My Opinion & Thoughts For Those Who Don't Support Clinton!

This is a reply I made on another post today, with a few additions...

While I WILL fight for another, I have begun to think that NO MATTER what "the base" says or does we essentially will be IGNORED! Without some SUPER kind of effort everywhere, Clinton has many by the short hairs and is even ACTING as if the Primaries aren't all that important to her!

The truth and DIRTY DIRTY reality of The Machine OF Hillary is that not only does she have super corporate, overwhelming lobbyist support, she also has managed to reach in and pluck almost every LARGE powerful organization in this country to support her! The support may not be strong, but all one needs to do is vote.

Not until today has it really hit home how very SCREWED we really are as a once great Democratic Party! Bought AND Paid for, wrapped up in silver and gold bows to present to a public who simply thinks a change of Party will make a difference.

But there is actually NO DIFFERENCE IMO! She has dipped into every nook of NYC to get tremendous support from many I could never have imagined would be fooled because they were once Liberals! Somehow she has managed to fool D.C. and is the Darling of the Elites, and in GOLLYWOOD, the likes of Rob Reiner blithely support her!! People who I ALWAYS imagined as true and loyal Democrats, maybe not super Liberals, but Liberals nonetheless, seem to have sold out too! And what for?? Mo' MONEY to line their pockets hoping for even more favors to make them even richer! More positions to keep them front and center and a way to keep ruling a once great country!

It sickens me to the core! As I said, I will work to help the candidate I support now... but given her anointment already I wonder how the other candidates must feel. Even her support on issues that aren't supported by many are being overlooked! Because as a song Jackson Browne once wrote said... They sell us our Presidents, like they sell us our clothes and our cars! Those words have never been more true to me. BTW the name of the song is "Lives In The Balance" from the 80's!

I'm tempted to say "should" she become the nominee, the "should" being the operative word... it almost seems a forgone conclusion despite what so many others really don't want to happen. I know some who support her, but it's soft, they just don't think anyone else is electable and that's SAD.

Another song comes to mind, Pink Floyd... MONEY! It's seared into my mind! I have made up my mind that this will be my last excursion into politics, and I don't see any difference between her and a Repuke candidate! So the day they say she's the nominee, that's the day I quit! I did support her once, but honestly feel she IS a TRUE DINO!

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER! I know some will call ME a traitor, but my gut tells me we won't see much change from her. I have to BELIEVE a candidate is on our side before I can cast my vote for one.

I WILL NOT JOIN ANOTHER PARTY, and what will be will be!

Flame Away!!!!!!

"stupid".I will not go so far as to call any candidates supporters, including those of Hillary "stupid' but many are buying the MSM spin. And that is very sad.

Thank you.

I haven't seen that.

ps - what's so awesome about a post where the OP says they won't vote for the Dem nominee?

and anyone who doesn't support Hillary is called "stupid "delusional" or a "traitor" by Hillary supporters..

I would be curious to see who these people are....

!!!!1111

The "base" of the Democratic party are those who are putting HRC over 50% nationally in 2 polls now.

-----------

ps - the "base" votes for the nominee, period. Which you say you're not going to do.

case closed

that I was considered part of "the base" and I don't think I said one word about "hate" about Hillary. I gave MY reasons why I can't support her which others may not agree with. You can do as you wish, and I have NEVER not voted, but this time is different. The fact that MSM tells us every day that Clinton is unstoppable should make some wonder. I can't remember a time in the past when this has happened so early, and it's VERY troubling to me.

Those people I KNOW who support her actually says it's because they are Democrats and she's GOING to be the nominee! I have a big problem with that! It makes ME feel like if I don't go along, and you basically said it yourself, that somehow I don't count. I WOULD like for my vote to count but it seems the powers that be are telling me WHO it will be, BEFORE even one vote has been cast. If that doesn't bother you, then so be it! If it happens this time around I think it will happen again. I don't find this very DEMOCRATIC!

