almost certainly running. I support him n/t

[joshdawg]

51. Well, she may be a lousy candidate but,

if she is the Democratic nominee, she has my vote.
Same goes for whoever might run in the primary against her. If they win the nomination, they have my vote.
Don't vote-republicans win.
Vote third party-republicans win.
Vote republican-country loses.

[asiliveandbreathe]

55. I invite you, whom I respect here at DU

to read comment #44 by NYC Liberal at WilliamPitts blog "I don't want Hillary Clinton to be Dem nominee (DU) - just food for thought...
WilliamPitt challenged everyone to debate this issue....just sayin"

[Mike Nelson]

3. Compared to Ted Cruz...

...she's another Lincoln!

[Scootaloo]

156. Compared to Ted Cruz...

So are the majority of root vegetables.

Why the FUCK is DU setting its standards according to the republican candidates? Why? Can you tell me that?

[riversedge]

6. There’s A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face Article...

We desperate need a Democrat in the office of the President.


There’s A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face


March 18, 2015 By Allen Clifton 46 Comments


Let me list a few numbers for everyone:

78

80

80

83


Those are the ages that Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be when the next president is sworn in, respectively.


The next president we elect (assuming he or she serves two terms) could very well be the individual who selects four Supreme Court Justices. Now, in a world where we’ve all seen how powerful the Supreme Court can be concerning the laws that impact all of us, who on the left wants a Republican such as Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz or Scott Walker potentially selecting four Supreme Court Justices? Listen, I know quite a few people on the left aren’t huge Hillary Clinton supporters. I personally like her, but I understand that a lot of people don’t.


Even as a supporter, I know she’s far from perfect – but there’s a harsh reality that Hillary haters on the left need to face. First, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) isn’t going to run for president. I repeat, Elizabeth Warren is not going to run for president. The only way I think she might is if Clinton decided not to run.





Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/reality-hillary-clinton-liberals-need-face/

[Agschmid]

8. Is this really the best argument?

I mean she isn't guranteed a win in the general... No one is.

[Fred Sanders]

11. How about not having a President that thinks he is ushering in the End Times..that do it for you?

[Agschmid]

60. Yes that's exactly what I said...

Oh DU.

[Fred Sanders]

63. Sorry, intended to respond to the post you responded to. Apologies.

[RiverLover]

20. She will not win the GE if we are unfortunate enough to have her as our nominee.

She doesn't inspire, she's divisive, she's got lawsuits ag her for violating the FOIA, and who knows what will come out of that private email server of hers if it gets subpoenaed.

She's a train wreck waiting to happen at this point.

[Fred Sanders]

45. Warren is not running. Who is your next best choice with the best chance of preventing Armageddon?

And when Warren and Sanders whole heartedly endorse Clinton...How many will stay home on Election Day in some symbolic protest that will usher in President Bomb-the-World?

Will folks be ever so satisfied then...."I did not vote!", with pride?

What would your current twice-elected President say about that?

[Marr]

87. Hillary Clinton is not running either.

[1monster]

101. Bernie Sanders who has pledged to run on the Democratic ticket if he annonces.

He, more than any Democrat stands for what WERE Democratic standards more than any other potential candidates out there. I'd suggest Eliazaberh Warren for his VP, but I think she is more efective in the Senate.

As for those who say he cannot win, I'd say yes he can if we all get out there and work for him! Who would have thought in 2004, or even in 2006, that Obama had a snowball's chance in a very hot place of being the nominee, let alone winning the national election? He didn't get there alone. People who believed in him got him there.

[drynberg]

80. MY TWO LARGEST HILL CONCERNS ARE TPP AND WAR/PEACE...CAN'T VOTE FOR THAT, JUST CAN'T

[treestar]

106. The polls say otherwise

Those are things you think are bad about her. Most people don't care about those things. Especially lawsuits.

[99Forever]

10. Same stupid browbeating argument, different day.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, ever, for anything. EVER.

Flail away.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Will not vote? The RNC gift basket is in the mail.

[99Forever]

16. Another stupid assumption.

Fuck the RNC, I ALWAYS vote, but I sure as fuck won't vote for Hillary MIC Goldman Sachs Walmart Clinton.

Does that clear up your silly confusion?

[Fred Sanders]

17. If she is the nominee you will not vote for her? What will that accomplish...says Obama?

[99Forever]

23. You picked the wrong person to play that bullshit card on.

Obama got my very last, hold my nose and vote for the less crappy candidate vote, says this non-braindead voter.

Have a nice life.

[840high]

117. Aren't you tired of that

stale line?

[WhiteTara]

21. Ever? What are you doing

on a democratic board? If not our democratic nominee, for whom would you vote? Or would you just stay away? Both those are a vote for a repuke.

