General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOK, I take it back.
When I wrote, a few months ago, that I wouldn't vote vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, someone in the long thread (I forget who), said to me, confidently, that I would, in the end, vote for her. Whoever you were; it didn't take getting to the end: I'll hold my nose and vote for her.
I keep thinking about what would happen if a republican wins the White House and if repubs, which they almost surely will, retain control of the House- and perhaps the Senate:
The obvious: A truly heinous and backward looking SCOTUS
More tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy
Shredding the social safety net
War
The nail in the coffin of women's reproductive rights
Increase in the intrusion of religion in all aspects of politic
Significant increase in the already bloated defense budget
Substantive weakening of environmental laws. They will gut the EPA
Yeah, I think Hillary Clinton is way too tied to corporate interests and yes, I think she's essentially a hawk. I don't think much of her judgment in more than a few arenas and I think she's a shitty campaigner. I don't believe much good will come with a Clinton presidency but it won't be the horrific shit show that a repub Presidency, powered by control of a right wing legislative branch would be.
I'll fight like hell for a better candidate, but barring the extraordinary, she'll be the candidate. I think she stands a good chance of blowing it if she is, and in my state it doesn't really matter if I vote for her- Vermont will vote for the dem candidate by big margins- but when it comes down to it, I have to vote against the repubs.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)And state they are a "cover" for her...
That is complete nonsense.
Glad to see you have come to your senses. These things do mean something. And also, I think it is a good barometer on the type of policies we will see from her.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think she'll be a lousy, disappointing President- if she makes it to the White House, which frankly, I doubt. She's a for shit campaigner.
I really have very low expectations for her.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)and that is why I think her record there should not be seen as some sort of cover....
How you are disconnecting the two is beyond me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)who just so happens to be to the Right of Hillary Clinton?
"low expectations and "shit campaigner"
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)You are joking isnt it?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)when, she was FLOTUS.....do you not remember her tireless and Herculean effort at trying to get health care for all? Countless months of research, Committee meetings, House presentations, then ultimately the way the REPs slammed her down and tried to shut her up. Things like that should be remembered and added to the + column. Too many are looking for anything and everything to put the - column as if it were the sum total of what she brings to the table as a possible Presidential hopeful.
Hekate
(90,829 posts)...to approach them in "their" territory. For having the nerve to be a FLOTUS who was not just an appendage to her politician-husband, but a woman with her own career and her own mind.
Barack Obama, though he referenced the health care success of Governor Romney, also took lessons from Hillary's experience with health care and the US Congress.
Michelle Obama, though she has taken on "family and child" issues, has put very aggressive energy into them not limited to white-glove receptions. Michelle also had her own career independent of her husband before the White House. Hillary paved the way for her.
Hillary Clinton and the GOP hate-machine go waaaaaay back.
asjr
(10,479 posts)Hillary Clinton do not vote for her! Besides she has yet to announce. There will be many more coming out of the woodwork to run for President.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)a handful...not out of the woodwork....that would be the cockroaches known as republicans...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I jsut think pretty much any other Democrat would hold those same social stances, that they're not anything exceptional for any politician on the left.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)In the long run having a republican in the WH would be a total disaster. I would like to see someone else win the nomination also, but the bottom line is whoever wins the democratic nomination will also get my vote, even if it's not the one I support in the primary.
It's where I have been from day 1. I really don't trust HC and I think she will be very much like President Obama in that she will be willing to at least offer to make bad deals with the Repukes in the name of bipartisanship. Doesn't matter if they end up getting passed or not just the fact that they were and are willing to risk things like SS and Medicare at all, makes me trust them far less than I would like to be able to.
Still at the end of the day someone with at least some partially marginally Democratic ideals is far better than someone with zero like total Repukes in the General Election.
So I will vote for Hillary in the General Election but I hope there is another choice offered in the primaries, so we can at least send a clear message to her that she cannot just totally dismiss the concerns of the left.
riversedge
(70,309 posts)of the necessary art of compromise--negotiations with other countries when it comes to foreign policy. she also know the futility of the Iraq war. I truly believe she has leaned her lesson--maybe not entirely but has learned to step back. This I know in my gut and heart.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'm going to be VERY disappointed if she is the nominee; I still haven't made up my mind.
PearliePoo2
(7,768 posts)SCOTUS...SCOTUS...SCOTUS...SCOTUS...SCOTUS...SCOTUS......................................................................
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)We are only half fucked right now... if the GOP gets another Justice on the SCOTUS we are totally Fucked!
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Perhaps a slightly less offensive version, but you'll get it too. The Chances of the Republicans losing the Senate are pretty slim. Especially with Harry Reid's seat going open with his retirement.
