It's clear that Hillary is not particularly beloved here at

DU, right?

I mean geeezus, in a current DU poll asking would you choose Biden or Hillary, Biden is winning with 87 percent of the vote. 87!?!? :wow:

And we've all seen the "I'll vote for anyone but Hillary posts." You don't see many of those for the other Democratic candidates.

So, if Hillary should manage to win the nomination, is her unpopularity here an accurate gauge of how most Democrats and Independents feel and will act when they go to the polls?

Or is DU skewing, if you will, her likability and thus her chances of beating the Republican? (Again, assuming that she turns out to be the nominee).

Because I'm starting to worry what might happen if indeed she is the nominee.

I'll still vote for her, but yikes.

I'll vote for her, no question. She's not my fave but I much prefer Anyone But a Republican to Anyone but Hillary.

.... but she's still 100x better than any of the Repug freakazoids.....I really do wish we could bid "au revoir" to the Bush-Clinton-Bush era though. It's time for a fresh start.

Had a bit plate of them in front of they keyboard and was trying to type around them.

edit: and I replied to the wrong person. I'm on point tonight.

:spank:

Who endlessly post useless stink-bomb threads. All they do is bash the Clintons and their supporters. There are perhaps 70-100 of them out of over 100k members. About 75% of them claim Obama loyalty but I believe there are more than a few freeper lurkers among them. Gawd I can't wait til the nominee is chosen, the admins will no longer allow derogatory posts at that point. These people are turning this board into a sewer.

I remember a groundswell of affection from Democrats.

Also, she was well enough liked by the people of New York for her to become a Senator.

a deadly disease before November.

No surprise. Good manners show. And true mentality will always reveal.

I take it back. I wish you bad luck. Feel better?

That probably would have made you feel better and then you would jump on your soap box and screech to the world ... "NOW I KNOW I WON'T VOTE FOR THAT WOMAN".

Glad to help you out, hon.

:rofl: You flatter yourself.

Don't get the bends coming down off your high horse.

should you decide to pull it out of the dark place it's in.

That's pretty much the attitude people like you have adopted to those who oppose your Anointed One.

And it's as sad and pathetic as it ever was.

:eyes:

:)

Imagine.... an actual Liberal in the White House. Undoing all the damage the Bush Crime Family has done. Instead of merely repackaging it in bright & shiny DLC paper.....

we won't have anything to talk about on the DU.

Just read the posts about Pelosi and Reid to get an idea of what kind of talk you'll see. With most of these people there is nothing the Democrats can do right. They're not Democrats anyway.

with the growth of a privatized military and weakened opposition to an extremely corrupt government.
(And i'm not referring to Pakistan.)

when asked a poll of a candidate that isn't considered a threat against one of those top 3 who isn't their candidate they vote for the one who isn't considered a threat.

"DU is not a representative sample of Dems at large."

"The Republicans thank you."

"It's only a handful of very vocal Hilhaters."

"No, it's because this place is infested with RW trolls."

"SUPREME COURT"

"National polls show otherwise."

let's see how i do.

The one I love the most is "SCOTUS"!!

Justices Kennedy and O'Connor weren't exactly Alitos, Scalias, Roberts or Thomases in mindset or political ideology, were they?

Last I checked, they were part of the "Filthy Five" that middle-fingered their judicial oaths right along with two of the shitbags I just mentioned and selected the vastly-unqualified-to-govern-a-Burger-King Failure Fuhrer anyway. It was rumored that Sandy voted "yea" for personal reasons (she didn't think retirement would be possible under a Gore presidency).

So when you think about it, does it matter either way?

Without them Hardwick V Georgia would still be the law of the land...


Clinton appointed justices, Breyer and Ginsburg tried to stop the coup...

I don't see your point...

:thumbsup:

I will not vote for a Bush was enabler, period!

Ensure that the Repubs win. Thanks.

I will not be swayed!

How's that fit in with your principles?

And I don't support Hillary anyway. BUT I WILL VOTE FOR HER AGAINST A REPUBLICAN. There's no way I'm going to let another Bush into the WH without at least doing that.

eom

Meanwhile, out in the real world, voting has real consequences. In the real world, voting for a no-chance write-in instead of the nominated Democrat is as good as giving a vote to the Republican.