[99Forever]

26. I will vote my conscience.

If that upsets you, that's your personal problem to deal with. I'm certainly more of a Democrat than any Clinton has ever been. THAT'S what I'm "doing on a democratic board."

[Fred Sanders]

30. There is someone upset and it is not any of the posters, or Obama, all begging you not to throw away your vote.

[99Forever]

33. Voting my conscience is not "throwing my vote away."

It's quite sad that you think so. Oh well, not my problem.

[cab67]

47. To me, it's a question of where one's conscience is placed.

I dislike many of Hillary Clinton's viewpoints. My conscience says to support a truly progressive Democratic candidate. But if Clinton is the nominee, my conscience tells me that a Democrat - ANY Democrat - is better than a Republican. Arguments that Clinton is really no different from a Republican are objectively wrong.

There's the world we want and the world we have. We don't have a parliamentary system where different parties form coalitions - our major parties are the coalitions. Voting for independents or third-party candidates, even if they come closer to our convictions, is worse than pointless - it draws votes from the coalition that includes others sharing your convictions. This helps the coalition that excludes such people. I don't like it, but there it is.

Part of me wonders whether a parliamentary system would be better. Lots of countries do it, and it really does make it easier to vote with your convictions more consistently. But it also adds a level of instability whenever a coalition collapses and new elections have to be called. Either way, voting for a third-party candidate will neither change the Democratic Party nor make anyone take the third party seriously. That may not be what I want, but it's reality.

So it's a matter of context. Given a choice of candidates during the Democratic caucuses around here, I'll go with the most progressive, and I will do what I can to get that person nominated. If that should fail, I will do what I can to make sure the Democratic nominee - even if it's Hillary Clinton - is elected president.

[99Forever]

49. Then you buy the lie.

I don't. End of argument.

[cab67]

129. what part of what I said is a lie?

That Hillary Clinton is different from Republicans? Her foreign policy overlaps that of the average Republican to a far greater degree than should be the case, and she's close to Wall Street, but LGBT issues? Women's issues? Health care? Environmental issues? Acceptance of modern science? Not even close.

That our current two-party system effectively excludes third-party and independent candidates from the Presidency? It does. That's just a matter of looking at the history of presidential elections since the Civil War. Whether having Ralph Nader on the ticket in 2000 may or may not have actually given the presidency to Bush the Younger, but it certainly didn't help Gore, and the two-party system continues.

I work to create the kind of world I want, but that doesn't mean I pretend reality doesn't exist.

[99Forever]

131. I did not say you lied.

Why so damned defensive? I said you bought the lie. The lies told to you by the corporatist oligarchs. That Hillary Clinton is what this nation needs. That Hillary Clinton isn't doing the bidding of the 1%.

[cab67]

136. I wasn't being defensive.

Nor did I say you said I lied. I asked about which comments I made were lies I'd somehow bought from elsewhere. If that wasn't clear from what I wrote, I apologize.

I'm with you on one thing - Hillary Clinton is nowhere near the ideal candidate for the Democratic Party, nor is she the best person our country can select for the office of president. We don't necessarily "need" her. My state is very early in the process, so I will almost certainly be caucusing for someone like Bernie Sanders or, if she runs (which is doubtful), Elizabeth Warren. I'll do what I can to promote these candidates wherever I go. But if the nominee ends up being Hillary Clinton, the question is no longer whether she's ideal. You and I agree that she's not. It's whether a too-centrist Democrat would be better than a Republican. Any Republican. And I would far, far rather have Hillary Clinton nominating Supreme Court justices than a Republican.

(This is based on recent history, not an idealistic hope. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama have governed as true progressives, but compare their Supreme Court nominees with those of Reagan or either Bush, and think about how the justices split on close 5-4 votes on issues like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, and you see what I mean. Hillary Clinton would probably govern from the same general part of the political landscape as Obama and Bill Clinton, and historical precedent indicates she'd bring nominees similar to those of either predecessor.)

[WhiteTara]

32. Go Ralph Nadir.

When it comes time to make that mark on a ballot and there is Hillary and Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or Mitty or Jeb, I hope you vote for the greater good and not your petty peeves.

[99Forever]

34. Same stupid browbeating argument, different day.

At the risk of repeating myself.

[WhiteTara]

38. Yes and we know how Ralph's position helped

us in 2000. We got POS * for 8 years. Go Hillary!

[99Forever]

40. Ralph who?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you actually think this kind of asinine nonsense will change a principled person's mind?

Really?

[WhiteTara]

73. My, you certainly seem

testy when someone pushes back. Cursing and making snide remarks. That's a great way to argue.

If only we could forget Ralph Nadir; but he is a permanent part of our landscape...a republican (yes registered) who pretends to be a liberal.