So can Hillary get a dyed in the wool Liberal through the Senate as a SC Nominee? Nope, no way. No way in hell. They won't even bring that kind of nominee up for a vote. Best case scenario we can realistically hope for is another Kennedy. I'd like to remind you that Kennedy voted against Obamacare. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/anthony-kennedys-swing-vote-days-are-long-gone
Hillary won't go against Wall Street. She'll be on the speed dial of all of the types that want Warren to shut the hell up. Shall I continue to look at the situation realistically?
Besides, I just don't think she can win. I also want a Democrat, and I want the strongest Democrat we can get, by that I mean the most left we can get to show a real difference with the Republicans. I remember when Congress called the Wall Street Bailout a shit sandwich. Well, this election is shaping up to be another Shit Sandwich, and it doesn't matter what kind of condiment you put on the turd between the slices of bread, or what kind of bread you choose. It's going to be a turd no matter what. It shouldn't be, we shouldn't have to choose the candidate that has the most appetizing condiment on the turd. We should choose the best candidate there is. We damn sure shouldn't plan on taking a bite of that turd this far out. We may have to settle for it, but we damn sure shouldn't start out planning on settling for it. Talk about aiming low.
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't think she can win either.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The more bread you have the less shit you have to eat.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And Hillary v Jeb will make the swing voters think Jeb is the moderate one in this race...they have the ammo already primed against her...and Jeb will look like such a nice guy when the media is done working their magic..
CanonRay
(14,119 posts)but some of her stances trouble me, as do her ties to The Family, that wacko Christian organization in DC, and her way too close ties to Wall Street. As to the latter, I don't think that given the realities of post-Citizens United, anyone can get elected President without Wall Street. Sad but oh so true. They are holding us all hostage.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)on and on and on the Anti Hillary crowd makes allegations....but never have proof!
CanonRay
(14,119 posts)She has never had an affiliation with The Family?
PS: I'm not "with" the anti-Hillary crowd. I like her, I'll vote for her. But I do have my concerns.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Provide proof...
By the way....she IS to the left of Barack Obama...
CanonRay
(14,119 posts)"Hillary Clinton described meeting the leader of the Fellowship in 1993: "Doug Coe, the longtime National Prayer Breakfast organizer, is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship to God." Clinton, Hillary (2003), Living History, Simon & Schuster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29
"For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulatingor living her faith?" Mother Jones, 9/1/2007
"Hillary Clinton's shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldmanthe firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundationprompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)" David Corn, Mother Jones, 6/4/14 Title: Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs Problem
"Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.
At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton familys global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures."
-Hillary Clinton's Complex Corporate Ties, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15
Still and all, I'll gladly vote for her, because a) we need a woman in the White House and she's well qualified, and 2) The GOP is made up of assholes and/or billionaires, and all their candidates are war mongering dipshits.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How does that give her close ties in 2016?
I had some rather unsavory meetings myself in 1993 how about you?
And you do know WHAT the Clinton Foundation does right? Please tell me you know....
Here is a list:
Charities & foundations supported 59
Bill Clinton has supported the following charities listed on this site:
46664
AIDS LIFE
Aid Still Required
ALAS
American Foundation for AIDS Research
American India Foundation
Apne Aap
Artists for a New South Africa
Artists for Peace and Justice
Avoided Deforestation Partners
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Bottletop
Bush Clinton Coastal Recovery Fund
CAMFED
CHOC South Africa
Chris Tucker Foundation
Clinton Bush Haiti Fund
Clinton Foundation
Clinton Global Initiative
Conservation International
Cotlands
Elton John AIDS Foundation
FC Harlem
Food Bank For New York City
Global Fund
Heifer International
HELP USA
i.am.angel foundation
Ithemba Trust
Jewish National Fund
J/P Haitian Relief Organization
K.I.D.S.
Kiva
Make-A-Wish Foundation
MASSIVEGOOD
MusiCares
Music Rising
Natural Resources Defense Council
Oceana
PeacePlayers International
Reach For A Dream Foundation
Red Cross
Robin Hood
ROTA
Rush Philanthropic Arts Foundation
Save the Children
Save The Music Foundation
STILLERSTRONG
St. Mary's Hospital
The Lunchbox Fund
The Rainforest Foundation
TJ Martell Foundation
Treatment Action Campaign
US Doctors for Africa
Usher's New Look Foundation
Walkabout Foundation
Walter Sisulu Paediatric Cardiac Centre for Africa
World Vision
Yum-o!
but of course you want to condemn her for meeting with (at that time unknown to be shady yet) religious organizations....meanwhile overlooking ALL of that and that is current!