If you imagine that your write-in vote, or as some people say they'd do, not voting at all, "sends a message", if you imagine that politicians are going to look at the 1% who voted for Mickey Mouse or Stephen Colbert and, in desperation to claim that 1% for themselves the next time, they will do whatever it takes (by reading your mind, I guess, to figure out what it does take) to get that 1% the next time, resulting in a political Age of Enlightenment... then you're crazy.

What you're talking about isn't principle, its putting personal vanity ahead of the public good.

. . . maybe the Democratic voters should ASK themselves: "Is it really worth it to have a nominee that will almost assuredly divide the left and center, fill fence-sitters and independents with doubt and would certainly swell Republican voter registration like never before?"

Who do you blame? The voter for staying home or the Democratic party in general for continuing to nominate either bad campaigners or weak candidates who fail to inspire or offer a real opposition? What is this, "My Party, Right or Wrong"?

You saw what happened to an honest decorated war veteran against a complete fuck-up who did absolutely NOTHING right during his first term. What's going to happen if the former first lady named "Clinton" is nominated?

Anyone who thinks Republicans fear her . . . isn't thinking very hard.

America isn't New York, especially not plains/rural/non-coastal America.

The primaries are a much better and safer time to vote idealistically. My argument is with those who say, "If X wins the Democratic nomination" (where X is Clinton a lot of the time of late) "I'll not vote/I'll write in Gore/I'll vote Green/etc.", under the delusion that they'll somehow "send a message" effectively this way, and that their message is worth the high price of 4-8 more years of a Republican presidency.

Think of how high a price we've already paid over the last eight years for the "message" people who voted for Ralph Nader felt compelled to send.

And what I'm hearing is there apparently IS something wrong with those who have a massive problem voting for "business as usual" in the GE as if it's an obligation.

Put it this way.

Do you ever see "loyalty oath" posts regarding John Edwards?

Joe Biden?

Barack Obama?

Dennis Kucinich?

NO.

"Loyalty Oath", "Take the pledge: you'll vote FOR the Democratic Nominee no matter WHAT" posts pertain to ONE person and one person only. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3903739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3903701
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3904002
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3903768

STILL think there's nothing to be concerned over?

If I ever thought the Republican candidate would make a better President than the Democrat we nominate, I'd vote for the Republican.

If I really, truly believed that both major party candidates were truly equally bad for the country, I might even vote third party. I'm NOT saying vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter what, under all circumstances.

But anyone who claims that there's "no difference" between Clinton and any of the Republicans is full of shit. That's just puffed up, mock indignation with no basis in fact. Check her voting record -- all of it, the totality of it, not just the IWR and the Iran Republican Guard thing.

Think of all of those Nader voters in 2000 with their bullshit "not a dime of difference" rhetoric about Republicans and Democrats. Gore never would have gotten us into Iraq, and whatever his faults might have been, wouldn't have made anything like the mess Bush has made on so many other fronts as well.

ANY of the current Democrats are better than ANY of the current Republicans. Only a Democrat is going to get us going in the right direction out of Iraq, on health care, on global warming, patching up our badly damaged foreign relations, etc.

This is not about loyalty, it's about public good. Risking a Republican victory by not voting, or casting a "protest vote" of some kind, is irresponsible. No "message" supposedly sent by that sort of voting will be clearly discernible, nor will it likely encourage whatever the protest voter thinks needs encouragement -- it will only promote the harm of another Republican Presidency.

That's NOT a good enough reason to vote FOR Hillary Clinton.

See post 132. Economically, she's more conservative than her husband was. What does anyone have to say about that? Hilariously, with the very few responses I do get when I bring up her odious straight-outta-the-Cato-Institute views on free trade and job offshoring, some actually SUPPORT her less-than-democratic position on outsourcing. On a Democratic board. UNbelievable.

And that's the back-breaker. I cannot vote for someone who wants to increase visas, supports job offshoring, supports free trade and voted for both of Bewsh's little follies. The soldiers do not need to keep fighting this bullshit war on terror. Corporations don't NEED any more breaks. Working people DO. I'm not even remotely convinced that a Hillary presidency is going to CHANGE that. Call it protest, call it whatever you want, I don't care. My rights are MY RIGHTS.

It's not up to me to mold my views around those of the party, no matter how lousy they are. Who stands up for the workers? Who stands up against the Corporations?

