Counterpart with her experience in foreign affairs. It is about more than simple issues. All of the arrows being thrown do not change who she is and where she stands on the issues. GOP doesn't have an answer, ready for the primaries.

Hillary Clinton has clearly demonstrated who she is and what she stands for in matters of foreign policy, military intervention, and other critically important issues.

That is why I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary, and why I urge all real Democrats to look elsewhere for our candidate in 2016.

Couldn't have said it better.

is massive amounts of money to use to try to convince the average American voter that Hillary is going to be the worst President in history. Just like they have spent 6 years trying to convince Americans that President Obama is both a radical Muslim and an Indonesian citizen.
They have no ideas other than Supply-Side Economics and trying to convince people that America has to return to the glorious days of 1950. Back when women, blacks, LGBT people, and all non-white male people in general knew their place.

folks on the left, willing to try and convince themselves and other would be Democratic voters that a HRC loss in 2016, won't be that bad ... it would only be losing a battle to win the war (but they never seem to talk about the casualties of that battle, which will be many ... starting with the most vulnerable of would be Democratic voters).

I belong to a social justice group based in a local (Chicago area) church. Political views range from Marxists to liberal Democrats. Many people in the group have a "more progressive than you" attitude and will talk about not voting for this or that Democrat because the Democrat is not progressive enough.

My view is that a non-vote for a Democrat is the same as a Republican vote. No Democratic politician shares all of my views. I do not expect that. What I try to do is vote for the BETTER of the candidates. And that BETTER would be any Democratic candidate, including HRC in 2016 over any Republican. No doubt there.

"No more 'lesser of two evils' votes!!!"

Never mind, EVERY vote is a lesser of two evils vote ... in real life, because as you mention, NO politician will do everything that you want and lots of stuff you don't like.

I was in a discussion with someone and used the analogy of eating cold cereal because I don't have the eggs and bacon I really wanted. The persons response was that they would refuse both because both is bad for you ... then, they talked some nonsense of preferring death by starvation over a slow death from the poor choices. That mindset works in the internutz world, but only because there is no cost to talking about choosing the noble and pure death.

easy to be pure and all when we are just talking, but every decision has a consequence. If Democrats had voted in 2010 the GOP would not have taken over so many state houses and redistricted/gerrymandered those states.

If the 2010 gerrymandering had not taken place the GOP would have lost the House in 2012 and the Democrats would have picked up more Senate seats. Again, assuming the Democrats had voted.

If the GOP had lost the House President Obama would not have had to deal with 400 filibusters and a House that has essentially been on vacation for 6 years.

But the liberal, progressive, and left wing fundamentalists would have had to actually vote rather than rationalize a non-vote as some type of principle.

PROVING that the progressive/liberals did in fact vote. But interestingly the links say nothing about how they voted. Nor, will anyone cop to the effect of theiron constantl proclamations of how failed the Democratic nominee is/was. Instead, they are all "see I told you" when the public doesn't turn out to support the candidate they had been telling anyone with ears was so flawed they could not support/vote for them.

President Obama is not a perfect President, nor was he the ideal candidate. Who could be, except possibly me because I have never been wrong.

I would say and have said to Democrats and progressives that if you are looking for that perfect candidate who perfectly represents what you want and stand for, look in the mirror to see her/him. Only place you will find her/him.

That someone put their money where their mouth is, i.e., be that perfect candidate with the perfect message and the perfect plan, is widely seen as an attempt to silence them.

to attack every candidate for their supposed weaknesses and end up with none of the above. That way President Bush the Turd can follow Bush Senior and Bush the Lesser and further destroy the working class.

All the non-voters can then say "I did not vote for him".

Sounds like a plan. If it happens I hope I can convince my family to move back to Canada with me. (Rats and sinking ship and all that )

nor did the site search feature.

What were you attempting to present?

