If not Hillary, then who?

[maui902]

147. I will respond one more time

I am not making the argument that you should support a less progressive candidate because he or she is more likely to win; that's an argument that has been made, and it's worth discussing, but I an NOT making that argument. The argument I'm making is that those who insist on ideological purity for their own party's candidate, and won't vote for that person no matter who the other party selects as their candidate, increases the risk that the other party's candidate will win. If a truly progressive candidate whom you can support happens to win the Democratic primary, then the choice you face is easy. But if the person who wins the Democratic primary is not a truly progressive person (the kind you say you can't support and won't vote for), and you choose to sit out that election and just not vote for anyone, you increase the odds that the Republican candidate will win. It's your right to choose this path, and I understand your reasons for doing so, which you've made clear. But I and many others will regret the day that too many progressives stayed on the sidelines and let someone like John McCain or Mitt Romney or George Bush reoccupy the White House. You may be dissatisified with President Obama's performance in office, but I can assure it's much better with him in the Oval Office than it would have been with McCain or Romney.