I voted for Gore and Kerry. I never believed the "no difference between" argument with either of them. I never thought they were weak candidates. They were, however, bad campaigners and unfortunately up against a Corporate machine that simply would not be denied, no matter what. From Gore with his incredibly poor choice of Joe Lieberman as his VP to Kerry with his not-right-away response to the Swift Boat Liars, they made a lot of costly mistakes and didn't fight the MSM as well as they should have.

The truth is, I don't feel any enthusiasm for Hillary as a candidate. I don't find her to be honest. I think she's completely clueless to the needs of the middle class and the poor and I don't think she's the best person for that aspect of governing. I'm from Ohio, and it's arguable that tons of workers lost jobs here (related to some of them) as a result of her husband's (and his friend 41's) NAFTA, which she supports. I think she would divide the left and center and wouldn't inspire many people to get behind her. I don't think she would turn one 2004 red state. I think she would mobilize Republican voter rolls. I think it would be a repeat of 2004. I think nominating her would be a poor choice. There it is.

I will still vote down ticket. :D

You could just as easily say that YOU caused the Repubs to win because you DIDN'T vote for a third candidate.

Bottom line: my vote is my vote. I will use it to express my wish on how I want my country run. It's the assholes who DON'T use their vote this way that have gotten us in the mess we're in now. Stopping voting out of fear, and start voting out of strength of conviction. Just because our elected leaders have none, doesn't mean we have to follow suit.

I don't want her as the nominee, but if all the Democrats stay home, then the Republican wins. Period.

Work towards another candidate if you want. I plan to work for Edwards myself. But if Hillary gets the nomination, it is a guaranteed fact that a Republican will be president if people stay home.

Or you could just as easily say "voting on Friday counts double voting on Tuesday", and be just as wrong.


Our voting system isn't designed to measure "strength of conviction". Our system might do a bit better at that if we had Instant Run-Off Voting or something of the sort, but we don't. Our system counts votes. Tepid votes count just as much as fervent votes. Fractured voting leads to victories by unrepresentative pluralities. Idealism inside voters heads doesn't coalesce into any clear message anyone is going to be able to read that will translate into better choices in this election or the next.

Unfortunately, you doom a lot of innocent people who DO vote for what they want along the way. Real Democrats are tired of Republican-lite choices like Clinton and Obama; we're tired of the MSM and our corporate bosses telling us who we can and cannot vote for, and we're especially tired of people like you - our supposed allies - telling us the "reality" of voting and blaming us when the status quo does not change. Your voting reality gives us candidates like John Kerry. Your voting reality sticks us with ineffectual "leaders" like Henry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Your reality enables those in power to ignore the will of the people who put them there. Your reality strips us of our power to make a change.

Well, guess what? We tried it your way...time after time. Now, we're doing it OUR way. Now, we're voting for the candidate we WANT, not the candidate we're told we want, or the much-lauded lesser of two evils. And if we don't get what we want, it will not be OUR fault, it will be YOUR fault...you and all the cowardly voters who are too cowed by irrational fear to let your vote speak for you.

...it's about having the out of always being able to say, "Hey, it's not my fault!"?

Voting for the lesser of two evils, when it comes down to that, is not "my way", it's an outcome of winner-takes-all-voting and human group dynamics. The faux idealism of voting for an obscure candidate, no matter how many times you do it, and how much you try to encourage others to do the same, isn't going to someday magically transform the system.


You're laboring under the delusion that your vote "speaks for you" in a clear way. It doesn't. If every vote was cast in essay form it might, but that's not how we vote. And there's a further possible delusion that all discontented voters have common, rather than fractured, desires that politicians could take note of and respond to.

If 49% of the people vote for a Republican, 48% vote for a Democratic, and 3% vote for everyone from Ralph Nader to Christine Smith to Mickey Mouse, what "message" do you imagine the politicians receive when the Republican wins this way? The Republicans don't change what they do because, hey, they won. No use messing with success. The Democrats? Do you imagine they try to somehow capture votes from the 3% group, with some bizarre platform that's somehow going to appeal to Greens and Libertarians and Disneyists, without losing any of the 48% they've already got, or do you think they'll try to tack to the Right and pull off a chunk of that 49% instead?