Lesser evil wins, hands down, every time. It might be possible to imagine a scenario where greater evil wins the contest, because somehow it leads to lesser evil in the end. But except in those rare and hypothetical situations, choosing greater evil is insane, or at least stupid.

(Note : elections are essentially a forced choice -- if you don't choose, someone will choose for you. Not choosing can legitimately be considered as a vote for greater evil.)

Pragmatism is in my DNA.

What's not to like?

...and do you really think she won't endorse her once the campaign starts?

She is the only way the Democrats keep the White House.
Brief explanation...
The Dems do not have a message that works. as proven in the last two midterms and the fact that Obama had no coattail affects in the last general election. Obama won because he is black. A condition that had blacks come to the polls in unprecedented numbers.
In the last midterms Dems ran as far as possible from Obama consequently the blacks did not vote and they lost.
The only way to win is to run Hillary and get the female vote. I have personal friends (female) that have told me they have given up on voting as the government is all corrupt and there is no difference between the two parties. They did say "If Hillary runs i will vote otherwise I wont waste my time."
I worked all these elections and know about turnout in all three.

How quickly people forget that we INCREASED the number of Senate seats in 2012.

First i saw no coattail results in Michigan. We have had and continue to have Democratic Senators. The Senate seats we gained were primarily "blue dog" Dems, not sure if i would call that a gain.

....if you can't have a REAL Democrat.

your statement "So it's better to have a Republican.... if you can't have a REAL democrat" is somewhat ambiguous. My original post stated it is better to have Hillary because we can't have a real democrat.

Hope this clarifies the issue.

and hope women will vote for her?

Wouldn't a better message make more sense?

But the Republicans are already taking control of income inequality. They are not mentioning the fact that they are responsible for it but that is beside the point.
They are relying on guns and God. We have as of today found nothing to trump that. The working people that support Republicans value their guns and their God more than income and they are not sharp enough to realize that the Republicans are against Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid and many other items they will suffer from the loss of. I talked to a gay Republican recently and mentioned how our governor Snyder was taking from the middle class to give to the wealthy. He replied "We all have to make sacrifices." I am telling you the forces have spent years brainwashing the less intelligent among us and they come out to vote. Primarily to protect their guns and secondly to protect their religion.
If you have a message that can win them over or even one that will get the Democrats off their asses please share it here and elsewhere. We are all looking for such a message.

They'll use the name, and then offer up yet another serving of trickle-down. All we have to do it call them on it. But to do that successfully, we can be pushing trickle-down economics ourselves. We can't nibble our way around the problem by offering business "incentives" in the belief that this time, they'll result in meaningful job creation in the US.

And blaming it all on Obama. The voters i mentioned will believe this shit. And vote for their guns and God.
And then the Republicans will again screw them royally. go figure.

in a million years will eat a mile of that shit to see where it comes from. But there are others, with better memories, who know where the blame lies. And if we stop curling up and giving up, we can own 2016.

the curling up and giving up comes from lack of motivation. No message.

He won because he brought unprecedented amounts of non majority voters to the polls and got them to vote for him in unprecedented numbers. I would add he capitalized on hyper capitalized on existing demographic voting patterns that I see no evidence is abating.

Good for us...

You have no grasp of what actually happened. I provided rides to the polls in the last 4 elections. When Obama was on the ticket the lines at black precincts were out the door. Many in my area waited in line 4 or more hours to vote. I would drop them off with instructions to call me for a ride home. No one called me in less than an hour all were two to four hours. In the midterms the precincts were almost empty. Those i gave rides to told me to wait they would be right back for a ride home and that is what happened.
A couple of things here. Obama was not running and the Democratic Party did not have a message that motivated the voters to come out.

you resort to name calling.

Just because that blowhard made a statement does not make it untrue. and again with the name calling or guilt by having like thoughts. Do you have any stats or facts to back up your opinion? I posted mine, where are yours?

that "Obama won because he is black".
But hey, it's a nice RW talking point. so there ya go!

