IF Hillary declares as a candidate for President of the United States, I will

[cab67]

136. I wasn't being defensive.

Nor did I say you said I lied. I asked about which comments I made were lies I'd somehow bought from elsewhere. If that wasn't clear from what I wrote, I apologize.

I'm with you on one thing - Hillary Clinton is nowhere near the ideal candidate for the Democratic Party, nor is she the best person our country can select for the office of president. We don't necessarily "need" her. My state is very early in the process, so I will almost certainly be caucusing for someone like Bernie Sanders or, if she runs (which is doubtful), Elizabeth Warren. I'll do what I can to promote these candidates wherever I go. But if the nominee ends up being Hillary Clinton, the question is no longer whether she's ideal. You and I agree that she's not. It's whether a too-centrist Democrat would be better than a Republican. Any Republican. And I would far, far rather have Hillary Clinton nominating Supreme Court justices than a Republican.

(This is based on recent history, not an idealistic hope. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama have governed as true progressives, but compare their Supreme Court nominees with those of Reagan or either Bush, and think about how the justices split on close 5-4 votes on issues like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, and you see what I mean. Hillary Clinton would probably govern from the same general part of the political landscape as Obama and Bill Clinton, and historical precedent indicates she'd bring nominees similar to those of either predecessor.)