Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton [View all]groundloop
(11,997 posts)62. So if Hillary gets the nomination we just shouldn't vote in November?????
Yeah, let's hand the election to shrub II and see how that goes.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
205 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If you read the post I responded to, you'd see that this poster claimed no progressive
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#81
When has she said that she, and all the Congressional women, hopes he will run?
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#153
As is Sanders running out of time....as a long-time Democrat I'm increasingly getting annoyed.....
George II
Feb 2015
#158
And yet, Elizabeth Warren has publicly attacked Clinton's Corporate friends, Goldman Sachs
sabrina 1
Feb 2015
#82
Elizabeth Warren is a US Democratic Senator, who sits in a Democratic Caucus and depends
merrily
Feb 2015
#105
Yes, it is, for the reasons stated in my prior post. Also, as I have posted many
merrily
Feb 2015
#107
Then why don't you read through the very long list of bills at the site I linked to,
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#109
Why are you changing the subject? Besides, the US Senate is a conservative body and most Dems
merrily
Feb 2015
#113
I'm not changing the subject, you are. The topic was whether any progressive supports Hillary
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#115
No, the subject that starts this subtread was your post about Warren's endorsement of Hillary.
merrily
Feb 2015
#116
And THAT post was in response to the claim that no progressives supported Hillary. n/t
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#118
Which is totally irrelevant to your changing the subject of the subthread from Warren's
merrily
Feb 2015
#139
Elizabeth Warren was quoted as saying she supports Hillary Clinton RUNNING for president...
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#137
No, read the quote again. She said "no" to the question "are you going to run?"
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#145
So, the 17 million Democrats who voted for her last time didn't "really" support her...
brooklynite
Feb 2015
#19
It's hard to take, for some, that these facts are indisputable at this time.
demosincebirth
Feb 2015
#97
That females are over 50% of the population might have had a touch to do with that in a Dem primary,
merrily
Feb 2015
#114
Interesting point you make about the primary. I had no idea. But I'm still not sure what you mean.
ancianita
Feb 2015
#174
She offers plenty progressive. She is a liberal, supported by millions of other liberals --
NYC Liberal
Feb 2015
#48
Those who support expanding H-1B Visas, the TPP, and was on the Walmart board is NOT liberal...
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#149
They are not "My arguments", though I am indeed very concerned about some of Hillary's
newthinking
Feb 2015
#6
One of the reasons we don't know who is running is that, since 2012, we've been hearing that, if HRC
merrily
Feb 2015
#112
A Democrat who chooses not to run because of Hillary, is not qualified to be President.
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2015
#171
Then provide an alternate definition to "no Democrat will run against her in the primary."
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2015
#176
I don't know where to begin since you missed the point of the post so entirely.
merrily
Feb 2015
#178
So you are blaming a media narrative for intimidating Democratic Challangers?
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2015
#181
No. I don't think any candidates have been intimidated by Hillary or by media.
merrily
Feb 2015
#182
In January, before Obama was reelected, they were opining about the Democrats
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2015
#184
The only thing I can say is that never in my life have I seen a lead up to a primary remotely like
merrily
Feb 2015
#192
You don't believe the Party has leaders who are more powerful vis a vis the Party than, say you and
merrily
Feb 2015
#199
"PTB" is just something that saves me a lot of typing. It simply refers to the people who have power
merrily
Feb 2015
#203
Courage? Thinking of a paddycake/profile raising pseudo run isn't courage it is playing the game
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#194
No one here wants a Republican alternative. But how far are we going to let the
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#28
I think we are. Some think the slide into tyranny is ok if it's slow. It's too much work to fight
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#98
NO! No More Corporate lackeys, be they a member of the Bush Dynasty Or the Clinton Dynasty
Dragonfli
Feb 2015
#101
Yes the Oligarchs have enough money to do it. Doesn't mean I won't fight it all the way.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#12
LOL! We heard this inevitability meme before. HRC *might* be the dem nom, or she might not
peacebird
Feb 2015
#46
I accept that you are a true believer. I believe she will energize many to come out to vote
peacebird
Feb 2015
#104
"I believe she will discourage many more from turning up to vote, mostly progressives or young."
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#123
No, it discusses 5 important considerations from a progressive point of view.
newthinking
Feb 2015
#42
Helping children see a doctor is moral, ethical, right, and progressive.
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2015
#23
The problem is that if Wall Street has their way we will all end up in soup lines.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#99
Say Hello to President Bush, little Johnny. We preferred a three-fer to a two-fer and proud we are.
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#18
We've heard a lot of reasons not to nominate HRC but the only reason I've seen for nominating her
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#29
It's what sets us apart from the two-bit dictatorships that only offer their citizens one choice.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#156
I'm a progressive,yet I would vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic candidate.
DrewFlorida
Feb 2015
#34
Here's the thing: electing Hillary will ensure continuance of the Bush-Obama policy
Maedhros
Feb 2015
#163
No, that is reality. You declare yourself automatic and NOTHING need be done to secure your vote.
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#196
THEY DON'T CARE. Nominees to SCOTUS aren't as important as their personal ethics, damn it!
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#77
Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg. Hillary is stands are mostly liberal on the issues
still_one
Feb 2015
#185
Then she is your best hope. Me? I think we can do better than a Reagan clone
Dragonfli
Feb 2015
#102
As a liberal.. if Hillary runs as our nominee.. she will get my full support..
Peacetrain
Feb 2015
#55
"Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush"
greenman3610
Feb 2015
#73
The country shifted to the right when Nader helped Florida get tossed to SCOTUS.
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#111
#6 becuase after she loses, even when all the progs knuckle down and pull the lever,
MisterP
Feb 2015
#95
Simple--the same way you come to the conclusion that progressives supported Saddam--
eridani
Feb 2015
#155
So, perhaps you are saying that those who don't support Clinton aren't progressive then...
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#189
And here you see the vulnerability of candidates with experience. You can pick and choose
McCamy Taylor
Feb 2015
#119
There are far too few to waste any as Hillary's hood ornament/empty appeal to liberals
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#202
In the general election Progressives should support Clinton for one reason, if nothing else.
Beacool
Feb 2015
#150
Hillary. Wal Mart Board member (1986-1992) and former "Goldwater Girl."
blkmusclmachine
Feb 2015
#162
Ive only ever seen it written as member of WalMart's board of directors, no Foundation mentioned.
merrily
Feb 2015
#175
So should we set out the election in 2016??? OR are you saying we should vote for Bush or Walker?
hollowdweller
Feb 2015
#195