And I'm someone who would vote for her.

Especially number 3 - I see this with all the names bandied about though. It's great to be passionate and focused on someone who meets a personal checklist that one has . . .

But I remember my father getting all worked up over "Barack whooooooo dad?" in early 2007.

Oh that "there is one America guy at the 2004 . . . "

I just think the field is wide open. And at the end of the day DU is not where the King or Queen makers in the party reside.

(and that's rare indeed).

Here is the response you are likely to get:

1) It's all media driven. She and her supporters don't do anything to drive that narrative.

2) Fuck your concerns

3) No one else is running and intends on running so HRC and there is no one who can beat her

4) See #2

Then we can worry about this shit.

good luck with that.

The vocal Hillary supporters are blind to the fact that she simply is not inevitable. And as it happens, she does say that she is not running. Why don't they believe her? The believe Elizabeth Warren when she says she's not running.

There really are other Democrats out there, some of whom could realistically run for President. Not to mention we are still more than two years away from the next Presidential election, with an upcoming mid-term that really matters a lot.

I like to remind people that back in 2005, after we were all pretty sure that Kerry'd had the '04 election stolen from him, a lot of people here assumed he'd run again in '08 and of course win.

In early 2002, when we knew that Gore'd had the election stolen, many here knew he'd run again in '04 and win.

And back in 1990, after the success of the first Gulf War, it was so obvious to everyone with a brain that George HW Bush could not possibly lose in '92 that every viable Democrat out there decided pretty early not to run. So of course that Bush won a second term. No? What happened?

My point is that two or three years out from an election it is impossible to know what will change, or what newcomer might shake things up. And anyone at all who commits heart and soul to one specific candidate is making a mistake.

Heck, sometime in 1995 I saw someone with a vanity plate that read: Kemp 96, by which time Jack Kemp was no longer planning to run for President. That was someone so committed to a candidacy that never happened, she was no stuck for I'm not sure how long, a public statement that was now meaningless.

I guess I'm saying, Please don't get a license plate that says HRC 2016.

similar environment that drove so many of her supporters away from here back in 2008. We're made to feel like we're blind sheep and not "real" Democrats.

The intent of the OP was to try to move towards some form of engaged dialog, rather than a slagging match.

Later today, I'll start a thread on how HRC opponents might better communicate with HRC supporters.

The OP should make a list for people opposed to HRC because they'll be the ones tearing things apart.

Not just her supporters. The primary wars are starting even before we have anybody declare.

1) Stop saying you won't vote for HRC if she's the nominee. That's just as stupid now as it was in '08 when HRC supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama.

2) Stop calling HRC supporters blind followers or lemmings or cheerleaders or false progressives or whatever. Sure, disagree about policy, that's legitimate, but opposing HRC doesn't automatically make you more progressive than someone who supports her.

3) Find a way to respond constructively to the argument that HRC is the candidate most capable of winning the general election. It's not a minor point. Winning the presidency is very important, and Bernie Sanders isn't going to win the GE.

4) If you're going to make the "ruling families" argument, make sure you're ready to argue that FDR was bad for the country and that Bobby Kennedy should never have run. Otherwise, just focus on the actual candidate.

What bothers some people is not that somebody who's related in some way to a former president(or in this case, married to one) might run for president themselves. It's the notion of the White House being passed back and forth between TWO ruling families...the Clintons and the Bushes. That this might mean that nobody NOT named Clinton or Bush was going to be president for years and years to come-which sounds like it would turn American politics into a latter-day "War of the Roses" succession battle rather than giving us any hope of achieving actual democracy.

This would particularly be an issue if Jeb was the nominee for the other party in '16.

I have certainly not attacked any other potential people who might decide to run in the primary (it's just plain stupid to do so at such a early stage in the game).

As to your other OP the same cannot be said to people who have posted in it http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025102322 or in multi threads posted on a daily basis about Hillary.

We all know where the problem is from right now and to associate Hillary supporters in this is very disingenuous.

As for myself I plan on staying the course I have so far up to the primaries. Unfortunately the one's foaming at the mouth will also continue to be rabid. Those are the cold hard facts and with that I have nothing more to say on the subject.

I'm done with that. Those who support her will work very hard to get her nominated, if she does run.

Those who don't like her, can do whatever they want. I really, really, do not care.

Trying to reduce the venom. To make it easier to come together and win the next election no matter who wins. Apparently, that didn't work at this point.

The atmosphere has been polluted and it goes beyond political differences. It's become personal. I have said it many times before, but it's the best analogy that I can come up with, this site is the mirror image of Free Republic. It's narrow minded, people see things in black and white with no shading or willingness to compromise, and they demonize those politicians they don't like. The attacks on Hillary have gone way beyond the norm on a supposed Democratic site. Therefore, anything they expound on, has lost any validity. At least as far as I'm concerned.