If this race comes down to, say, Romney vs. Clinton, and you decide to strut your idealism and write in Kucinich or vote for Cynthia McKinney or something like that, you're just kidding yourself if you think you're "sending a message" that some day change the world and teach someone a lesson about giving you better choices the next time. All you'll be doing is helping the Republicans, and dubiously claiming the right to proclaim how the mess that follows isn't your fault.

The sooner you and the rest of the "settlers" realize that, the faster change will come.

If you're so sure your way will work, please, do explain how it will work. And please provide a description of how the "message" you send will be received, plausible responses from politicians receiving that message, how scenarios where a unified minority vs. a fractious majority play out, etc.

Or is all you've got the over-simplified idea that when something appears broken, that trying anything, anything else must be better, not worse?

I could say the same of you: repeating your message of "your vote doesn't count unless it goes to the candidate we say it should go to" over and over doesn't make it so. My vote counts to ME, which, ultimately, is all anyone's vote counts for. You can scream about endorsing Repubs til you're red in the face, but I, and a fast-growing number of others, have stopped listening. We the People are voting for change. That upsets you as either a paid Repub shill or a drink-the-kool-aid DLCer, but that's too bad. The one freedom I have left in this country is my right to vote for whom I want, and I refuse to squander it on a candidate who does NOT represent MY vision of America. That is my right as an American, and I have to question the motivation of anyone who tries to talk me out of it.

Do you understand WHY you have a vote?

Not understanding the effect of your vote, and having fanciful unrealistic illusions about the effect of your vote, is what upsets me.


Do you confuse criticism of how someone votes with taking the right to vote away, or do you understand the difference?


If the general election roles around, the big party candidates are Romney and Clinton, and you refuse to vote for Clinton... then you're INSISTING on squandering your vote, not refusing to squander it.


I have a vote in order to EFFECT CHANGE. Strategic voting, including settling for the lesser of two evils many times, is more EFFECTIVE than an idealistic voting for an obscure candidate. You have every right to waste your vote, but you're only fooling yourself if you think such voting accumulates into an effective force for change, and you're saying that your petulant exercise in self-expression is so important that if the country ends up suffering under yet another Republican Presidency as a result, well, that's just the price we all have to pay so that you can feel self righteous.

If you keep voting for the same thing over and over because you're told you have no choice, how are things ever going to get better?

If you keep voting for the same thing over and over because you're told you have no choice, how are things ever going to get better?

It's not because I've been "told I have no choice", it's because I can see how the system works. And when I say "system", I don't mean the funding games and the stupidity of 30-second and 60-second TV ads and the crassness of the media coverage -- I'm talking about the way votes are counted and translated into winners. I'm talking about having each voter chose one person, adding those votes up, and declaring the person with the most votes (which might be less that 50% in a three-or-more-way race) the winner.

That system, in and of itself, often doesn't do a very good job of turning voters desires into representative results. The classic failure scenario is a three-way race where, say, there's a Blue candidate, a Blue WSRT (With a Slightly Reddish Tinge) candidate, and a Red candidate. Blue WSRT gets 44%, Blue gets 11%, and Red gets 45%. The voters strongly prefer a pretty-much Blue stance on the issues, but Red, the minority, wins.

"Voting your conscience" doesn't fix that kind of problem, not in that one election, and not in future elections. There's no clear mechanism for reading any "messages" that voters imagine they're sending, and many reasons to believe that the response of politicians to this final result will be a dysfunctional response, not a Blue-favorable response.

If the basics of the voting system aren't going to change any time soon, the only way to fix a situation like this is to beg one of the two Blue candidates to get out of the race, and if neither will, try to persuade those who wish to vote pure Blue to see that compromise really is better than defeat, and that defeat doesn't even hold much promise for delivering any sort of discernible message which might eventually lead to future Blue victory.

To fundamentally change how voting itself works would require instituting a system like IRV (Instant Run-off Voting): http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

It would be a long, hard fight to get this instituted, because politicians who get to power via the current system are not strongly motivated to change the system that put them into power in the first place. As tough a fight as implementing IRV would be, however, trying that would be a much more productive way to really change the system than the idealistic notion that "voting your conscience", without regard to the strategic and practical dimensions of voting, is ever going to change anything.

they've all been enablers - Clinton's no better than any of them, but I don't think she's much worse.

And your post is against DU rules.

