To all "I won't vote dem if Hillary is nominated because of war" DUers

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Did you vote for Kerry? If so why wouldn't you vote for Clinton or another senator who voted authorize the war at the same time Kerry did?


:shrug:


on edit: Clinton is about my 30th choice for nominees but I'd vote for her

[Mira]

1. Because Kerry is repenting...as well he should

too little too later for me.
Hillary is another story though - I think she has been self serving - and now she is stuck.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. Kerry and Clinton's positions are no different now

he said if he knew now blah blah blah. I don't think she said that yet but both said they would do the same with same set of facts at the time

[LittleClarkie]

59. How do you figure?

I haven't heard Hillary call for any pullout or take responibility for her part of the fucked up war.

And that's just what Kerry did last week.

[WI_DEM]

20. but he didn't repent during the campaign last year.

[Elidor]

Hmmm...could it be because Kerry has acknowledged his mistake?

While Hillary is still gung-ho?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. Talk is cheap he had plenty of time to think about it before his vote

but I'd vote for him again, or Clinton

[Mass]

39. delete

[nickinSTL]

2. I'm not happy with Clinton's stance

and I don't really support her as the nominee.

However, looking at how things are...I'd vote for any Dem (with the possible exception of Zell Miller) against a Repub at this point.

Even Lieberman would be an improvement.

(note:I'm not in any way advocating a Lieberman candidacy)

[electropop]

4. I oppose her in the primary

but would have to hold my nose in the unlikely event Dems give her the nod. I would greatly prefer to vote for a Democrat such as Boxer or Conyers.

[BL611]

56. Hmmm

You wouldn't be willing to put some money on the likelihood of Clinton being nominated as opposed to Boxer or Conyers, would you?

[electropop]

57. They're probably even less likely.

I just don't think they have national name recognition yet. Hillary's problem is that she's a DLCer, and the base won't get very excited about another Repub-lite pro-war candidate.

[merh]

6. Hillary is her own person, isn't she?

Don't compare Hillary to Kerry - there is no comparision. Kerry hasn't been up the GOP's rear ends like Hillary has -- I will never vote for Hillary.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. They're practically identical

legislatively

[merh]

13. Legislatively is not all that matters.

And "practically identical" isn't identical. :hi:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

15. it pretty much is all that matters

Words are cheap

[merh]

47. You should tell that to HIllary.

And when did she serve in the military? And what was she doing during the Iran/Contra investigation? What did she do during VietNam?

[Mass]

44. Well said - I would vote Hillary if she was the nominee but she is

not Kerry, unfortunately.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. 'Cuz voting for Kerry wore my nose out.

Had I to do it over again, I wouldn't have voted for him. A wasted vote.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. So you don't think Kerry would have been better than Idiot Son?

.

[rockymountaindem]

21. Evidently

I don't know why some people post here, since they're so intent on making Democrats out to look just as bad as Republicans.

Oh, wait, I just answered my own question.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Sure. So would the average potted plant. So?

Kerry collaborated with Bush in launching the slaughter of thousands, and still supports the occupation.

Voting for him or the other collaborators with blood on their hands shouold be repugnant to anyone who believes that killing people for political gain is horrendous.

The "lesser of two evils" Hllary still supports the occupation. Does she support it as much as the possible republican candidate? Who knows. Does it matter to the people who will be killed?

[Eagle_Eye]

9. If Hilary is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for Hilary

The Democrats simply must win the next presidential election. This country could not stand another republican administration.

Like: "Hello!, any true Democrats going to vote for a republican?"

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. I didn't vote for Kerry, till it mattered. And...

...I did everything in my power to deny him the nomination.

I would do exactly the same thing for, and against, Sen. Clinton.

I'd work my ass off in caucus to prevent her, or any other pro-war Democrat, from getting the nomination, and then, only if necessary, vote for her in the general.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

14. ditto nt

nt

[merwin]

12. I look at it as a ball game. There's an offense and a defense.

Kerry is on the offense right now. Clinton is not.