For the last four elections. If you did read it perhaps you did not understand it. Anyway, my intention here is not to be critical of either Obama or Hillary. My intention here is to point out the fact that the Democratic party has lost the ear and support of American voters.

But hey, Michele Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other assorted RWers are on your side.
Maybe you could quote them to help bolster your case?

and am less than amazed at your continuous name calling.

'Obama won because he is black" is not a racist statement.
On second thought, I'm not surprised..
Carry on and post some more RW talking points soon!

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 08:08 AM - Edit history (1)

That caused minorities to come out to vote in unprecedented numbers. That is a fact. does saying it in that way make it more palatable to you? Hillary will win because women will support her in unprecedented numbers, does that make me a misogynist?

both presidential elections (especially the first, of course) brought out all my black and Asian neighbors to vote. The lines were hours long, and around the block. Non-white AND young voters came out for the opportunity to participate in a historic vote; this is absolutely true.

This argument says absolutely nothing!

Thanks for arguing, point-by-point on Hillary's "being-correct" about issues in the past thus we should put our faith in her.
Of course, she's done nothing of the sort - when it comes to enormous issues (99% support, Iraq War) she's been dead wrong and right in line with what I would expect from a Right-Winger. Problem is she's running on the Left.


So Dean apparently has to resort to the "moving our country forward" which means absolutely nothing.

to the 20th century and further if we'd let them.

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

back in 2008, DFA was ABC. They supported Edwards or Obama in the Iowa caucuses.

Perhaps he feels too old to tilt at windmills.

Ha

We hope you can lick this affliction and come back to us!

Best wishes,

The Democratic Wing

My limo driver told me all about it.

Titled just that, what a coincidence. My butler told me all about it.

when we read your post!

Got to watch it when the help gets sassy!

1 Citigroup Inc
2 Goldman Sachs
3 MetLife Inc
4 Time Warner
5 JPMorgan Chase & Co

...if, someone better doesn't come along. <-- that's my wish, someone better.

Hillary is by far the most qualified person in America to continue leading our country forward. Let's do everything we can now to get her there.

Thank you for standing with me,

Governor Howard Dean

I haven't seen this in my in box, though I supported Howard Dean actively and am on a few lists still. I sure miss his voice.

I still do, but I don't support him here. I am not ready for Hillary. And I will not be voting for her. Best wishes to her, though.

Sorry, NO.

When our country desperately needed strong leadership to avert an obvious catastrophe, Hillary Clinton voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq. If she didn't realize what a HUGE MISTAKE it was, then she's not nearly as intelligent as she appears to be and is supremely unqualified to be POTUS. On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton knew what DUers knew at that time, then she is absolutely not to be trusted in matters of war and peace.

Add to that her DLC Third Way-ism and close ties to the corporatocracy & Wall Street.

Then ask yourself if Hillary Clinton represents your interests and values.

If that is what the American Left and the Democratic Party has become, then it's time to abandon all hope of moving our country forward into a better future.

And, as for the "DLC Third Way-ism", are there specific policies you can point to Clinton supporting, or will be limiting ourself to broad platitudes?

In the 2004 Democratic primary a YES vote for the IWR was an automatic disqualification that also included Joe Biden.

else is. I don't see how that's Hillary's fault. Smart folk can do the math...it's getting a bit late and who is going to want to risk "upsetting" what appears to be a clear path? I think the other candidates will be kind of like cameos for being a part of her administration.

That's what I read into the secret meeting between she and Elizabeth Warren. Warren doesn't want to run and will likely campaign for her and if somehow Julian Castro gets into the mix...oh boy. That gives Dems a Conservative, a Progressive and a Liberal.

JMO.

...you know, the kind where they let Republicans and Independents vote as well.

. . . What's snipped?

Five times in thirteen sentences?

And... at this point... what does the word even MEAN?

I find increasingly that the term is employed by people with pretty much nothing substantive to say.