CanonRay
(14,119 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)The actual mechanics and difficulties of the office transform him/her in ways that can't be foreseen. I'm not crazy about Clinton but I will vote for her if she's the nominee and I don't think she will be as much of a disappointment as first impressions may indicate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)Just read somewhere that the Green Party candidate for president thinks it is time for a third party to win the presidency. This does not bode well for Democrats, Hillary or any other candidate.
My vote goes to Bernie Sanders.... or Hillary, if need be.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)what a cluster fuck a REPUBLICAN in office would be....don't you think?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But unless they have lots of money and a good candidate, that really energizes people, that won't mean squat.
Perot was the most successful third partier I can recall, with something like 19% of the popular vote, and I still seem to recall he didn't get a single electoral vote. Nader only scored something like 5%, despite a long history as of public good. Then he acted like a total jackass in the wake of his loss, and when he ran again, got something like 1% or less.
If Bernie wants any sort of real shot at winning, he'll have to run as a Dem, because that's the only way he'll get big money behind him, and he doesn't have the sort of cash to pay for his own campaign. He's probably got enough people who like him to get on the ballot in most states, possibly all states, and to mount a volunteer ground game, but without throwing a (D) behind his name, he'll just not get the money for commercials and flyers and whatnot.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I'd prefer an out and out liberal and socialist
like Bernie Sanders.
But Hillary Clinton will be my candidate if she
is nominated, and I will vote for her.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)They know they can work in their own best interest and against the interest of the people who elected them, because those people will keep right on voting them into power. There is no downside to their betrayal, they win again and again. God help us all, we go like sheep to our own slaughter.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and there are liberal policies being pursued by the current Democratic administration.
99% of the problems we're having are due to the behavior of Republicans.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)"I'll hold my nose and vote for her."
That meaning is crystal clear. She does not represent what he believes in but he will participate in putting her in office. Where was I wrong?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The one thing that can be guaranteed in voting is that (a) every candidate will have flaws and will do something that pisses you off and (b) there will be significant differences between the Republican and the Democrat.
Clinton has many flaws. However, she is VASTLY preferable to the Republican alternative.
What is not rational is being indifferent between two candidates when one is clearly better than the other.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)Clinton can have those many flaws, because they cost her nothing. "Loyal Democrats" will ignore those flaws and vote for her. A Republican as badly flawed would go down in flames.
It isn't a matter of being "indifferent between two candidates." It's being so blindly loyal to one party, or being so irrationally terrified of another, that we are unable to force our party to change its ways. The sense of the argument seems to be that if we lose one election then Republicans will be in office forever and the nation will disintegrate into some sort of nightmare from wjhich there can be no recovery.
If we had the courage to lose one election to prove our poiunt to our politicians, we could come back in the next election with better politicians who would serve our interests better.
Republicans have done this and, while I consider their convictions to be utterly reprehinsible, I admire the courage of their conviction. They tell their politicians "you do what we elected you to do or we will vote you out of office." They lose the office to a Democrat for one term, and then they come back the next election with a candidate who adheres more closely to the principles of their party.
That's why Democrats so often stray from the principles of our party. That's why they can promise to end the war in Iraq and then vote to fund "the surge." That's why they can vote to renew the Patriot act, and vote for the Military Commisions Act, and vote in favor of immunity for the telecom industry. Thet's why they can not only vote for but can sponsor bankruptcy reform. Because they do these thing and we reelect them.
A Republican who voted against any of those things was voted out of office. Lesson learned. But Democratic voters are more worried about losing an election than they are about standing up for what they believe.
Not only do we not punish them, but when we slap them on the wrist they don't even listen. Clinton loses the last time she ran and when she runs this time we treat her as "the anointed one," and she cheerfully accepts the mantle.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They ALWAYS show up in the general.
Where they go after their squishy moderates is in the primary process.
How did letting Bush beat Gore in 2000 work out for you folks?
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)...to races for Congress, the Senate or state and local races. It is absolutely standard practice, and in fact the Republican Committe will go to legislators who are waffling on a bill and tell them point balnk, "Vote our way on the bill or we will primary you." Meaning they will raise his "wrong vote" in the primary election and defeat him in the next election. Democrats... Never, because it would not work. Democrats will not vote for a non-incumbent in the primary because of the risk of losing in the general.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Clinton hasn't even announced for the primary yet, there will be primary voting and her opponents will get the chance to make their case against her
But, Republicans do not skip the general.