There has to be at least SOME part of the Democratic party that will catch the appeal of moderates. The closer to the center you get with a presidential candidate, the more moderates will vote for that person. Team a progressive with a moderate (such as Clinton) and you've got yourself covered.

Just my 2 cents.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. Dem moderates are immoderate, since they compromise

with Republicans whose policies resemble Western European countries in the 19th century. Nothing moderate about that. They are effectively extremists. Perhaps that's the meme that should be adopted when describing the Beltway right-wing Dems.

We have seen how their submissiveness to the neocons has led to stolen elections, war, significant curtailment of civil liberties and immense detriment to the country's wealth, and social and physical infrastructure. Now, surely, there is no substitute for a New Deal, as Kerry proposes.

[halobeam]

33. IMO... to a real, true moderate, Clinton is NOT a moderate.

They will never see her as anything other than Dem.

She may be playing to the center, in our eyes, but I don't think anyone really trusts thats not just for politics. Therefore, she remains a Dem, to mods. If we don't believe she isn't placating to the middle, why would a moderate?

I don't get that line of thinking. She's a Dem and she's a she and she's a Clinton... one billion strikes against her, in the eyes of a moderate.

[sui generis]

16. I will not vote for anyone this time

just because they are a dem and just because the DLC is shoving them down our throat.

Sorry - we've learned that our vote is taken for granted, so you can't have it.

I wouldn't vote for Kerry either. I liked Dean the best - I kind of wish Dean and Kucinich had had a love child together, because that's who I would back in the next election.

I'm voting what's right for my heart this time, not what's right for the democratic party, because the democratic party takes my vote for granted.

I AM the base. Support me and I'll BRING people to the polls.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. So you won't vote because your feelings are hurt?

presuming you voted for Kerry last time

[sui generis]

34. oh no you dint

you did go there.

Actually ****FROST**** I voted for Dean, and then for Kerry out of OBLIGATION. Not hurt.

My feelings weren't hurt at all - I knew what he was from the beginning. Kerry voted to support a war when he knew better. Kerry voted to go to war AGAIN even after our reasons for being there were shown to be irrefutably false. Kerry SUCKED at his campaign (thousand word essay on this whenever you're ready, plus some more frost)

Kerry said he was against same sex marriage. Kerry sucked as a presidential candidate because he didn't know how to stand in front of an audience and win them over with the right balance of charisma, charm, anger, intelligence, and drive.

He was too vanilla, and too "presidential". We don't need a freaking saint to run for president. We needed a real strategist and an innovator and a leader. We needed a fighter with absolutely clear moral clarity on every issue. Denying rights to some Americans to win over the moderates is NOT MORAL CLARITY.

We need a leader who can speak his heart AND CONVINCE US whether or not his focus groups agree. We needed someone with fire. We needed someone who could clearly contrast himself to the other candidates and show them to be lacking and we needed someone that people got EXCITED about, and excited in a positive hope-filled way.

Like I said, I'm voting my heart (and head this time). Don't take it for granted. And whatever you do, DO NOT attempt to shame a vote out of me, because voting for the wrong candidate and a candidate who doesn't support the issues that matter to me is what's shameful.

[karynnj]

46. Kerry never voted for war

He voted to get the inspectors in - he certainly didn't vote twice - no one did there was only 1 vote and it was in Oct 2002 - well before we knew there were no WMD - which was proved when the inspectors were in. Kerry has said that he shouldn't have trusted Bush. In OCT 2002, Dean's statements were more pro-war than Kerry's - he simply didn't have to vote. Also, Dean signed the Civil union bill because he had no choice - he clearly wasn't for going further. His and Kerry's positions of civil unions with similar rights to marriage are as identical as you can get.

Kerry was great before audiences - it would have been nice if the media covered it.

