The Democratic Party left me. I will never be for a party who fucks over the least of us and disregards the fact that our grandchildren and their children will be very greatly effected by climate change and sadly many will die. The breathtaking stupidity of so many in this country makes me want to vomit. I'm done.

I simply felt that this needed to be said. I will point out, yet again. We see Hillary as the embodiment of corruption. Our views won't change that. Even if Bernie Sanders ends up endorsing her. I was woken up, I will not go back to sleep.

I'm just really disheartened.

He's changed some aspects of the campaign, made Hillary lean more left.

The true purpose of this campaign for me, is to get money out of politics, and Hillary can never do that. We have a strong, revolution ahead of us, no matter what. I admit, it will be harder if Bernie isn't nominated.


But Bernie still won his main battle, informing people. I hope to see him lead it with us in the future, President, or not.

The reason they are fired up is Bernie, all this does is prove them right.

but that doesn't mean they will get my vote. I will caucus again until I can't. But my ballot will belong to the issues I care about.

I still need to research the best approach to fighting it. I will note, that it's barely worked so far for us, within the party.

And that's what we have to accept. Have we not provided as much as we could?

Have we not shown what we think is corruption, only to be laughed at?

We are Divided. As much as the Republicans now. If not MORE.


Because we actually divide on Issues.

I live in the Greater Seattle Area and we can got the $15, we got a socialist and we can create the party, at least in our area to be more progressive. Still, I will always vote for the most progressive on the ballot.

I like that.

Is there on that appeals to you or will you become an independent?

The Democratic Party left me as well. If so-called Dems are happy with the corporate takeover of everything (gov't, education, healthcare...) and are okay with the current Party's complicity and support of that takeover, then they can have it. They have aided and abetted the coming end. We are Rome approaching 79AD

is not always an ideological consideration.

Politically I'm far more oriented toward Sanders' worldview than Clinton's, but I don't feel Bernie has anything even close to the raw intellectual ability or personal/political savvy to be an effective leader. I'm not voting for Most Pure, I'm voting for the POTUS.

Bernie can't negotiate, he can't convince, he can't outflank, and he can't outthink the people with who he'll be dealing (all IMHO, natch.) He's not President Material. I believe Secretary Clinton is.

Your mileage may vary.

I see your point, and I don't think politics needs to be played that way. To truly progress as a a nation and a world. But I understand, like I said our views are quite polar.

to Iraq for her own political ambition is presidential material?

He voted the same way as Hillary.

fought in that wasteful Vietnam war and having known the Bushes were liars since he investigated Iran-Contra, he really should have known better. It was a vote of moral and political cowardice. And it cost him in the end because throughout the campaign, he ended up twisting himself in knots trying to explain and justify the unjustifiable.

Back in 2004, many of us held our noses and voted for him because we still had HOPE. The US had only been in Iraq for one year and Afghanistan for 3. The crash due to Clinton's reversal of Glass- Steagall hadn't happened and Honduras, Libya and Syria hadn't occurred.

But now we see the Corporatists, the MIC and the pols who are bought and paid for by them more clearly and there is no more voting for the not-so-lesser of two evils. In fact, I think the duplicity of Dems like HRC is worse than repukes because of the lip service to Democratic principles and values while upending the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society. With Repukes we know we'll be screwed

Are you going to hold your nose and vote for Hillary or are you going to write-in Bernie or vote for another candidate or sit it out or what?

Curious to know what you are thinking.

and concentrate on local races

and going home". Never known to have produced any positive results. But you will have the satisfaction of finding yourself in the same league as the poor souls who wrote in "Ben Carson" on the Rethuglican side in the NY Primary,

I don't give a damn because if so-called Dems are happy with the corporate takeover of everything (gov't, education, healthcare...) and are okay with the current Party's complicity and support of that takeover and its promotion of a candidate who is the embodiment of everything antithetical to the Democratic Party like NAFTA, overturning Glass-Steagall, unending war and regime change, fracking, poisoning (Monsanto)..., then they can have it. They have aided and abetted the coming end. We are Rome approaching 79 AD

So, I'll take my ball while I can!

Is there any scenario where you might vote for Hillary?

For instance, if Bernie came out and supported her.

Though, I'm with you on that.

I think she is more well rounded, with better coalitions in place, so she can actually achieve more than SBS can. He has just burned too many bridges at this point, and he can't walk it back.