Who knew you to be principled...you sound rigid, rude, paternalistic and somewhat misogynistic.

For a preview of republican rule, look to my home state of Arkansas...we have Tehran Tom as our senator and our entire state government is red. Nothing will ever be as bad as that.

[99Forever]

79. Bye bye.

Got a home for rude people like you.

[WhiteTara]

81. lol

[Fred Sanders]

35. Exactly. And not voting with that ticket is precisely the entire Republican game plan.

[A Simple Game]

88. Who is Ralph Nadir? Do you mean Ralph Nader?

If so what does he have to do with anything?

Greater good that sounds like a nicer way to say lesser evil.

[WhiteTara]

91. Well, we got the greatest evil

with Nadir's diligent help. I will go for lesser than greater any day. Especially when it comes to evil. Lesser will have some good; greater will have none. Unless you can think of some great plus during *co days; I rest my case.

BTW Nadir is the lowest point, by definition. I'm spelling his name correctly, as he was our lowest point. He could have gained incredible political capital by bringing his coalition into the tent; but his job was to help elect *. He could have pushed an agenda because of his help; but he said "THEY deserve it." I take "they" to mean us, since we got the greatest evil we have known.

[A Simple Game]

100. Here's the problem with your thinking.

Nader, no matter how you spell his name, did not cost Gore the election. Gore won and even won Florida. It's well known, do a Google on it.

Blaming Nader for Bush being given the Presidency does just what the "enemy" wants, diverts the blame. You do know the Supreme Court illegally stopped the recount that would have shown Bush didn't win don't you? It's been 14 years and the evidence is well known so why are you still diverting attention to Nader?

Do you know there were 7 other candidates that got more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore in Florida? Do you also blame them? So as you want to set a limit, how would you limit who can run for President, because that is what you are advocating? How many candidates do you think a democracy should allow to run for President? Yes I really do want a number from an advocate for limiting who can run. What other restrictions besides those in the constitution would you put in place and why? Sounds like you would like to limit it to one candidate as long as it was your candidate.

No, I didn't vote for Nader, I voted for Gore. I knew he wasn't much of a liberal but believed his positions on the environment and renewable energy were the most important issues we needed to work on at the time. Other than our seemingly endless wars I still think they are very important.

Here's a starting point for you:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000

[treestar]

110. The holier than thou argument

But then you are not going to get anything happening in government that you allege to want. You can take comfort in your holiness, I suppose. It seems to provide a lot more comfort to many people than having a single payer system someday would, for example. Or having a Supreme Court that doesn't make decisions that would horrify you.

[Marr]

142. You know what knocks me about this tired old attack?

Implicit in the centrists' argument is the assumption that 'centrists' will not vote for a Democrat who is not exactly what they want, ie, someone at the right edge of the party. Every time they say this or that candidate is too far left to win, that's what they're saying. But they get indignant if liberals say the same thing.

[99Forever]

144. I've noted that also.

I will not now, nor will I ever make excuses or apologies for not supporting anyone calling themselves a Democrat that does anything to push this party to the right. I promise to fight them tooth and nail from down under the bus, if I have to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. You're wasting your time with these folks. They are unpersuadables...

If disaffected intellectuals and those that hold themselves out as such elected presidents we would have had presidents LaFollete, Debs, Thomas, and Henry Wallace...

To be fair if alienated and disaffected yahoos could elect presidents we would have had presidents George Wallace, Howard Phillips, and Strom Thurmond.

[WhiteTara]

77. You are so right.

his side of the argument ended with cursing and personal attacks. Nothing will wake many people up until we have another * ruling our country. Note I didn't say governing because it won't be.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. I don't doubt the good intentions of those that warn of the dangers of a Republican presidency...

I don't doubt the good intentions of those that warn of the dangers of a Republican presidency and the importance of voting for the Democratic nominee... I just think it's futile with the unpersuadables, it only makes em mad... The only benefit is watching them become apoplectic makes for great board reading.

[WhiteTara]

84. No good deed

goes unpunished. If only the waste of energy and breath. Ole 99 put me on ignore.

Well, I'm off for a day in the garden.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. I believe you inadvertently upset the fella. I will be your friend tho. Have a great day./NT

[beachbum bob]

62. you must have love the 8 years of bush....

this attitude that will give away America to the batshit crazy conservatives and then I gotta keep hearing and reading all the whining about it

[99Forever]

66. You Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton folks need to come up with some fresh material.

This same old strawman nonsense is getting quite stale.

Bless your hearts.

[Thespian2]

71. An argument is usually fun.

HRC ditto heads will never admit that she is a Republican. They drank the Kool-aid. Supporting a real progressive candidate seems to be beyond their ken.

