Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk

[H2O Man]

21. Respectfully disagree.

I'll start by saying that you are among the DUers who I have long respected as a thoughtful and insightful participant on this forum. Hence, while I disagree with you on two points here, it is not without the hope that you do not think I'm disagreeing with you as a person.

First, I've voted for Ms. Clinton twice, in elections; I voted for another candidate once, though in a primary, not general election, because I believed that other person had a greater chance of success in the general election. So I am certainly not "anti-Hillary" ....yet not "pro-Hillary" to the extent that I would always vote for her.

If she were the democratic nominee in 2016, there are a good many states where a person could not vote for her, for a wide variety of reasons, yet raise no risk of her losing their state. And even in states where it could be close, a person has not only the right, but the responsibility to vote as their conscience dictates.

While there is actually far less than ZERO chance that '16 will be a battle between Clinton and Cruz, for discussion's sake, let's pretend that somehow came to pass. If Clinton did lose -- again, impossible -- the "blame" would NOT be with those individuals who vote by conscience. Rather, it would fall 100% on Ms. Clinton as an individual, and the power-brokers who might select her as the candidate.

Clinton has many, many strengths. She also has some very real negatives, and those include things that are not limited to why republicans may dislike or even despise her. Those who do support her, and are advocating she run for president, need to be aware of those negatives. It would seem short-sighted to hold that anyone/everyone who doesn't support her is "wrong," or "not a good Democrat." And it is definitely a short-cut to logic to project blame for a potential Cruz victory.

That said, this forum is as good a place as any for such discussions. It is an error in thinking to suggest that someone opposed to the concept of a Clinton run in 2016 should stop posting here. Ms. Clinton is a democrat, but not the Democratic Party. Her record includes the vote that gave Bush the "authority" to invade Iraq under 100% false pretenses. That alone should give thinking people reason to consider if she is who they could support as a candidate. The Clinton family's ties to various corporations is also worth discussion, and even heated debate.