They do have more success in the primary in terms of knocking out moderates and replacing them with ideologically pure candidates. But that has cost them several Senate seats.
There are at least 5 seats they lost because the far-right wing nutjob knocked out a more electable alternative:
Richard Mourdock (IN)
Todd Akin (MO)
Ken Buck (CO)
Christine O'Donnell (DE)
Sharron Angle (NV)
If those five clowns hadn't knocked off less crazy Republicans, we would not have gotten a single nominee through the Senate last year.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT. They are willing to lose those seats to make their point to their politicians. They next set of legislatore will do precisely what the voters told them to do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)You are neglecting to note the reasons I'll be holding my nose and voting for her.
Essentially, the reasons are real people who will suffer far more under a repub president and legislative branch- and not just in this country. Maybe children, women of childbearing age, the elderly, the disabled, etc, don't matter to you, but they do to me.
Renew Deal
(81,875 posts)That assumes there is a betrayal, but that's a different story.
You must have missed 2000-2008. Are you still happy you voted for Nader? You really showed us Democrats.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)And I most certainly have not forgotten 2000-2008. Were you payingm attention? We elected Democrats to control of Congress based on their npromise to end the war in Iraq and instead we got "the surge and" renewal of the Patriot Act. We reelected them anyway and got the Military Commissions Act, and immunizations for the telecom industries. You better believe I remember 2000-2008.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)She will not be elected President
blm
(113,100 posts)But
..I will.
I will hate doing it
but
.I will.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)are aware of who are really the Clintons.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)of eventual peace, prosperity and progress, and a brighter future for the next generation.
Conservatives see the big picture too, but it's armageddon and the glorious and terrible rapture. Getting to watch all but them suffer the tortures of hell. Yay!
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)state when that party is for all intents and purposes 'Fascist v 2.0' should TERRIFY any rationally-minded person.
If the choices are 'center-right' (HRC) and 'fascist' (pick any Republican other than Jon Huntsman or Chuck Hagel), this election should be a no-brainer.
One objective in 2016 should be to 'defend' the Executive Branch to keep it from falling into the hands of the Fascists. I'll gladly hold my nose in 2016 to prevent that from happening.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And I hope that if Hillary wins the presidency she will exceed your expectations.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)the only qualification for a Republican president is to sign legislation passed by a Republican Congress.
Our Democratic nominee, whoever it might be, is the only one standing between us and the Apocalypse.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)More tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy
Shredding the social safety net
War
The nail in the coffin of women's reproductive rights
Increase in the intrusion of religion in all aspects of politic
Significant increase in the already bloated defense budget
Substantive weakening of environmental laws. Gut the EPA
Congratulations!
GOP = "God-Owful Platform"
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)even for a Lesser-Evil, in fact votes against their better interest!
marmar
(77,091 posts)Cosmocat
(14,574 posts)in the primary ...
Once the dust settles, the choice will be pretty stark.
It isn't her fault, she is who she is.
If she ends up the party candidate, it will be because that is who democrats support the most.
I get the concerns, I am not in love with her at this point.
But, I will take her 1,000,000 times over whatever jackwagon is on the other end of the ballot November 2016.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)If Clinton's our candidate, let's make her become the best Clinton we can.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Geez, as one who considers himself pretty much a tree hugger, I really like Hillary. There is no one candidate that is perfect for anyone not even the beloved Warren or Sanders both of whom I happen to like a lot, too.
Dont blame Hillary if other Dems dont jump in the primary race, but if they do, I look forward to a robust debate. I also look forward to supporting Hillary Clinton during the Dem primary and for President of the United States!
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Stellar
(5,644 posts)Just hold your nose the way the rest of us non-Hillary lovers would do and vote for her. That's the same thing I said about her in 2008 when she was up against Obama, and I'll do it again in 2016. After all, I'm sure there were some of her fans that felt that way about Obama that helped him win the election. (Hey, it's like...I really wanted single payer but our healthcare is what it is...better than nothing.) I guess we can't have it all.
Now...enough of this madness.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)but I wish her well if she runs.
I live in CT. Recent trends suggest the DEM nominee will win my state regardless of my vote.
If she runs and polls show a tight recent in the general in my state, then I will reconsider.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Many key indicators in all aspects of life on earth point to not so rosy times ahead.
At least though, as we learn the truth, the truth that you cannot control what happens in the future by controlling the present.
This reasoning of this idea gets magnified with every concern and person in that planing that gets cut out of the planing loop.