[99Forever]

78. This argument is boring and fruitless.

I only get in it to make sure that it's known that the price paid for blind loyalty FAR exceeds what some fools even begin to understand. I will not ever be coerced into settling for the "lesser of" candidate again. It's what has got us into the current mess and won't change until WE take it back from these corporate ghouls and shills. Thanks for getting it, Thespian.

[A Simple Game]

93. I'm another one that gets it.

To me the lesser of two evils is like going over the cliff at 30 mph instead of at 60 mph and thinking you made the right choice.

I stopped voting for the lesser of two evils a few years ago. The D after many names, especially after Hillary's name, is meaningless. I will take time to learn who the most liberal candidate is and they will get my vote.

Unaffiliated is the largest voting group for a reason and growing every year. People need to realize that the major parties will not control the electorate for much longer.

What is especially sickening is the number of people, even here on what used to be a liberal board, that put party before country and then vote for a candidate that puts themselves before country.

[Thespian2]

146. Thanks

[A Simple Game]

150. I'm probably too old to live to see it but enough people will finally

see that maybe the two party system isn't broken, but the two major parties that we now have are broken.

I can sense a breaking point but these major shifts always take longer than it seems they should.

[Thespian2]

147. Thanks

[classof56]

111. Hey, thanks for the insult, Thespian2.

And bye-de-bye!

[Thespian2]

145. You are welcome

[stevenleser]

113. Juror results: 4-3 to keep. I was juror #7

On Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:00 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

An argument is usually fun.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6398833

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"HRC ditto heads" Look folks, this is Democratic Underground where the majority of folks support Democrats running for office. "ditto heads" is an insult usually reserved for Rush Limbaugh's fans. Constructive criticism is one thing, but it is beyond the pale to start name calling potential Democratic Presidential candidates or their supporters on this website. Especially names reserved for the most disgusting of Republicans. This post is rude, hurtful, and over the top inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 22, 2015, 09:12 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not even primary season. You're in for a rough ride if you think this is bad.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave this rant visible. Let everyone see it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I absolutely agree with the alerter. "HRC ditto heads"?? Poster should be ashamed, and perhaps look for another website to share his/her "opinions".
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This kind of stupidity does not belong on DU

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
--------------------------------------

I also alerted on results. Admins should be aware of folks who it is clear cannot help but be nasty going into primary season.

[Fred Sanders]

119. I was juror #8 and I agree with juror #

7.

[Thespian2]

148. Thanks

[Lazy Daisy]

103. I'm not a fan of Hillary but....

If she ends up being the nominee, she gets my vote. Until then I'll let my voice be heard, I'll work my butt off and do what I can as 1 person for my choice. In the end a Democrat (even one who is slightly right of center) is better than a Republican.

As an adult I've learned you don't alway get your way, sometimes you just have to hold your nose.
I'd like to be 5'9", blond, buxom, independently wealthy and own my own liquor store. Instead I'm 5'1", grey, pudgy, work 12 hours a day for crappy pay.

But it beats the alternative if I insist I won't do it because it's not what I want.

[99Forever]

112. Hold your nose then.

I won't. I've covered that subject time and time again. I have principles. I won't forsake them for expediency. You will. We disagree. You won't change my mind, I won't change yours. I accept that. Why don't you?

[Lazy Daisy]

118. Because you claim to be the better one

Like you're the only one with principles. My principles tell me to vote for the best candidate on the ballot. Then again I'm a woman and don't take my right to vote lightly. Something the right would likely want to take away from me.
Not trying to change your mind. You've got it made up. Just don't act like you're the better one for it.
You want to stay home. Then do so. Doesn't make you a better person.

Funny thing is, your exact same argument can be seen on the right. And look how well things are going for them

[99Forever]

120. Make shit up much?

Welcome to DU.

[Lazy Daisy]

122. And what is it I'm making up?

Nothing

[99Forever]

123. If you say so.

[lumpy]

137. Every voter should take into consideration which political party has done the

best job this country. When one compares party records the Democratic party has contributed more to the well being of this country, hands down. Until the coming of Christ we have to deal with imperfection in any candidate ( and then maybe we won't get what we don't deserve even then.

[99Forever]

143. I do take that into consideration.

I also take into consideration, which candidates have a history of doing things against my interests and principles within that party. I have no idea what the reference to "Christ" has to do with anything, as we are talking about real live human beings not ancient myths.

[Fred Sanders]

121. I am not a scientist, but....

that sounds highly logical.

[whereisjustice]

15. Her Wall Street purity and arrogance is going to set us back another decade.

[Fred Sanders]

18. President Christfukuistan will send the world back to the Stone Age....black hat or white hat

thinking will get us all killed.

Never mind a mere decade!

Take off the hats, let the cons gather them.

