This may be the election that redefines the parties. The Democrats may evolve into the party of the
status quo (such defensive efforts to conserve the status quo against change is called "conservatism" in political science class).
The Republicans may be evolving into the party that tells those who feel left out of the status quo economy "we are going to radically change this broken system."
If we cannot stop Hillary in the primary, we are looking at the first election in my lifetime where
* the Democrat is the candidate using Citizens United to raise Super PAC funds from millionaires and billionaires while the Republican campaigns against a corrupt pay-to-play campaign finance system
* the Democrat is the candidate encouraging international trade agreements which have the effect of promoting the loss of American union jobs to foreign countries while the Republican campaigns on bringing those union jobs back to America
* the Democrat is the candidate who saber rattles about American boots on the ground in foreign conflicts while the Republican campaigns on the theme that the countries in the region should take the lead role and we should limit our in-forum involvement to bombing rather than American boots on the ground
* the Democrat is the candidate is defending the tax policy status quo while proposing minuscule tweaks at the edges of that policy while the Republican is arguing that the billionaires and the large corporations must pay a greater share of taxes
* the Democrat is the candidate saying "let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater" about Wall Street reforms while the Republican campaigns against corruption in the financial sector
Here's an exercise: Draw a horizontal line, and put the initials "FDR" at the left end of the line and write "George HW Bush" at the right end of the line. Now, write "Hillary" at some point on this line -- closer to FDR if you believe she will govern more like FDR or closer to Bush if you think she will govern more like him.
If that exercise doesn't make you sad, then you don't understand why so many progressives and liberals know Hillary would be a historically weak general election candidate incapable of uniting the party.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Who do you think shes in court with? Citizens United.
2-Trump is against trade agreements? 
3-The Republican is running on war crimes and carpet bombing.
4-Democratic candidate will raise taxes on the rich and lower middle class taxes.
5-The Democratic candidate is all about Wall Street reform and her policy has earned praise from liberal economists.
I hope I never need an attorney in Texas.
while she reaps the benefits of it--as millions of dollars flow into her campaign from millionaires, billionaires and powerful corporate interests.
She's not fighting Citizens United. She's embracing it.
Every few days she hops off the campaign trail to grab another installment. Usually from Wall Street.
They pay her handsomely for her cut-throat approach to their greed and criminality--which is a bit of finger wagging while she whines, Come on guys...cut it out!"
"Here's another 5 million Hillary. Is that enough to keep Glass Steagall off the table?"
lobbied and voted for them; she personally profited from millions in Wall St speaking fees; she has voted with republicans and against Democrats on many crucial occasions; she refuses to reinstate Glass-Steagall, her campaign relies on Super Pacs; she has used State Dept power to reward her cronies and lobbyists; she has promoted massive arms sales to egregious human rights violators who donated to the Clinton Foundation; she has an anti-environmental record, etc.....
?itok=1mUqDEIZ
When it comes to war--Hillary is furthering the neocon agenda that Bush pushed.
Hillary hand picked Robert Kagan to be one of her foreign-policy advisers while she was Secretary of State. Of course you know that he founded the neocon movement and engineered the Iraq War plan.
Hillary surrounds herself with the same cast of characters who were at the epicenter of Bush's foreign policy.
If you read, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (the neocon war blueprints) you will find that they name four countries that they seek to dominate and control: Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya.
Bush gave them Iraq. Hillary spearheaded efforts in Libya that turned that country into a failed state. She vociferously advocated for arming the Syrian rebels and creating a no-fly zone over Syria. Obama held the line on a full-on war in Syria while Hillary championed the idea. What else was she to do with Kagan sitting by her side--"advising" her?
Reality escapes anyone who doesn't see this. I don't see how any of you can defend this. But God knows you will work like little elves to do so.
And then sit back and watch the fun begin.
The MSM doesn't even mention it now, because they plan to beat Hillary over the head in the fall with it, 24/7.
Then Benito Trump or Dr. Seuss Cruz will mention it in every speech, every interview, every time you see them on tv.