Including Hillary

I don't hate Hillary Clinton at all; I just prefer other candidates. Frankly, I would not be ashamed to have any one of them in office over any single republican. It would make me very proud and happy to see HRC or Obama or Edwards as our POTUS, but my favorite, at this moment in time, is Biden, for all sorts of reasons that I won't enumerate here.

So don't worry. I truly think this debate/friction is healthy, and that we will all pull together whoever the nominee is.

I know it's a bit disturbing, but I think it will turn out okay.

Lately DU is a very small microcosm of left wing fanaticism combined with a similar number of right wing troll agitators.

:thumbsup:

:eyes:








:rofl:

DU is to rank and file Democrats what the Hell's Angels are to motorcycle enthusiasts...

I'm a left wing fanatic or right wing troll agitator. Let's see I have voted for and supported every Dem in a general and local elections since the late 60's. Does that make me Dem enough for you? I could be a left "fanatic" because I did demonstrate against the Vietnam War. Many called me a dirty hippie for that and still do since I'm still protesting our new little action called Iraq(guess I don't qualify for troll with that one).
I have stated my reasons many times on this board...I don't support her stance on Iraq, Health care or her support in expanding NFTA to include Peru.

Health Care is a very personal issue with me and I believe that it is time for us to embrace National Health Care and take the Insurance Companies out of the game. Their greed crippled my son and nearly cost him his life so yes... I and many more are fanatics about this issue.

I'm just tried of being called names because I don't support her polices... It's the primaries why have them if we are not allowed to support our candidate of choice? If she wins then I will support her but will let her campaign know how I feel on these issues.

All people on this thread -- and on DU, including Skinner -- care about is supporting her if she wins the nomination. I am THIS close to loathing Obama, but I'll still vote for him in November if he's the nominee.

And, the OP and others are right: the amount of counterproductive bashing is disgusting. Disagreeing, debating, FIGHTING are different than bashing. Clinton is a De with a progressive Senate voting record, and she deserves better... whether or not you agree with her policies.

I have never bashed Clinton but have been called an idiot and worse by her supporters on this board. Where in my post did I say I would not support or vote for her if she received the nomination. In fact I said just the opposite. I gave reasons why I disagreed with her policies. Where is the debate in your response,"NO ONE cares if you support her in the primaries". My guess is you are not interested in debating but marginalizing me and my opinions. That my friend is worse than name calling it is a polite way of saying I'm of less value than you.

Do you see loads of pro Mao, Lenin and Castro posts? Are the majority of people here calling for a communist take over? That's the real left wing, and the fanatical left wing would probably think they didn't/don't go far enough. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that support of single-payer universal healthcare is left wing fanaticism. It's a simple a first-world necessity.

of the words you use? Spare you? Get a fucking clue.

:eyes:

like i don't have enough to worry about right now so i need to borrow some from the future?

I can go door to door with enthusiasm and energy to talk about Biden.

If HC is the nominee, I might have to hire my neighbor to drag me to the precinct to vote.

but when it comes down to actual match-up of candidates, it appears that among actual voters she's the weakest of our lot against possible Republican contenders.

strong feelings either way. I know a couple of people who have never voted (in their 40's) and registered for the simple reason of voting against her if she is the nominee. On the other hand I also know people who can't wait to campaign and canvas for her. Everyone has an opinion that is strongly felt for her, there is no middle.

Her pic will be nearby.

Lets turn the page and say no to dynasties, ie Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

You look up nepotism.

We do not represent the overall populace.

Many of us will hold our noses if necessary. Some will not. And now I'm off to count the number of angels on the head of a pin.

Or combine a number of them

:P

but look at all my prediction coming true. i is tres teh smaht. :woohoo:

She is NOT a good nominee.

Not only has she alienated the Democratic base, but she'll bring out every far right yahoo, who will then vote against progressive candidates and ballot measures on the state and local level.

An interesting and rational premise, indeed.

- Dave

No one has an advantage. We'll see what happens next week.

... instead of the national ticket if she's the nominee. Always a silver lining...

: )

- Dave

that'$ not going to happen.

threads. Her seeming unpopularity here is not representative of most Democrats.

in which Hillary is receiving a less than enthusiastic reaction from DUers, can be accurately characterized as "bashing."


on edit: fix my embarrassing grammar

:eyes:

I think she could beat any of the republicans, but so could any Democrat. I used to really like her, before she became a senator and showed her true colors.... well, really, I think she just changed. In one debate she said something that I think was very revealing. While she supports higher taxes for the wealthy, she said that she and her husband had never expected to be in that highest tax bracket. It seems like wealth has changed the Clintons, and they may not even have noticed it happening. She's not a candidate for the people - no way, no how.