At this point, Kerry has the only detailed plan for withdrawing from Iraq. Only Feingold (of potential candidates is willing to go this far). Kerry was also the first (about 5 months ago) to call for the promised investigation into how the intelligence was twisted pre-war - only 9 other Senators signed it although Feingold and Rockefeller are asking for it now too.

[sui generis]

53. When Kerry said he would have voted to do it again

in spite of knowing what he now knew, that was as good as in my book. Also, there had been inspectors in there before 2002. And more than just WMD criteria was required; like, be sure you have an exit plan. How about, be sure you can afford this war. How about, we do not do "pre-emptive" strikes. How about, we do not give thirty day ultimatums and then invade in 7 days. All a bunch of complete and total shame and incompetence.

I am tired of having to blame Kerry having the wrong light, poor media coverage, stars in the wrong quadrant of the sky, etc. for his lack of charisma. Real charisma overcomes all of those things, and is an essential requirement of running a political campaign in the media age.

He is a great senator and statesman, no doubt. But he is lousy presidential material unless the field of candidates he's competing against are pretty harmless themselves, which is not the case today. There are sharks out there, and he is just a big friendly tuna.

We need a cheerleader, and strong moral leader, someone really fast on their feet with speech, and a knock down drag 'em out fighter not afraid to speak his mind and stand up for himself.

I'd vote for Ann Richards or someone like her. I want someone who is a good strategist, and WAKE UP KERRY. A brilliant rejoinder two years later is two years too late to win the presidency.

I'm glad there are people who love the air he breathes. He lost me at hello, I don't think you're good enough to be married to the person you love.

It's REALLY that simple.

[Mass]

54. A cheerleader: no thanks no. It is the Republican model .it gave us *

I want a nominee I agree with on issues.

I am tired of people repeating the same thing again and again and wanting to become Republicans, not necessarily in ideas but in the way they behave.
It is really that simple. We need somebody competent to lead the country, not some cheerleader that some think have charisma (and other will not).

[BTW, in 2000 the media told us that Kerry had so much charisma he would be bad for Gore as VP; this goes to tell you how volatile this notion is).

[sui generis]

60. you picked one thing out of that list

and ignored the rest.

It really is as simple as I'm not voting for someone who doesn't support my issues.

I can't make it any plainer.

Back to the gist of this thread -- don't take my vote for granted this time. Even your response doesn't seem to take into effect that this time around there are going to be hundreds of thousands of democrats like me who feel the same way and who will not be pressured by "moderates" to "do the right thing" at the last moment.

Don't take our vote for granted like the democratic party did the last time.

We're not stupid, or uneducated, or unaware of the real issues and we ARE the base. For a so-called "moderate" to claim that justified wars and same-sex marriage are far left issues leaves out "moderates" like myself who don't want my children to die in a war for oil and who want to be married to the person I'm spending my life with. "Moderate" is a pointless distinction, except to people in both parties who use the term to mean republican-lite.

Same sex marriage is my pet issue. It affects every single legal and financial decision I make for my family every single day. If another dumbass candidate comes along and tries to mollify the "moderates" with another mush mouth stance on this issue, they can go fuck themselves, and I mean that even if they walk on water and raise the dead twice a day before breakfast.
_________________________

And on the cheerleader comment - you confuse actual cheerleader (Bush) with someone who can get people excited about his message, which is what I meant.

If your message lacks clarity and you interrupt yourself three times to heap praise on your opponent and apologize for what you're about to say, and then interpret it and give background on it before you say it, and then finally while using subjunctive tense say it (that was clever of me), you're not an effective speaker, charisma OR NOT. I think this paragraph makes my point.

[Mass]

61. These are perfectly subjective perceptions, and it is fine

You will choose somebody who inspires you and I will choose somebody who inspires me (we agree on this part).

It does not have to be the same person who inspires you and inspires me or any of the hundred of thousands you refer to. We will see who inspires us next time.

I dont see what is the big deal about that. It is how it worked. You are free to vote for who you want and I am to, without being lectured about who I should vote for.