I've watched clips from long ago, where the process of nomination was at the convention, as time has gone by, now it's the primaries, and NOW some states aren't even respecting those rules. My state is one of them. So what's next?

It's not something I didn't think through and I DO know what it means not to vote. It's going to feel strange because I have ALWAYS worked for the Democratic candidate. Stood out in the heat and did hours and hours of grunt work and volunteered when so many other never did. I've even been called all kinds of names, spit on, flipped off and had things thrown at me because I was willing to be out there! Many have said I'm TOO involved with politics too!

I understand times change, but IT IS important that people actually get involved and find out who and what they're voting for. I don't think it's cool to simply vote for someone because you hear it's what going to happen anyway! I don't have numbers, but if I were betting I'd say far too many so go along to get along. I'm just NOT one of them!

They and they alone, post hate articles about Hillary. Other people don't post hate articles about THEIR candidate. Shows class I guess on the part of the Hillary supporters and SOME, not all of the other candidates supporters post nothing but trash about her. They take after the swift boaters in the republican party.

They jump on Obama and Edwards every chance they get.You are just incorrect.

were attacked personally by a few rabid Hillary supporters. Many Hillary supporters, such as yourself, are reasonable and make a good case for her, but you have to acknowledge that there was and is the Hillary 44 sect. I know I was shocked when I was first attacked personally, because I was mostly posting positive things about Kerry and tried to be fair and fact based when criticizing actions of other candidates. I've always thought that you never win by spewing hate or lies. For many of us, attacks started when we disagreed with the contention that only HRC could win that they posted in spite of it being OT to our post. Any mention that the Clintons did have baggage led to personal attacks and claims that we were Republicans ... or worse. They meanwhile were willing to put anything done by all other candidates in the worst possible light. That Bill Clinton has made a similar, though more subtlely stated claim, that criticizing HRC is doing the Republicans job apparently makes this official.

That attitude is NOT the Democratic party that I have favored since 1960 when I was a 10 year old fascinated by the election. It also did not stop Clinton, himself, from commenting in a non positive way on the Gore campaign in 2000 to their man, Carville, actually giving Kerry campaign information to the Republicans. How can the Clintons continue to associate with Carville after that and then turn around before the primaries and say that any discussion of HRC negatives is wrong? Where is it written that the job of Democrats is to support Clintons but it is ok not to support other legitimate candidates of the party.

Although I suspect my emotions match those of the OP, I likely will vote in the GE for Clinton, but it will take a long time and sustained good actions before I will ever trust or like her again. I likely will not watch the convention - because it would be bad for my health. It will take more than words for them to regain trust - because it was through actions that they lost it. I will not phone bank or canvas for her because I would not be able to do so sincerely. In my state, in 2005 and 2006 when I canvassed and phoned, the feedback I got back most was that people were sick of corruption - and in NJ the party in power is the ours. I argued that Corzine and Menendez were not corrupt - and that was my personal belief at the time. I am not the right person to answer that for the Clintons.

When you are but a small part of the base.

"So the day they say she's the nominee, that's the day I quit!"

Why wait if the nomination is already over as you say?

but it's really not. What are the percentages of someone being hit by a car, or having a heart attack or stroke? Did anyone predict that Martin Luther King, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Jr, Malcolm X, John Lennon or many many others were going to get shot??

Anything can happen BEFORE... so I'm working for who I support NOW! I DON'T think any of the above will happen, but my father died of a heart attack without any warning and he wasn't that old! My next door neighbor's son died of cancer at 39. I had a close friend and his wife died of cancer at 56 and I could go on.

I'm sure you might like to PUSH me out of here because of what I said, but I will still be around for a little longer! I do beleive there are others who are more to my liking and it would be nice if my voice would be heard. That is what I THOUGHT Democracy was all about!

I just like to see people follow thru on their declarations.