That's what the Repubs have been dreaming about for YEARS now.

Right or wrong, HRC is the most DISLIKED woman in the US of A.

Nominating Hillary = "President Huckabee".

No, it isn't FAIR or RIGHT or GOOD...but it is what will happen.

Because the freepers absolutely will not stay home.

Enjoying it much? I know I sure did, back when I made it specifically
to use as an avatar here at DU!

If you didn't want people to use them, then why did you offer them? If it wasn't an offer, then why haven't you said anything before now?

Don't accuse me of stealing! If you don't want me to use it, I won't!

I often "jokingly" refer to how bad my memory is these days,
but those "jokes" are just masking my very real fears that I
have some sort of degenerative brain problem.

It's not a joke anymore- I'm only 38, and sometimes I can't
remember what time I woke up yesterday. I rely heavily upon
the "My DU" function to keep my bearings in threads from moment
to moment.

If I had money to see a doctor about this, I would. But I don't.

Please accept my humble apology. I'm glad you like that little
"Hodgeman Hobo Sign" so much that you use it as your avatar here
at the world's best website. I take it as a compliment.

Again, I apologize.

Sincerely,
Richard Steele

I was upset because I thought you were publicly calling me out. I accept your apology though.

I think Mimi feels less special now!

Or maybe I feel more "special", in the pejorative sense...
either way, boy is my face red! :blush:

We are so fucked if Clinton is the nominee.
And if you ask me, it is by design.
BHN

nothing personal, but she is political poison. As you said, it isn't fair or right, but it is what it is. Frankly I'm surprised that there is as much support for her candidacy here as there is. I'll vote for her in the general election, but won't volunteer. In my humble opinion, we as a party are fools to nominate her. I do think she'd have a shot against Huckabee, who should scare a lot of folks who voted for Bush the last time around, though I think she'd have to run a great campaign to overcome the anti-Hillary vote. Hillary vs. Rudy or McCain, and we're looking at eight more years of a GOP administration.

That some Rethugs use with Mitt Romney? They don't like him and think if he is the nominee the Democrat (whom many on the right think will be Clinton) will win.
FYI- my uncle works for Pew research (a poli scientist) and thinks its going to be Huckabee vs. Obama with Obama winning....

Mark my words on that one.
You see, Hillary haters are not just in the Democratic party,
they will turn out in DROVES from the opposite side of
the spectrum.
That would mean not only will democrats vote against her,
the republicans will make sure to.

I will not vote for her.
EVER.

I am sick and tired of corporate elites running this country.

BHN

If you nominate her, I'm writing in a Democrat.

Why would you throw away a vote (giving it to a Republican), instead of voting for the Democratic nominee?

HRC is as sold out as any Republican. I already survived eight years of her Republican lite husband. By any measure, she promises the same sans the charm.

No, I won't vote for her for dogcatcher. I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth and I won't enable another Republican administration in Democratic clothing.

If the "Democratic" nominee takes me down the Republican path, then I'm not throwing anything away by refusing to vote for her.

Please don't nominate her.

i believe the so-called progressives and intellectuals still have their head up their ass as far as women leadership in OUR country (it's OK in some furrin land where it don't affect us) yet the "real people" on the ground are well in advance of this and they will vote for hillary

she'll be a terrific nominee and a great president

no "yikes" necessary

Having to jostle with the high caliber candidates on the D side is providing her the needed polishing and practice.

Of course the same can be said of any of our candidates. However, watching the anti-choice, anti-children's health care, anti-evolution candidate get their bell rung by one of them there wimmenfolks would be sweet. :evilgrin: MKJ

My dislike for Hillary has nothing to do with her gender, but with the policies she puts out there and her coziness with the machinery of the right. Yikes, indeed.

There are some I'd prefer to see over others, but that's mostly due to how I feel the would fare in the general. None of them are bad people, or the boogey-person, or demons in human form.

Sometimes this place looks ludicrous.

she doesn't represent change.

We're ripe for the harvest. :D

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! :evilgrin:

Well done!!!