Have you completely forgotten the 1990s? Every Republican voted against Bill's very first piece of legislation: the Omnibus Budget Bill of 1993. Then there was scandal after scandal after scandal. The Dems started hemorrhaging Congressional seats and gubernatorial (Ann Richards and Mario Cuomo) positions in 1994 with Newt's revolution. And it's only gotten worse under the new DNC with DWS... more losses in 2010 and again in 2014 made worse by gerrymandering.

Bill's Telecommunications Bill, Crime Bill, Welfare Reform Bill and reversal of Glass-Steagall were only supported because at their core, they were all Republican ideas. HRC supported Bush's IWR, Patriot acts 1&2 and Bankruptcy bill, again... repuke ideas.

Some fucking coalition. Further to the right than Nixon

And with corporate healthcare, corporate education, corporate government and corporate personhood, etc. the USSC will remain firmly in the hands of and for the benefit of corporations regardless of who's in the White House.

all over the country, and some great proposals she may be able to get bipartisan support for. Those "establishment" people you are all so eager to dismiss like Planned Parenthood are planning to continue working with her, whereas they are a much lower priority for Bernie.

her own self-promotion!

But Hillary is where she is because of powerful men!

She rode Bill's coat tails to power. He had the intellect (Georgetown Univ, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law), charisma, gift of gab, and natural ability to connect with people. She was smart, too (Wellesley, Yale Law), and after law school, she went to DC to work on the Nixon impeachment committee, but her stint there did not last long because, among other reasons, she did not pass the DC bar. She tells the story that she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) founded by Marian Wright Edelman as evidence of her advocacy for children and that's true... some 20 plus years ago. But recall that Marian’s husband, Peter Edelman who became Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest over the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act better known as Welfare Reform because of the dire effects it would have on the poor, especially women and children. HRC supported Bill and the bill; but Peter Edelman was right.

So after leaving DC, what did HRC do? She ran off to Arkansas! Yes, this dynamo of feminism whom so many women say could have done anything, been anything on her own… did not go back to her native Chicago, did not go back to New England (MA, CT) where she was educated. No, she ran off to Arkansas. She chased after Bill because she recognized his rising star. He had the talent to go along with the intellect. He had held leadership positions nearly all his life: high school (Boy’s State) and college (class president for 2 years, etc.). He became Governor, chaired the National Governors’ Association and finally became POTUS. It was only through him that she was introduced to the nation and even then, it was rocky because of her abrasive, snarky remarks about baking cookies.

When she ran for POTUS in 2008, she cited her 20 years of experience. Really? First Lady of AK for 12 years and FLOTUS for 8 years. Oh, and she was a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm where her client was Walmart – that champion of poor people – and where she relied heavily on the counsel of Vince Foster.

She could never have carpet bagged her way to the NY Senate seat had she not been FLOTUS. And once in the Senate, what did she DO? What legislation or amendments to legislation illustrate her initiative or activism on behalf of the people. She voted aye for IWR, the Patriot Acts 1 & 2 and Bush's Bankruptcy bill (google Elizabeth Warren on that travesty)sure were a big help to us all

And let's talk about that IWR vote in depth because there was, and remains, no excuse or justification for it and here's why

Reason 1: Iraq did not attack the US; fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis while the other four were from the UAE, Egypt, Yemen. They learned to fly here in the States (Florida, Arizona). Bin Laden was also Saudi!

Reason 2: Iraq had been under horrific UN sanctions since the first Bush war on Iraq in 1991; so how could it have morphed into an imminent threat to the US in 2002 when IWR was being peddled

Reason 3: W's administration introduced IWR and demanded a vote on it right before the 2002 midterm elections. Wise men and women questioned the timing and the rush, but not those who voted aye... they had their eyes on being POTUS and cast calculating votes that reeked of political and moral cowardice.

Reason 4: Anyone who was paying attention knew about PNAC and therefore knew how the Bush cabal and Carlyle group had their eyes on carving up Iraq's oil fields. Clinton sure knew because the signers of PNAC policy papers wrote Bill seeking pre-emptive action while he was POTUS.