:evilgrin:

fall off a watermelon truck!O8)

to fool all the "elites" like George McGovern, Mya Angelou, RFK, and Wes Clark. Not you though :eyes:

Angelou and Clark don't surprise me, but RFK and McGovern do! Especially McGovern, so this makes me wonder even more. McGovern has been SOOOO Anti-War since I think he was born, and this is disturbing to me.

I was one of a very few people who campaigned for him when I first got to vote, and it was very very lonely in a small town in Florida. I even had bumper stickers taken off my car! So yes, McGovern is a mystery!

of Clinton, and not some of the most respected members of our party. Then the big mystery would be closer to being solved.

No thank you! If I don't understand it I don't see how that means I'm wrong! But I AM smart enough to know that THEY are much more powerful, therein lies the rub!

that back up your strong negative opinion of Clinton.

"reasons" why I won't vote for her. The latest is her Kyl/Lie vote, but stuff has been accumulating for some time. How do I link to subjects like "I won't answer that question?"

I'm sure there are links to various issues, but others simply don't have links! And links aren't the only thing that would change a person's mind.

If I posted an OP like yours about your guy, I'd be able to back up every reason I had for forming those opinions. And it wouldn't be limited to how he answered some questions during a debate. Kyl-Lieberman is one reason, but you've made some pretty harsh accusations in that OP that shouldn't stand without some back up.

I suspect if chicb went to the trouble of posting them, all you'd say is something like "The Nation? They're not Democrats." or some other such easy dismissal.

Or if avtual factual statistics were posted the response would be "My you certainly are selective in your use of information, aren't you?"

but I'm done with this thread. The severity of the Clinton bashing wore me out yesterday, and I'm tired of trying to argue against it.

Sounds to me like you refuse to go along with the majority, whether the majority is right or wrong or somewhere in between. You are specifically CHOOSING "anybody but the leader". The fact is, you CAN think for yourself AND agree with the majority sometimes.

Also, there are evidently millions of people out there who are not "sickened to the core" with a Clinton candidacy, so I would look into that as well. Perhaps something that you ate recently.

And one more thing: You seem to be using "Hillary" and "the Party" interchangeably. They are not the same thing.

"And one more thing: You seem to be using "Hillary" and "the Party" interchangeably. They are not the same thing."

When you have a lock on the Media Elite the Beltway Elite and the other machines of power, the segment of the party called "the people" (a very diverse bunch) doesn;t matter anymore.

are having their arms twisted to make the nomination a fait accompli to avoid a damaging negative primary and that he sees that Hillary will be the nominee - and knows that she will be better than any of the Republicans.

Many of us have made our assessment of Clinton because of things she has done and said.

The politician I respect and admire the most, when asked about 2008, said that the differences between the Democrats was small compared to the night and day difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I hope he does not endorse HRC before the primary. What I do know is that he will make a good case for why she is a better choice than the Republicans, ignoring that many prominent Clinton people, like Begala and Carville, never did the same for him.

and I haven't dismissed the possibility that there's been some arm-pulling, maybe a few old debts paid up, or even the possibility that some are siding with a probable winner so that they can have a real voice in her adminstration. But I also know that the people who have endorsed her, have backroom knowledge that I don't, and are closer to knowing the real Clinton, the real Obama, and the real Edwards, and maybe it comes down to the simple fact that they'd rather have their names associated with her and not with the others.

Anyway, thanks for the imput karynnj. I always carefully consider what you have to say about anything because you're someone who always presents a rational argument behind your opinions. I don't think we're all that far apart on this, and believe me, I'm not blind to the Clinton's faults.

Your points, here and elsewhere, are also rational and always reasonable. Many may feel that Obama and Edwards do not have the experience they are looking for. I do think that many are hoping for a voice in her administration. It may also be they see her as the Democrat most likely to win. By nature of who many of these people are, they may be more likely to ignore personalities if they see the ultimate goal is more likely.