One even went as low as trying to insult my mother. :rofl:

No matter how much you try to repeat the lie.

:rofl: Oh stop lying your ass off and have some toast!

ANYONE is better than a GOP POTUS. We would have to wait four MORE years, before even a chance to investigate George/Cheney.

And, after 40 years of voting for the "lesser of two evils" mine have become resistant to more abuse.

I'll leave voting for corruption to the corrupt. As for me, I'll never vote for any DLC candidate or anyone closely associated with that vile organization.

You know what Freeper trolls we are.

BTW, how's it going Damien?

:silly:

People who are politically educated and aware, know and understand that HRC represents a continuance of the status quo of Empire and the MIC.

People who are aware of the deeper levels of how and to whom power is distributed, understand that HRC represents the perpetuation of that system.

However, people who are aware of these things most certainly represent an extremely small minority of the voting public. Unfortunately.

My parents must be a couple of stupid ignorant fucks in your eyes.

:eyes:

Your pompus arrogant post suggested just that.

and you will see that HRC clearly has less support here on DU than just about any other candidate. That's simply a fact.

I was merely supplying a probable explanation for why this would be so.

Gotcha!

Yeah, that explains it.

Try it.

I understand that you disagree with my interpretation of why HRC is "clearly not beloved here", as the OP puts it.

If you have a different interpretation, you ought to offer it, instead of trying to bait me.

My friend is one of dose apelate loyers and she dun contributed $250.00 to HRC's campaign...

I knew you were elitist, but that post was nothing more than masturbation!

And yet this stuff bothers you.

That's a compliment, btw.

It doesn't matter what candidate it refers to, the inherent message is that the poster belongs to a superior station and is more able and entitled to decide for people what they should want rather than what they actually want. And liberals are confused when lower economic class conservatives talk about liberal elitism - well, what is that post but liberal elitism?

wouldn't she have posted it with a O face?

The Democratic party is comprised of the most educated and least educated voters, the poorest and the wealthiest voters... If you excised working class folks from the Democratic party they would be a minority party forever...

There's a lot of people that vote Democratic that don't post on DU. Are they not informed on their own thoughts? Do their opinions on how their own lives matter less because they aren't DUers? For that matter, all the people that vote Republican - are they all just subhuman monstrosities that have been programmed? It is the height of arrogance to claim that your personal group has more dignity and is owed more respect than other groups, and any other group deserves to fail because they aren't as good as your group.

Hell, I'm not even a Dem. I'm voting for her.

I think a "Charo" version of "Happy Days Are Here Again" might be in the works! Whadda think?

Supporters here at DU. A good many of her supporters have really left a bad taste in my mouth.

...I'll go out and purchase an industrial strength clothespin to clamp on my nostrils and pull the lever for her.

Better dead than red (state).

And so they have to choose that course of action.

republican opponent.

Neither she nor Obama and for the worst possible reasons. It's ridiculous but the sexism and racism are still so pervasive that these people will vote for a Huckabee or a Rudi over two far more qualified candidates simply because they are white males. And we're talking about blue collar traditional Democrats saying this shit. It's an ugly, disgusting truth and will be a real problem in a general election.

Your fears are well founded.

It has nothing to do with being afraid and everything to do with averting the disaster that another Republican President would bring.

That being said, her negatives are high in the general populace.

"Hey, I don't like it, but not voting for her is a vote for a Republican". Wow, with reasoning like THAT, how could you NOT jump on that bandwagon?? I don't know, I thought we were the party of thinkers, not the party of "settlers". Do you think Republicans ever "settle" on their candidate?



One read of this thread is kind of an eye opener. She proposed legislation to ban flag burning, voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act, unapologetically voted for the Iraq War Resolution, voted yes on Kyl/Lieberman amendment, has lent her support to Indian offshoring companies, free trade and outsourcing (sorry, that's the back-breaker for me), voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill, Nay on the Cluster Bomb vote (didn't even know about this one), the whole video game thing . . . and there are those who have the GALL to question why I have an enormous problem with her as the nominee????


You know, because I want MY candidate to be buddy/buddy with Reaganite media moguls who smear Democrats on an almost daily basis on their far-reaching neo-fascist news network.