[whereisjustice]

48. You think a singular candidate created in a Wall Street laboratory isn't dangerous?

[Fred Sanders]

50. Black hat/white hat thinking and ad hominem is what is dangerous...and loved by Republicans.

[whereisjustice]

52. Political monopooly is what is dangerous. I don't want a cadidate who was built like a lego set.

[L0oniX]

19. I'll vote for her cause I love the oligarchy too.

[NaturalHigh]

22. I don't understand why so many DEMOCRATS...

seem determined to do the Republicans' job for them when it comes to taking shots at Hillary Clinton.

[Fred Sanders]

24. No doubt. I ask myself the same...look at the selection on the other side of the equation!

If you are at least not scared to death of the alternative you are not paying attention.

[bowens43]

69. because Hillary is a piss poor choice. If she is the best we can do we should lose.

[Jim Lane]

114. The main reason is a fact that some Clinton supporters cite incessantly: current poll standings.

For me, both Hillary Clinton and Jim Webb are too conservative to be favored for the nomination. The difference between them is that Clinton's lead in the polls, among Democrats asked whom they favor for their party's nomination, is the largest or among the largest ever in an open race.

I take heart that these early polls reflect mainly name recognition. Nevertheless, those of us who would like to see a more progressive nominee can't just sit back and hope that the mere passage of time will make a difference. We have to be more proactive. That involves discussing alternative candidates. It also involves discussing the reasons to oppose Clinton, in the hope of winning more people to the view that she's too conservative.

Is this "do(ing) the Republicans' job for them"? Most of what I see on DU that's negative about Clinton is that she supported the Iraq War and is generally too hawkish on foreign policy; that she's a corporatist who's too cozy with Wall Street, who won't take serious action to reign in the financial oligarchs (e.g., reinstating Glass-Steagall); and that, although she hasn't publicly taken a position on the TPP and the Keystone pipeline, there are strong reasons to believe she supports both. Such comments are doing the Republicans' work only if you believe that the Republican candidate will make those criticisms. I suppose that attack will come in the big acceptance speech at the Republican convention, the speech in which the nominee also calls on workers to seize control of the instruments of production.

It's true that, in addition to posts about these ideological differences, DUers have discussed things like the email controversy. Is it your view that we must pass over such subjects in complete silence? It's unrealistic to expect that breaking political news won't be discussed on a political message board. It's also unrealistic to think that if DU ignores it then it won't be a problem for Clinton. Regardless of what is or isn't said on DU, we know that Republicans will bring it up in the general election if Clinton is the nominee. This is an example of why people make it a point to say that we want a contest, not a coronation. If it turns out, with the email thing or with something else, that there is a there there, in the sense that significant numbers of voters turn against Clinton because of it, better we should find that out in the primaries and caucuses, as opposed to the general election.

[lumpy]

139. They fail to look at the whole picture of political reality/history of this country.

[redstateblues]

158. Anyone who is not committed to voting for the Democratic nominee

Is not really a Democrat. You are an independent.

[hrmjustin]

25. K&R!

I am voting for her as well.

[daleanime]

28. So she's your first pick.....

makes me wonder who's your second pick?



You know, just in case.

[Fred Sanders]

29. President Cruz? Vice-President Perry?

Let the Nuclear Winter of the religious zealots and woo lovers begin!

At least there is no President Clinton, again, one could be comforted by that......

[daleanime]

31. Is that the only way you can avoid a real discussion?

[Fred Sanders]

36. That IS the discussion!

[daleanime]

37. That "Hillary" answers all questions?

[Fred Sanders]

39. One more 'emoticon' line, to substitute for words....... and you would have won the debate!

[daleanime]

41. No, words? That's strange....

I could swear that I remember typing something.....oh well, nothing for you to worry about.

[Fred Sanders]

43. Bringing emoticons to a word fight is like bringing knives to a gun fight.

[daleanime]

85. Well, you so good at ignoring the words....

I have to try something.

[Unvanguard]

42. +1 n/t

[beachbum bob]

44. if democrats/liberals/progressives wish to see a replubican in the whitehouse

make sure we in-fight and not support the single most powerful candidate we have.....Hillary, who will lead a crushing defeat over the batshit crazy conservative party....and I predict right here and now that Elizabeth Warren will be her VP choice.

If I was in charge of Hillary's campaign, one week after announcement of her run for president, I would also have the deal worked out with warren and than announce that right and then and there. The campaign would end ALL the in-fighting and be able to accumulate the necessary campaign funding for actual 2016 election to sweep conservatives out of control of the house and senate and bring an all female ticket to power. This will happen


and should be the plan....all the other discussions is blah blah blah....remember what the "idealists" brought to the country in getting Bush elected in 2000 by voting/supporting Nader......as far as I'm concern those Nader voters in Florida bear more responsibility for the death and destruction and our economic collapse more so than the people who voted for bush. They did knowing full well the impact in GETTING BUSH ELECTED and could care less......