In fairness, 2008 could at best - with any of the candidates, be a year of yearning for what we don't have. Some people here experienced that in 2004. Dean or Clark had touched their hearts or souls in a way no candidate had before. Even if they grew to appreciate that Kerry was a good man and would make a wonderful President, he was still not what they had fixed their heart on. I have voted since 1972, the year after I was immensely impressed by the young John Kerry's morality, eloquence and intelligence. Years later, I occasionally saw him on talk shows - always articulate and usually taking positions I liked, I was impressed, but didn't really think about it. In 2004, I was shocked to find that the more I read and the more I heard him, the more I realized that he could become the only great President that I would ever vote for. With most candidates, I had always found the "veneer" was better than what lay beneath. Kerry was the exception, the real deal. There is no way 2008 could not be bittersweet at best for me.

In 2008, there will be people with bright eyes and excited faces, thrilled that HRC is the candidate - it will not be me. For me, I doubt I will be able to suppress my opinion (and I realize that it is an opinion) that many people around HRC, part of the party and media elite jumped on the wagon in 2004, only to drag their feet. As long as Carville, for instance is there I feel that the Clintons are throwing this in the face of people like me. I completely don't understand why the election eve story was greeted with such nonchalance. It opens the question of whether he functioned as a channel the entire campaign. (Remember the Kerry/Kennedy people ran an excellent primary campaign - problems rose when they brought on people from other campaigns.)

To quote your post: McGovern has been SOOOO Anti-War since I think he was born, and this is disturbing to me.

This would be the George McGovern that volunteered for the US Army Air Force in WWII and piloted a B-24 Bomber. The George McGOvern that voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Yes, George came to regret that vote and he was a leader in the anti war movement during Vietnam and also has been outspoken in opposition to the Iraq war. On the other hand, he has stated that the supported the first Gulf War.

So, no, George McGovern has not been "SOOOO Anti-War" since "he was born."

on winning that she is willing strangulate and triangulate and in the end, nothing will be left.

a game we are playing, it is our future. I cant stand seeing the people who believe that you are a bad person because you don't want to vote for someone that you feel is bad for your future because it hurts the team? Our future and our children's future is not a game. The same people that would say you are a traitor, are the same ones that never respond with substance on why they are for their candidate so we can all be educated and make the best choice for the country, they only attack you or gloat about polls? All which means nothing to helping us understand their candidate and what makes their candidate the best option.

You hear people say that the Democrats will win the next election all the time but when you hear about Clinton, its you should vote for her so the republicans don't win, if not you are kicked off the team. Like they own the so called team. How about, if so many people don't want to vote for her, then her supporters should help elect a more electable candidate so that the Dems will definitely win? Or do we have to fall in line with whatever the media wants?

Clinton supporters don't represent the democratic party, they represent Clinton. Who made them the decider's of who is part of the team?

Vote for who you believe is the best person to stand for the people, not the corporations and we will all be better off.

gathered up not only the corporations, but the lobbyists and "almost every LARGE powerful organization in this country" and that everyone's selling out for "MONEY to line their pockets" which she has got her hands on by dipping "into every nook of NYC." And you mention Hollywood. So what are you trying to say here exactly?

:think:

OMG! It's the Jooooooooooooooooooooooos! Am I close? :shrug:

that there is a good independant to vote for but if not I will pull the lever for her..... So far I like Edwards and Obama.... Edwards a bit more. His honesty (and his wifes)in this election cycle has been amazing!

so called inevitable as we the voters let her be. And there is strong evidence that more
in our party cannot stand her than support her.

What evidence?

The cluster fuck logic that since she's only at 40% in the polls that 60% are against her?

this country will merely be under new management in a meet the new boss, same as the old boss kind of way. Understanding that she is running the general in the primary, that still sickens me to the core.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711



How was the 2000 election affected by all this? What about 2004? Can you imagine after reading this how it would feel right now to near the end of the Gore presidency? Imagine that most of the horrid things of the last few years, possibly including 9/11, never happened. Imagine a world where illegal wiretapping, US-sanctioned torture, the Iraq nightmare, etc. etc., etc. NEVER HAPPENED. And understand then that they indeed may not have come to pass but for the Clintons' naked ambition and hunger for power, combined with their very effective political maneuvering. And then tell me WHY THE HELL I should support them? I fortunately live in IL, so my no vote or write-in or whatever, is extremely unlikely to make a difference. I am so utterly disgusted, that I wish Hagel had decided to run, and in the extremely unlikely event that he would have won the republican nomination, I would have happily voted for him. Conservative or not, he has integrity. The Clintons don't.

before, but it justs adds to why I can't support her.