You BET they do. As it's been proven before, she's a tad two-faced when it comes to the labor of this country.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)



Or, we could go with a more LOGICAL choice; one that WOULDN'T leave more than a great deal of Dem voters in uneasiness, doubt and fear . . . one that wouldn't BE an almost guaranteed division of the left and center AND a guarantee of massive Republican mobilization/voter registration of people trained to hate all things "Clinton" since 1993. Proven "winner"? She already had massive name recognition and ran against weak Republican opponents in an already blue state. Would she have had that same runaway luck in South Carolina or Georgia?

Why does it absolutely HAVE to be Hillary?

Why can't it be Edwards, who to me is the strongest candidate for the needs and rights of the workers? Why can't it be Obama, who's made giant strides in general civil rights, ethics reform (with Feingold, who I WISH was running) and African American voter registration? Why can't it be Joe Biden, who could be the strongest when it comes to foreign policy, something we so desperately need to repair? I'd have absolutely NO problem voting for any combination of these three.

Call me a nutjob, but I'd like to be proud of who I vote for. Let the Repukes nominate any one of their backwoods, war corporatist, free-trader scum. That's them. I want an opposition. I don't want to "settle", goddamnit. I'm tired of settling and I'm sure as shit surprised that I'm not finding more like me.

Thank you bvar for the pictures. Cue the Les Miserable-length list of Madam Windsock's voting record and "progressive cred", as if I'm supposed to give her a medal for doing something she's supposed to do as a blue state Senator.

I can understand why and how the general public can be suckered into voting for a neo-liberal corporatist/militarist. But DUers who have megabytes of research and deep poltical analysis at their fingertips? I find it confounding and profoundly unfortunate.

sw

sometimes the population comes around and sometimes they don't.

Hillary has high unfavorables, she is divisive, etc. These have been out there since before Hillary ran for Senate.

And now the OP is all like gee whiz and shit.

or those who act like repukes

people support her nomination than the Media would have you thinking.

Should HRC win the nomination, I believe she will lose the election. I know Republicans that would vote for Obama and Edwards and Biden and Richardson and Dodd, but you mention Hilary and their heads spin. And strangely enough, the same with many Dems I know...My own Brother in Law whom I haven't spoken too since the early summer and before she was even a candidate, said that if HRC is the nominee, he refuses to vote for her. He said he'll do a write-in. He's tired of having his vote taken for granted and if it means a Republican, so be it, because she is one as far as he's concerned.

Anyway, I also predict that Edwards is going to win Iowa, Obama will win NH and they both will be tied in SC. I don't believe HRC will get the nomination. And if she does, I will agree and say that I think she cannot win the Presidency. That is why I pray she doesn't get the nomination.

This coming from a woman who would love to have a woman President in my lifetime. But it isn't going to be her.

Forget the R's, there simply aren't enough socially moderate, reasonable ones of them left anymore. The polls are showing right now that she doesn't capture as many of the general electorate as Edwards and Obama. It all depends on who the GOP candidate is and how well the predictable attacks on her stick.

My big concern with her is not so much the Presidential race, which I think she can pull off. It's the local races. She will definitely bring out the most wingnuts to vote AGAINST her. They are really good about voting R all the way down the ticket. In a state like mine (AZ) this is a problem. We stand to lose everything from Congressional races all the way down to county supervisors and school boards if the anti-Hillary vote comes out in full force. If another Dem candidate is the nom it's more likely that hardcore wingnuts will sit the election out. But again, that depends on who the GOP or wacky 3rd party candidates are.

I will absolutely vote for her, and probably work on her campaign as well but it will be with bated breath all the way.

That's not enough of a reason to vote for a candidate, but let's face facts--the Reich Wing of this country, the knuckle-dragging 20 percent or so who are Bush's base and who listen to Rush and write idiotic LTEs and such--they will be in agony if Hillary wins.

So that'll be kinda fun for awhile.

Yeah, she'll probably suck (for a Democrat) as a President, but there'll be perks. That's how I see it.

of course I'll vote for her if she wins in the primaries. I can't help how I feel about what she stands for or I would change it.
she rings phony to me. I hate that 'centrist' bullshit. Centrist is far, too far, 'right' for me to stand. I'm sick of the right-wing stance. It sucks bong water.

:rofl:

- Dave

Most DUers seem to realize that we could do better than Clinton, but I've seen no more than a handful of vows never to vote for her. Statistically insignificant, even on DU.