Reason 5: the Bush cabal STOLE the White House in 2000 because they had their PNAC plans. Then, they ignored all the warnings/chatter leading up to 9/11 including the August 6th PDB. They allege they were blindsided and could not have foreseen such an attack. But that flies in the face of the fact that the airspace had to be closed around the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001 precisely because of terrorists' threats to fly planes into buildings! So therefore, why would any sentient 'leader' of the opposition party trust or "have good faith" in ANYTHING proposed by W

Reason 6: Anyone who knew history, knew that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam/Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). So when Cheney took to the airwaves in 2002 talking about WMDs and said he knew where they were and how they'd been used against the Kurds, he was telling the truth... about 1988. He was using his dirty past to foment a new war for oil

Reason 7: the Bush cabal withdrew the weapons inspectors because they were not finding anything. Scott Ritter (who was smeared) and his fellow inspectors' findings would not/did not conform to the desired Bush narrative, so Colin Bowel sold his soul and did his 'tube' presentation to the UN

Reason 8: Citing the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, Robert Byrd gave an eloquent and passionate speech about lies that lead to war, about the waste of war, about the unintended consequences of war... and he challenged the rush to war. Bob Graham (who actually read the documents available to Congress) and Ted Kennedy spoke as well. Why didn't HRC listen to them rather than Bush or Cheney? No, she gave Bush bipartisan cover with her aye vote, and so she has blood on her hands, too!

Clearly the rationale for IWR was all a LIE, and if millions of citizens could see all this THEN, why not Clinton?! She voted aye, ran for POTUS and lost in large measure because of that vote. Votes have consequences and there is no apology large enough to cover a cowardly, finger-in-the-wind vote that has caused so much death, debt, destruction and destabilization (ISIS)!

Back to the narrative. Then there was her abysmal management and nasty conduct during the 2008 primary campaign. She had the money, she had the name, she was entitled, she was "in it to win it" and so arrogant that she claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday. But when it wasn't and she was losing, she resorted to the gutter. She praised McCain and derided Obama as someone who only gave pretty speeches. And when the Party urged her to bow out gracefully, she said that she was going to stay in the race through the CA primary because "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy..." Her insinuation (a veiled wish?) that Obama might be assassinated like RFK was beyond classless and tasteless. It was evil (google Keith Olbermann on that atrocity). And when she finally, gracelessly bowed out, she did so on condition that the Obama organization and DNC pay off her campaign debt. Some management skills, just like her Wall Street benefactors who f--- things up, then expect others to pay for the disaster they created.

On to SOS, where Obama selected her because he'd been inspired by Lincoln's team of rivals and wanted to keep her busy and away so she couldn't be a quasi-backbencher sniping at him. In the end, she was also terrible in that position. Her Honduras regime change led many including children -- some alone and as young as 5 -- to flee the disaster that nation subsequently became. Same with Libya and Syria. HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. And to make matters worse, while at State, she also sold weapons to Saudi Arabia (home of bin laden, and 15/19 hijackers) and in return, the Saudis donated to that slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.

She is part of the Clinton legacy (the two for one, the 8 years of reflected experience derived from Bill). She helped found the DLC and fully supported: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill of 1996, Welfare Reform (not), and overturning Glass-Steagall. She and Bill kept Alan Greenspan at the Fed, placed the then Mr. Goldman Sucks himself Robert Reuben as head of Treasury and hired as financial advisor that abominable Wall Streeter Larry Summers (who lost a $1.8 billion from Harvard's endowment!). This Clinton triumvirate wrecked the economy for main street, but saved Wall Street, especially Goldman-Sachs which has subsequently paid her handsomely. And as DUer tularetom once said: "They didn't pay her that kind of money because of her oratorical skills, her charismatic personality or her insight into current events. She has none of the first two and very little of the third."

We, the people, reaped the whirlwind of that 1999 Glass-Steagall reversal for which every repuke in the Senate voted AYE while every Dem -- save one -- voted NAY. Bill signed it into law anyway, paying no heed to the canary-in-the-mine Democrats who warned that this dastardly new law would lead to disaster 10 years hence. Sure enough it did, harming families throughout the land. And Wall Street was and remains Hillary's BFF!

This is why I find her abhorrent. And I haven't even touched on fracking, the TPP, Keystone, Monsanto. She has never DONE anything that is positive or constructive; and she wouldn't have been squat as Atty. Hillary Rodham! She needed Bill's political skills and charisma, HIS positions as Governor and POTUS to be foisted onto US. She's in it for herself, she plays sexist gender politics, she lies about her awful record, she changes her mind with the political winds, she panders, she pads her pockets...

So spare me your tripe. I don't need a cure. This nation and I need a real leader who is on the right side of history and the people's side of issues.

Carolina, MD
Medical School Dean who knows smart, ambigitious, accomplished women in their own right who do what is right!

on this were good enough to share? HA HA.


