But having several friends that are undocumented and live in fear of deportation to back to a land they long forgot or do not care to remember I can not support a man who supported the Minutemen, detention centers for immigrants, and opposed Ted Kennedy's 2007 immigration bill...

Start right at the top. We need to take our country back from the oligarchs.

If the court can swing on Citizen's United a new political ball game can be enacted and campaign finance reform can be a reality. The downstream effect of this will help on all other progressive issues in future elections.

& electing her will help end corporate-purchased & controlled govt?

Sure, that makes sense.

The Republicans realize that, with the racial demographic changes in this country, they will not be able to achieve their agenda by way of the Legislative Branch. Therefore, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH MEANS EVEYTHING TO THEM !!!! if we don't wrestle control of the Judicial Branch, you can forget about overturning Citizen's United or reeling in corporate corruption.

Our foreign policies are about protections and profits..we sustain racism in part due to the
continued corruption that stems from prisons for profits..the more powerful these entities
become they take on a spiral effect. Corrupted politicians push for judges that enable further
injustice, the poor and minorities and the disabled are at the greatest risk for harm.


It is beyond disheartening when I read here the astonishing disconnect Clinton voters
have about this issue. The thing is, it could have been any other Dem and if they had
the same compromised record as she does, we would reject them as well.

...but at a certain level I wonder if she were a man if they would be OK with her record.

behind in delegate counts. I get how many here believe they know
but until this is over only then we should be able to measure the
variables that have been at play.

To answer your question more directly, I don't see evidence the
female angle is playing a significant role for Clinton but with that
said, lets remember a bit of recent history. It was Warren who
they believed was the threat, the threat agrees not to run.
It makes sense, if you want to see the first woman president
why would the public pick one that was compromised with WS
and horrific trade deals, war votes vs one that is not?

Vote for Hillary, she is the ultimate insider? What would
their slogan have been against Warrren...see what I'm saying?
So yea, they were worried about her record if another
woman ran against her.

Hillary and her husband have done great harm to the country,
their policies were brutal and the impact they have had
persists today. Deregulate WS, trade deals, her propensity
for military conflicts. I honestly do not know why anyone
who does not benefit from said policies wants to see them
back in the WH.

Without it, there is no Democracy.

The USA is beyond saving.

RIP

Followed by social rights - womens rights, LGBT rights, minority rights, etc.

But the Supreme Court is the biggie. All the progress that has been made, inch by bloody inch over the past half century could be undone in a matter of a few years. They will send us back to the Dark Ages. That is not acceptable.

But more fundamental are integrity and judgement in making hard choices.

corruption pretty much ensures nothing much will be done for the PEOPLE regarding ANYTHING.

There's only one candidate who is untainted, who can act upon principle rather than corporate influence.

And what's more, his campaign proves that candidates do not NEED that money to compete, thereby destroying that rationale. There's no longer an excuse -- it's corruption, plain & simple.