In short, the waxed wings are no match to the sunshine and gravity
cali
(114,904 posts)no matter what the long term indicators are, we could rush to a grim future or try to hold it off.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I am for it and will keep on with it, but to realize the math is starting to work against that equation, planing ahead as many steps ahead as possible becomes much more important. We all make it to to future to one point or another. The reasoning or idea of being aware that circumstances could always eclipse plans by others.
Through history we see what happens when small groups in power take to their plans while also disregarding the well being of others not in their plans. Participating in some canard that is claimed to be representative government is now more of the ceremony than a reality. I don't have a hope or thinking that some singularity will be coming to power and solving the problems that are going to come up but more of our collective realizing we will probably have to do it altogether
It's mostly just a matter of mathematics of how and why things come forward that are not in the plans. Not that i see bad ahead, i just see it not going the way that small group has in their plans.
blm
(113,100 posts)Why keep trying to sell it?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I live in Montana, so my vote will count toward the Republican no matter how I vote. Watching Presidential elections can be exciting for me, but I show up to vote for all the other stuff on the ballot.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)I'm in California. In both the primaries and General my vote for president doesn't usually make a whole lot of difference. (Our primaries tend to be late and the nominees are usually pretty locked in) But there are lots of state and local issues and candidates where I do feel I have an effect.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)At least as far as I know.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)We must win this one
Hekate
(90,829 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)we'd get
A corpo-friendly and backward-looking SCOTUS
More--but not quite as steep--tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy
Multiple efforts to shred the social safety net
War
Women's reproductive rights used as a wedge issue back at liberals
The Family in foreign policy
Significant increase in the already bloated defense budget
Substantive weakening of environmental laws. They will sorta gut the EPA
Rex
(65,616 posts)will have the image of President Paul or President Cruz flash in their minds and instantly go and vote for HRC.
They just won't tell anyone.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . and the choices available are often far from perfect. I have had major issues with President Obama since early in his first term. Nevertheless, I voted for him both times. Do I regret having voted for him, given the choices we had in 2008 and 2012? Of course not. Does that alter my profound disappointment with him on a number of major issues? Again, of course not. So, like you, Cali, if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her, even if unenthusiastically. At the same time, however, I will continue to hope for, and work for, a better nominee that more closely represents the values and priorities I stand for. But in the end, I remain a realist who has no desire to see the country collectively shoot itself in the foot by electing a Republican. And should HIllary win, and should her actions and priorities begin to reflect the hawkish, corporatist bent I fear they will, you can bet I will be just as outspoken against those policies and priorities as I have been against the policies and priorities of President Obama that I have profoundly disagreed with.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)They have always made sense to me, even when I sometimes only partially agreed with them from my own perspective. The only thing that never really made sense to me, which seemed out of character for someone who cares as much about the issues as you do, was never having seen you acknowledge what you very articulately do in this OP. I too want a better candidate for President than Hilary Clinton. I really appreciate your fighting spirit to try to make that a reality. I also appreciate your spelling out is stark simple terms our obvious need to close ranks around Hillary if it really comes down to her against any Republican who stands any chance of winning that party's nomination.
Good post, passion AND sanity.
cali
(114,904 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... still better than a Scott Wanker.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Seems to me there are two separate undercurrents of debate, here on DU, around this:
One is "you should vote for the Dem. Nominee for President, period" - true, but ...premature.
Two is "you need to accept that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable nominee, fuck anything resembling an actual primary process"
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I apologize for linking your past thread vowing not to vote for her recently. I had not seen this thread when I posted that.
The thing about her "hawkishness." She has to run as a hawk, the American public demands it. She has to be "tough." The reality is that she'll continue Obama's diplomacy policy. She can't reasonably undo what Obama built. It would be a step back. And she knows that. Little steps. There's no way that Clinton, as President, suddenly goes to war with Iran, for example. It's beyond belief.
cali
(114,904 posts)troubles me more- and I do think she has an extra burden by dint of her gender.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)When Hillary lost in the primaries to Obama and it became apparent that she was not to be the nominee.....I swore up and down that I would not vote for him. But at the end of the day, I knew I could not vote for McCain and Palin or any other Republican and I did indeed vote for Obama. I'm glad I did....but now it's Hillary's time. A lot of us have been waiting a lot of years for this.
liberal N proud
(60,346 posts)I also realized that a 2 party system is a reality and they are never going to allow that to change in our lifetime. We are dumped into three buckets politically, Democrats, republicans and your vote doesn't make a difference.
Since republicans are evil and I want to do everything in my power (voting) to keep them out, that means that I have to vote Democrat, I have to support the Democratic nominee no matter how imperfect he or she is because the alternative is some sick asshole from the republican party.
It is a reality.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I don't see how she can win the general.