"I wish Hagel had decided to run, and in the extremely unlikely event that he would have won the republican nomination, I would have happily voted for him. Conservative or not, he has integrity. The Clintons don't.

With Dems like that...who needs to pay for swift boaters...we got our own right here for free!

If more people feel like you...forget Roe vs. Wade and our ever getting a chance to change the direction of the Supreme Court. Isn't that important enough to make you hold your nose an vote for whomever the Democratic Candidate is? How could you possibly consider voting for any Republican?

Aaron MacGruder said it best: "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil."

Gotcha!

1. I am significantly more liberal than the average democratic voter. Which does not imply, nor in my view should EVER imply, automatically accepting anything that any democrat does as being "good" nor anything that any republican does as being "evil". That's simplistic and plain wrong.

2. I was not swiftboating anybody. Swiftboating = lying for dirty political purposes. I did not lie.

3. My comparison between Hagel and the Clintons is correct. IMHO opinion at least, and based on the limited information that I have. And by the way, I am quite well informed, but obviously I do not know any of them personally, nor do I know what goes on behind closed doors, etc.

4. I do not have to go for the "hold my nose" approach since I live in a reliably blue state. If I lived elsewhere, or if God forbid, there is any inkling that IL may turn red, then yes, I will hold my nose and vote for whoever the dem nominee is, because I definitely believe that anybody in the current rep field, especially Giuliani, is much much worse.

Is it clearer now?

I care far far more about that than I do Roe vs Wade, which really could be dealt with on the state level. What I would want to know from both Hagel and HRC, in this race that won't happen, is what they think about these Presidential power issues - if he was in favor of signing statements or the unitary - then it would be no go.

"this is not a monarchy" (clip on youtube). I think this is at least a partial answer to your question. HRC's views on monarchies seem to be less well defined.

do not like Hillary.

However, while Hagel has a fairly decent positions (not all, far from it) on foreign policy, he is way too conservative. And these issues cannot be dealt with at the state level. May be they can in NJ or MA, but think of people living in KS, TX, or WY. Do you think women do not deserve choice there either?

In addition, when it comes to Iraq, I am not sure that Hagel and Hillary are that far apart. None of them is Feingold and none of them is McCain. They both favor a redefinition of the mission and a slow withdrawal of the troops. Sure, Hagel talks loud, but he certainly does not walk the walk.

I have exactly the same frustration than you or others concerning Hillary, but there are issues that really matter and where he is not at all where he should be (whether it is sincere or just to please the base).

So, vote third party if you need, but do not vote Hagel if you care about anything progressive.

I do think the issues on balance of power and foreign policy is more important than Roe vs Wade. In reality, I will never face a choice of a candidate who I agree with on everything, but abortion. However, if there were such a candidate, which Hagel isn't, I could vote for him or her. I think medical technology has already moved to a point that it would not be the 1970s. I also think that in the red states, opinions would change if it became illegal. Part of my feeling is the frustration that Democrats lose so many votes of people who otherwise would clearly be on our side because of this issue.

It's weird how it bring to life all those dormant memories. When it was happening, I did not see the series of actions as the passive aggressive intentional damage they were. I had understood the exasperation of the Gore campaign that Bill would not leave the stage, but there is no way that the "century's best natural politician" would not know that him giving a confessional interview and speaking of how he was working to put his life together, would not both steal the normal pre-convention coverage (which did a lot in 1992 to help Clinton) and revive the Lewinsky story. He then repeated this selfishness putting out his autobiography in July 2004 - again taking over the airwaves, explaining that Monica happened "because I could". As Kerry was less well known than Gore, stealing this time cost Kerry in his effort to define himself.