[sui generis]

62. I was about to say the same thing

in your last paragraph but thought it too lecture-ish.

;)

Seriously though, not to argue both sides, but, there are people who think that same sex marriage affects their traditional marriage who would refuse to vote for a candidate just because he supports the idea, and a good number of them are democrats too.

What's the constructive solution? As the "minority" do I always have to sacrifice myself for the greater good? When will the greater population start thinking about us?

As an American I wouldn't dream of telling people who they can and can't marry. You can't know what it's like to "be allowed" or to "not be allowed" to do something so fundamental to establishing and taking care of my family.

To "not be allowed" to visit my life partner in the hospital or to freely designate him as a beneficiary and next of kin to my children, to be considered "immoral" merely for existing by the same society who disapproves of me and my family, to not be allowed to serve openly and with honor in the military or the secret service or any of the security agencies.

This "one issue" is actually many issues and is central to my life. That's what the big deal is about it. Four out of ten people on DU think that we should be willing to give up equal rights to win an election. That's the big deal - even here on a progressive website.

My point is merely that my vote should not be taken for granted - and I can only speak for myself and people like myself in this particular regard.

[afdip]

17. all of the "i wouldn't vote for hillary . . . . " folks are part of the

"man bites dog" story. a vote against the democratic candidate for president will be nothing more than a vote for the repuke candidate, no matter how someone wants to rationalize it. the question is DO WE WANT TO WREST THE WHITE HOUSE FROM THE REPUKES OR NOT??

[Touchdown]

18. I don't listen to DUers who think anybody but the GOP

is setting Hillary up for a run. They are the ones talking about it. Not her, not other Dems, but The GOP, their TV talking heads and Dick, the toe sucker.

Stop listening to them, or they will pick our candidate for us.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. the thing is less informed democrats than DUers pick our nominee

so Hillary has a good chance. It sucks but whoever it is within reason has my vote.

[mestup]

31. Agree! We should be picking their candidate for them.

I'd rather see THs throwing out "will s/he run?" on the Repub side.

Is there a vulnerable Senate seat in your state?
http://www.removerepublicans.com

[Vincardog]

32. Right on if the GOP wants Hillary to run let her be the Repug candidate

Meanwhile we will wait for GORE to decide the time is right. Remember he won in 2000. Why don't we spend our energy getting rid of the crooked EVoting Boxes?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

23. Because "Fool me once, shame on you

fool me twice, er, um, won't get fooled again."

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. how were you fooled

?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

41. Actually, I was just riffing

on Dear Leader.

But the truth of the matter is that I was fooled into believing Kerry would actually fight instead of wind-surfing while he got slime-boated; would fight instead of telling the entire Democratic Convention not to say anything "ugly" about Dear Leader; would fight instead of conceding the entire southern U.S.; would fight instead of giving up in Ohio before the counting was complete; would fight instead of sitting down to Christmas dinner with the very politician who called all Democrats "girly-men."

On edit: stray quotation mark.

[sui generis]

43. Bravo Sir Captain

well said.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

45. Thanks!

And as a fan of Northern Italian Renaissance painting, what do you think of Giorgione's "La Tempesta?" I got turned on to it in Mark Helperin's "A Soldier of the Great War." He has some nice analysis.

[sui generis]

50. I know the piece you're talking about

but don't know much about it in particular. I'll have to check out Helperin.

Giorgio (Giorgone) was a 16th (mid renaissance) century painter born and raised in Venice, also a skilled musician - he was famous for unusual "natural" depictions, things like showing people outside rather than in closed detail perspective rooms.

In a famous "dare" he said paintings were as three dimensional as sculpture and claimed he could show all sides of a figure from all perspectives at the same time, after which he painted a guy standing near water next to a mirror across from a reflective panel. Venice "la Serenissima", at the time was quite an interesting place - the home of Veronica Franco, a courtesan and poet a few years after Giorgio died in one of the plagues.