I have to wonder if half of you guys even read the crap you cut and post again and again.....
Clinton has had an amazing career, and thank god the electorate is wiser than you in recognizing it and voting for her.

recommended OP I wrote earlier. Importantly, I see you cannot refute the content or provide examples of HRC's good works (versus pandering lip service) on behalf people versus six-figure benefactors or quid pro quo corporate sponsors. And what part of her career has been amazing other than the amazingly POOR judgment she has demonstrated when she has wielded power.

So long ... you're not worth wasting any more time responding to.

ass protest position he has made because nothing ever comes of them. He'd be out of the senate if the bank bailout was denied and caused a depression. He won;t face up to his role in the crash because of the swaps and derivatives vote.

He is nothing but a professional spoiler who criticizes everyone else for actually doing things. He has burned all his bridges, and about to fuck himself out of a speaking spot at the convention this summer unless he stops with the bullshit innuendo.

I have zero tolerance for people acting like assholes towards each other. Shame on those people who are treating this like a fucking sporting event. We are all progressives, so people need to stop acting like a bunch of trump supporting douchbags.

One should not post on sleeping pills. I was a mess last night

...LBJ/McCarthy/Bobby/Humphrey, 1968...Humphrey/McGovern, 1972...Carter/Udall/Jackson, 1976...Teddy/Carter, 1980...Mondale/Hart, 1984...Dukakis/Jackson, 1988...Clinton/Tsongas, 1992...Gore/Bradley, 2000...Kerry/Dean, 2004...Obama/Clinton, 2008...every one of them tore the party up just like Hillary/Bernie did, and the Democratic Party survived. It will this time, too. I'm a Sanders supporter, and I'll vote for the nominee in November enthusiastically. And fully expect to see the same pattern repeat itself in--ahem--2024...

I think most of us will come around in November no matter which candidate wins. I'll certainly support Bernie if he wins even though I dislike him far beyond his policies because he's worlds better than anyone on the other side. In 2008, the "take my toys and go home" people were the Hillary PUMAs. I was A Hillary supporter then but I was not a PUMA and frankly wish we could keep Obama forever because he has a fitness that none of these candidates this season have had.

I honestly do not believe that most of the people here who actually will not come around are actually Democrats. Yes, we need independents and they do matter but this is not Independent Underground.

Most people look for and support the candidate who is closest to where they are. I was surprised to find a candidate as far left as I am, but I did not expect it. I have never had that experience before. But since I realize I'm way on the left side of the party, I understand that I am usually going to vote for people to the right of me. I'm very surprised that so many people at DU expect their candidates to be right where they are. We as a whole are to the left. We aren't often going to have candidates so far left.

We have the lowest turnout compared to other nations like ourselves, and we're in America, and I'm starting to think.

Our current system is designed in a way, Most people won't accept it, but figure it won't change. But hey, it could be worse. That's our system. It's just the way it is. So the question is asked,why vote to most average Americans, while the rest, accept the choices they are given.


This thought process, all around America occurs. Are we lazy? Or is our politics too simplified for the average voter to care? This was my first time voting. At this moment, I believe, people have to stand up. Because slowly, the less control we'll have.

America can't progress, if it's stuck in it's current process. For example, the more we adapt politics like this, the more we get behind other countries. Why is this? Because profit and politicians wanting it from corporations.

We have to remember, corporations aren't people. And they will continue to undermine our economy, for profit. Not our country. It's hard to turn a blind eye to these same corporations donating to Hillary, because I know she will turn a blind eye towards them in return.


Again those are my views. Fully accept if it's different. Bottom line: I see no change in the future if we go about it the same way. And while it may be harder, refuse to give in to lesser evils for corporate giants.

Why would candidates be as far left as the outliers? Why wouldn't they reflect America more? This idea that we can demand our politicians be as far left as a pretty small group of us, again, feels weird. I've always voted for whoever is on the left, hoping that when more progressive candidates do well, more progressive candidates run for office, and that things start to build on themselves. But I know that our country isn't where I am.

If you're way to the left, you can label every, or almost every, politician as a "lesser evil." Almost all of them are to the right of us at DU. Either you make a rational choice and work with our democratic political system to move the country to the left as you can, or you're basically an anarchist. You end up being outside the political system, and having no effect on it. I don't want to waste what little influence I have - my vote. I'll make it do as much as it can. At my state's primary, that meant I voted for Bernie. But now, it looks like it'll mean voting for Hillary. The other option is to let Trump move us back to the right, back where GWB had us. I absolutely don't want that.

I hope there are fundamental differences within the party. Would be frightening if theire weren't.

We are about Democracy and the rule of the majority instead of a minority. That is a much larger principle than freebies for all.