End the nonsense so we can throw the conservatives out of washington....once and for all

[heaven05]

96. okay

has merit, but Hillary has to represent us, the 99%, which she shows no inclination for doing and not the 1%. She's money, nothing else. As VP Dr. Warren will be great, but no real power to change things, methinks. Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for her, if she's the candidate, but with EXTREME reservation(s).

[LWolf]

126. No worries.

There will not be a replubican in the WH.

There won't be a neoliberal Democrat, either, if my vote counts for anything.

[stonecutter357]

46. K&R!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." - Harry S Truman

If she can't stand the scrutiny of being a candidate she better aspire to another job.

[mfcorey1]

57. And in response:

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy. ~Ernest Benn


The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning. ~Adlai Stevenson

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. And, in response...

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[mfcorey1]

72. And response to your response:

Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. ~George Jean Nathan

[HereSince1628]

54. Philosophically, Who is -really- leaving whom?

Unity is always reduced as the base divides around emerging campaign issues and/or candidates.

This is the way primary season works...it's basic group behavior well known to even introductory students of sociology...division into subgroups creates an us vs them context for perspectives from each sub-group.

Group unity -seems- to be threatened, that's natural. The best that can be hoped for is respect between groups who divide along different perceptions, priorities and preferences and later reconciliation

But the anxiety gives rise to seemingly strange perceptions

This particular family of posts often seems preternatural and dysfunctional. It seems to follow from a perception that reverses consideration of reality. The subgroup pushing the boundaries blames it's anxiety about belongingness on the others who aren't pushing away from traditional beliefs at all.

If you will, imagine people who are in the boat that's departing, they seem to be most concerned that those on shore are somehow creating the gap between those doing the rowing and the shore. It's backwards.

Now, I know that risk-taking causes anxiety, and surely the risk-taking of pushing traditional democratic beliefs further and further toward the right (an inevitable outcome of seeking 'popularity' by triangulation) generates a desire not to be cut off.

But if you can't stand the anxiety of striking out toward the philosophical frontier, why do it????

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. That's your right.

Just as every single one of us has the right to select a given candidate behind whom we choose to rally.

[IronLionZion]

59. I'll vote for a liberal Dem in the primaries, and our nominee in the general

The only people exploring are Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley, and Hillary. Anyone else?

Of those 3, O'Malley was my governor in Maryland and he has my vote. Webb was my senator in Virginia but I prefer O'Malley.

[Bettie]

61. I simply want a primary rather

than a coronation.

There is no perfect candidate.

There are positives and negatives to Hillary, but I would be lying if I said I, personally, wasn't concerned about her level of fealty to Wall Street and corporations.

That said, this huge flap about email is stupid. There are plenty of ISSUES one could discuss instead of nitpicking.

[djean111]

64. Damn. Is it Pledgey Time again?

Nitpick? Way to marginalize things that some of us do, indeed, view as evil.
Fracking. TPP/TTIP. War. The ascendance of Wall Street and corporations. Increased H-1B visas.
Nitpick? Really, what the fuck?

You are really gonna hate the primaries, methinks!

[DesertDiamond]

67. Excuse me?? The point of having primaries is for alternative candidates to have a shot. Some of us

would prefer those alternative candidates. The primaries have not happened yet, so Hillary is NOT the official candidate at this time. Furthermore, many of us have strong reasons why we think Hillary would not be better than the Repub candidate. I view her as a corporatist, she's voted the opposite of what I would want on many crucial bills including sending us to war, and I would like to find out more about whether she is really having prayer breakfasts with the Dominionist group who wants to force their version of Christianity on all of us.

So, sorry, I will continue to exercise my right to free speech, and if you are trying to silence public debate, remember, that's part of democracy. What we still have left of democracy in this country.

[mfcorey1]

74. And I will continue to collect MY thoughts.

[bowens43]

68. vote for anyone you please or don't vote at all it's your choice.

Me, I won't vote for Hillary

[earthside]

76. Here we go again.

Challenging Hillary is traitorous and just helping the Repuglicans because Hillary is inevitable.

This was a losing strategy in 2008 -- why are her minions running it out again?

Personally, I think this is proof positive of how flawed a candidate she really is ... don't remind us of her past, don't ask her what she did as SoS, don't ask her to speak too much, don't talk about her personality or character. Just shut your eyes and imagine Hillary in the White House. Shut your eyes real tight.

My gosh, Hillary's fans here at DU have to have a "safe haven" group-forum to hide in -- that's how much they demand unquestioning support.

The danger is that her steamroller money machine will limit an effective primary challenge and that will make it hard for an alternative to emerge when she implodes in about 12 months.

