If HRC is nominated WITHOUT a primary challenge:

[Jim Lane]

173. It was "anti" to assert, falsely, that she "supported racist, anti gay, anti choice policies"

She was a registered Republican. The only way you can get from that fact to the poster's smear of her is by adding a major premise that a person who is registered in a political party automatically supports every policy of that party. That premise is clearly wrong.

I was a registered Democrat throughout Bill Clinton's presidency. Nevertheless, I didn't support his policies on NAFTA, DOMA, welfare reform, or several other things.

You write that "the WORST Democratic is better than the BEST Republican." I'd say that, at the Presidential level, that's always true, and for downticket races, it's almost always true. (The last time I voted for a Republican, he lost to a Democrat who subsequently took a plea and did time. I don't regret that vote.)

Nevertheless, I wouldn't carry that to the point of saying that the prospects for the general election are the only relevant factor. If we have a 60% chance of winning in November with a candidate who'll make a mediocre President, and a 59% chance of winning with one who'll be outstanding, I'd go with nominating the one who has the lesser chance of winning.