That he bad mouthed both campaigns and what Gore and Kerry wanted to speak about is not the action of a team player. Yet all the Clinton people are saying that we all need to get in line and learn the appropriate Hillary talking points - even though Clinton did not do that himself in 2000 and 2004. It should also be noted both Gore and Kerry were right on what they were choosing to speak on. He wanted Gore to abandon any populist talk, when that was where the country really was and it was beginning to resonate. He wanted Kerry to stick to domestic issues, when the country was on foreign policy and in Kerry, the Democrats had a rare foreign policy/national security expert who wrote a book on terrorism, who was a war hero and who had championed veterans rights since 1970. Both Gore and Kerry were hurt by the Clinton whispering campaign that their campaigns were bad.

How ironic that people on this thread are asking more of us than Clinton asked of himself.

If Clinton and the Clinton loving part of the media would have given Gore (or Kerry) the support that both of these men have always given the nominee, the world would never have seen a Bush presidency. (Or if he wised up only in 2004, at least the damage would have been miminimized. The distaste I feel that that lack of generosity on Clinton's part, will be rewarded can NOT be overstated.

I don't believe in inevitability and I don't believe the MSM. I know I'm not alone and neither are you.

Don't give up. there are allot of us who don't support Hillary. We are spread across the other candidates. If and when we band together. Hillary would loose decisively. keep plugging for your guy. I firmly believe when the convalescence happens you will feel better.

he and his administration and some good democrats stayed with him and presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity.....What makes one believe HRC will be 180degress different then Bill? In here it is attack, attack, hate, hate, hate, and all I say is Why do democrats kick victory in the teeth and embrace losing?.

Ben David

The peace you speak of. And Unless Bill invented the internet, he wasn't actually responsible for the "prosperity" of the ".com bubble".

Just as it always was.

And that's the tragedy of it all.

Rather than actually forging a Democratic coalition, a substantial segment of the public such as the original poster are being shoved aside by the Corporate DLC machine.

The times are ripe for a positive change and resurgance of the Democratic Party. Instead, it's being molded into the straiughtjacket of the same old policies and people that got us into this mess.

...and I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER! Even if it means a Ghouliani Presidency!! And I'll spill my peas on the floor and scream at the top of my lungs too!!

:rofl:

NGU.

:dem:

So far she's earned my scorn.

The Lieber-Dems and Bill Clinton opened the door for Dems to vote against and not support the Dem nominee. Ned Lamont was back stabbed by Bill Clinton on Larry King just before the November 2006 election and Lieber-Dems voted for a Republican financed Lieberman.

No flames from me. ;)

I wish I could recommend this about 1000 times!!!

:applause:

TC

assuming she is the Dem Nominee in the General Election.

Bill Clinton stabbed CT Dem Senate Nominee Ned Lamont in the back prior to the Nov. 2006 election and the Lieber-Dems voted for Lieberman after losing the Dem Primary.

I won't even consider it, no matter how often Mrs. Clinton's supporters call me a traitor.

And, certainly, not Hillary --

We need Mario Cuomo -- Bobby Kennedy, Jr. --- Carolyn Maloney --
and a long list of others who would be stronger candidates --

failing that, I'll take Edwards --

In trying to go BACKWARDS . . .
I think we have a problem when Democrats understand that there is no place that Democrats can go --
Needless to say, many Democrats will move to the Green Party --
I'd be there as well if it were not for the FEAR of more GOP rule --

But I do think that the Dems need to feel some heat from the LEFT --
otherwise, you'll get no real progressive change

By the way, REP. JANE HARMON is certainly someone who would be an excellent candidate --
and how about Russ Feingold?

Hillary, period. What the hell is Al Gore waiting for? What power does the Clinton two have over him? If he ran she'd be toast, hell EVERYBODY would be toast. What is going on here?