[Nay]

94. I was just composing a post similar to yours. A comment I'd like to add is that in 2008,

Hillary was inevitable, as you mention. That is, only until someone came along who sounded just a bit more progressive than she. When that happened, support for her collapsed (as it should have). I sincerely hope that exact scenario happens again because this country cannot survive another 8 years of what we've been getting -- pretty words but generally business as usual. Sure, we may get that with any candidate that might possibly be nominated/elected, but somehow we've got to push things leftward for us to have any chance at all of surviving the climate debacle.

[earthside]

104. And things are moving.

If Elizabeth Warren really is not running, well, that's fine.

But progressives are anxious for someone to pick up the torch and take on the Wall Streeters and the Repuglican-crazy.

Martin O'Malley is looking better everyday.

I'm not settling for second best or moderate-right. Democrats have a primary nominating system and just because the Hillaryites want to shut it all down early doesn't mean that that is going to happen.

And I am not going to retreat into some 'safe haven' because I'm so fragile that I have need the succor of sycophants. Let's debate and argue!

[Cryptoad]

83. Seems that the HRC haters are ,,,,,

operating much like the GOP did in the General Election of 2012 and 2008, that is to say they energy and focus is directed at "anyone but Clinton" as the GOP's energy and focus was "anybody but Obama".

It hard to elect an "anybody but" as the GOP has shown if you can not put forth a candidate and their positive attributes , you serve no purpose.

I hope for a more progressive viable Dem candidate than HRC but none have stepped forward. Until one does, all this demeaning of HRC serves no purpose except to help the GOP. Rumor control has it that trolls are being funded by Koch thru Papa Paul to pretend to be progressive dems and drive wedges in our party.... you know I am beginning to see where I could believe that.

If you can only support the Democrat Party when your ideal candidate is running, then you are not a Democrat in my book.

[Dragonfli]

134. You are quite mistaken, inevitable considering Democrats that do not support her policy preferences

You call "haters" for no other reason than they do not support your favored candidate. I don't quite get how people not too concerned about "what Goldman thinks" when choosing policy are in your mind something called "haters".

I can assure you, hate is not required to wish to pursue a candidate that holds Democratic values on more than social issues, by all appearances such would define Hillary Clinton quite well, Financial right, social left. I appreciate that she finally has decided that she doesn't care what sex a person marries (although that took quite a bit longer than one might have expected), I am also quite happy that she appears to believe in equality for women and occasionally minorities (as long as she is not running against a person of color and dog whistling seems appropriate to her at the time).

It is not hate that drives me to wish to vote for someone that does not favor a permanent war status, H1b visas, wage lowering "trade" schemes, entitlement reforms, Corporate superiority and one that has Larry Summers on speed dial. I am blue collar and not an investment banker, so my desire for a candidate that will not make my life worse does not make me a hater, quite the contrary, if I did seek such a candidate I would be rightly classified as a self hating masochist that enjoys loosing financial ground while the bulk of his neighbors fall further into poverty.

So, no, most if not all of us not so white collar and wealthy people within the party are not HATERS (whatever that means, I think you are just trying to sound like you have street cred or something to use a term more likely found in my sub-culture than the comfortable neighborhood you appear to call home).

To put it bluntly, it is simply that unlike others, we are not ready for what she offers, the worst of what she offers can be summarized in a bumper sticker that would be (if honesty were the outstanding virtue of her supporters) a favorite to be displayed wherever convenient by them, here is a copy that you can have printed and proudly display while those of us not so keen on Reaganism and corporate personhood continue looking for candidates that might support the rest of us 99% (a pursuit that although possibly Quixotic is by no means an expression of HATE.

I hope you like it, I am sure it will look good on whichever vehicle you or your driver chooses to take out the most.

[Cryptoad]

140. Yet again you say I said things ,,,

that I never said or implied.... and yet again I will tell you I do not converse with people who want to tell me what I am thinking....... good luck and good bye.

[LuvLoogie]

86. Nadering Naybobs.

[greatlaurel]

92. The GOP operatives are trying to sow the seeds for the theft of the 2016 POTUS election.

The posters, some of whom have been around for years, claim to be "progressive" but are consistently posting slanders and right wing talking points against HRC. These posters are doing the ground work for electoral theft by trying to show there will be a number of Democrats who claim they will not vote for HRC. This is an attempt by the GOP controlled states like Ohio to disappear tens of thousands of votes bogus polls claiming she has lost support from Democrats. One of the GOP's test runs for this tactic was in Ohio in 2012 and it failed miserably. Ohio's sleazy GOP Secretary of State Husted chickened out at the last minute, closed up his office and went home before all the election returns were in. The meltdown of Karl Rove on Fox on the air demonstrated clearly they were trying to steal the Ohio election. Husted went home when it was clear Obama did not need Ohio to win the election and he was not going to risk his skin by doing whatever tactic had been set in place.

