Why do HRC opponents think that baiting pro-HRC Dems will HELP their non existent candidate?

[SheilaT]

30. Who's baiting?

Some of us just think that Hillary Clinton is not the best possible candidate. We are bothered by her cozying up to people like Henry Kissinger, her close ties to Wall Street, her willingness to bomb women and children in the Middle East, her Iraq War vote, and various other things. Her sudden appearance of being a Progressive makes us wonder if she's just cynically saying what many want to hear just so she can win, and then it will be all business as usual if she becomes President.

In addition, we don't think that a coronation is the best way to find the next President, and we're not at all crazy about the idea of the Presidency being in the hands of two families for six or seven terms. We think it's time for new players, someone who does strongly support unions, who will make it crystal clear from the very beginning that he or she is firmly on the side of the working and middle classes, and will do everything possible to roll back the tax cuts to the very rich.

Somehow, that doesn't feel like baiting to me. What does feel like baiting is the Hillary supporters who essentially keep on telling us to sit down and shut up because she's inevitable. And when we try to point out she was supposedly inevitable back in 2008 they get quite huffy, and point out she almost won, as if she didn't actually lose. We recall the Pumas from eight years ago, and how it seemed they really didn't care if they wrecked the Democratic party.

But it's mostly the constant refrain that there's simply no one else, and that we have to roll over and accept Hillary Clinton that gets under our skin. We'd like to see a few more candidates in the actual running.