Then, there are people who just have issues with women in positions of authority. It is obvious the posters who supported Kerry and excused his votes for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, but consistently attack HRC for the same votes just have mommy issues.

[Joe Turner]

95. Vote for the independent socialist candidate

If none then I don't vote for president. Voting Hillary is the same as voting republican. She is a fraud through and through.

[Thinkingabout]

102. I see the need of a president who is an advocate for women's issues, minimun wage increases

education, pro-choice, thinks wage disparity needs some action, CEO wages are out of sight, has experience and is capable. Yes I will support the DNC nominee and can see Hillary being a very good president.

[treestar]

105. As she said when she conceded to Obama

"I do not want to see a Republican in the White House." Indeed.

[Logical]

108. LOL, so we don't think she is a progressive and complain and you whine about "derailing" her! Wow.

[mfcorey1]

115. And the conversation continues.

[LWolf]

125. No candidate will be perfect, that's true.

Most will be better. If you want to settle, that's up to you, but why try to derail people who'd rather make a better choice?

[Agnosticsherbet]

128. I will happly vote for her in the general election.

[olddots]

130. oy

and oy again .

[liberal_at_heart]

132. Then go ahead and vote for. I will not.

[Spider Jerusalem]

133. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for her.

I will vote for whomever I think is the best candidate in the primary; it remains to be seen, yet, who that may be. I like to think I'm something of a pragmatist, and while Hillary may be far from my ideal candidate, there are a host of issues where (almost) any Democrat will be better than (almost) any Republican, including things like the environment, LGBT rights, womens' rights (including abortion rights), and, the most important thing, really, is "who do I want making the next handful of Supreme Court nominations?"

[TheKentuckian]

135. Why is the purpose of stating someone isn't perfect? I think it is a set up statement

to explain why something many light years away from such should be deemed as acceptable.

"Not perfect" is an accurate description of everyone and about everything, best to worst and every single person, place, or thing between.

It is just something tired and trite to say in an effort to spin the indefensible as at least acceptable if not outright good.

Very little good requires such a preface and it being good is understood not to be perfection and perfection is also something that can continuously be strive towards even if it cannot be reached rather than mocked to prop up the "bird in hand".

Not perfect? No fucking shit, they would have been nailed up somewhere decades ago but are they good? How about at least minimally acceptable?

[morningfog]

138. I won't vote for her.

Not in the primary and probably not in the general. I live in a place where my vote would have no effect on the out of my state or the presidential race in the general election.

[Martin Eden]

141. What is disconcerting is this effort to annoint her ...

... more than a year before the election.

Not saying you're doing that with your OP, but many won't entertain the notion of any other candidate. The corporate media has been building that perception for quite some time now.

The democratic Party should be able to do better than Hillary Clinton. If we can't, it's a sad testament to the state of American politics.

Her vote for the IRaq War Resolution on 2002 is an automatic disqualifier for me.
Take your choice:
1) She was fooled (which means she's incompetent)
2) She was on board with the neocon agenda
3) Her vote was a calculation of post 9/11 politics

I have yet to hear a reasonable defense for any of the above.
And that's far from the only reason to want someone better to represent our Party and lead our country.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee in Nov 2016, but I really want someone I'm happy to vote FOR, rather than just voting AGAINST the Republican.

[cui bono]

160. I'll say it. The OP is doing exactly that. Trying to annoint her.

Note s/he did not say if she becomes the Dem candidate, but if she decides to run. So the OP has left out the fact that there is to be a Democratic primary and we are just supposed to vote for her, period, without thought.

What we are really supposed to do is weigh all the pros and cons of each candidate and vote for who we decide is best. The OP is failing their duty as a citizen of a democracy by predetermining who they are going to vote for before they even know who else is running.

[Fearless]

149. I don't vote for DINO's any more than I vote for Republicans.

Which for the record is zero.

[Colorado Vince]

151. applaud her

And wish her the best of luck.

[freshwest]

161. Welcome, Colorado Vince! n/t

[Starry Messenger]

157. This website is going to cause a world shortage in popcorn between now and the GE.

[freshwest]

162. What's the name of this movie?

[cui bono]

159. I will not. I will vote for someone else in the primary. You seem to have forgotten there will be

one of those pesky little things. Remember what happened last time she ran in the Democratic primary?

I don't.

People don't want her for many, many, many valid reasons. It is NOT "nitpicking". Since when are we not allowed to want someone other than the establishment's choice for us? Since when are we supposed to forget the fact that she has to win the primary before we HAVE to vote for her?

So fucking sick of all these poor Hillary threads and sentiments.

SHE IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE YET AND HOPEFULLY SHE NEVER WILL BE.