What really makes Italian art interesting is the idea that rules are not "rules". They are guidelines specifying an ideal to strive for. So bending or expressing the rules gives this huge variety of composition and execution in each genre of art from the early renaissance all the way to the present, unlike the highly stylized paintings of the 18th and 19th century or even the Elizabethan portraiture, in which if you look, there is a very "standard" compositional look that everyone has.

I like renaissance painting in general because they painted the actual real faces of people, and not ideals. When you look at a portrait of a street scene, you are looking at a nearly photographic reproduction of certain people who have been dust for centuries, whether or not the castle is in scale behind them and whether or not biblical depictions had people wearing wimples and tunics.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

52. w/o going off-thread too far

Helperin (who, sadly, was an adviser to Poppy Bush and is a neo-con of sorts) argues that the traditional view that the man in La Tempesta is a shepherd is incorrect. He claims he's a soldier, and his argument has some merit. It's also a little like analyzing the cover of Abbey Road to determine whether Paul is dead.

[progressivebydesign]

26. Well, I for one, really enjoy watching the SCOTUS appointments.

Because we can thank anyone who didn't vote for Gore or Kerry for that devastating development. I guess it's hard for some to see the real world when all the way up there on their high horse.

[Totally Committed]

28. Never again.

Either I get a candidate I can vote FOR or I don't.

I am sick and tired of this Party running the wimp-ass losers they do, just because they think we will vote AGAINST the Republican.

Never again.

My Kerry vote was the last time I will cast a vote AGAINST a Republican for POTUS. Maybe the Democrats will have to run an actual winner if enough of us let them know this is how we feel.

No more wimp-ass loser corporate-loving war mongers who won't fight back when attacked. No more. Never again.

[stevietheman]

29. Until Hillary renounces the war, she will not get my vote. Period.

End of discussion.

[politicasista]

30. Haven't we had enough Hillary bashing?

Not to mention, Kerry and other dems? :boring:

[sui generis]

37. this IS a political website you know

talking about the candidates we like and the reasons for that is not bashing - it's what we do.

goosestepping is what the other side does.

[godai]

35. Kerry: Wrong war, wrong time...

Haven't heard Hillary say anything approaching that. She's totally shaping herself to be the left wing version of the shrub, to take positions that she thinks most people in the center support. The nominee needs to take positions based on beliefs. Dean tried but it didn't work this time.

I don't blindly vote for whomever the Dems nominate. Might sit out an election rather than vote for a 30th choice.

[trekbiker]

36. I'll oppose her in the primaries but vote for her if she is the candidate

[welshTerrier2]

38. ABB? never again ...

i voted for Kerry ... i didn't just vote for him actually ... i contributed to his campaign; i worked hard for the Democratic Party and i did what i could to influence others to support him ...

i didn't like Kerry ... i was purely an ABB voter but i believed if i was going to support him, even for somewhat negative reasons, i should do all i could to help him get elected ...

i supported the ABB movement because i had hopes that we could forge a new unity in the Democratic Party ... i had hopes that the grassroots activism that eminated from the Dean campaign and the Kucinich campaign needed to give the Party a chance to reform itself and give real voice to those outside the big tent ... i had hopes my voice would at least be heard and my viewpoints considered ... i had hopes that i, and others who think as i do, would share a tiny bit of power and help set the direction the Party takes ...

i've continued to work within the Party for the reforms i think are needed ... but i've grown very skeptical there is any interest in the Party elite to make the changes i support ... i've grown skeptical that the majority of us who want this war to end NOW are being given any consideration ... it's clear elected Democrats do NOT represent our views on this critical issue ... they seek no dialog with us and they continue to vote for more funding and extensions of time for bush's war ... there is no end in sight and our voices are ignored ...

and so, no, i will not vote for Hillary the Hawk ... and why is there a difference, you asked, between my vote for Kerry and my vote for Hillary? ... you ask a good and important question ... the answer, my friend, is that i have learned a bit since last November ... what i have learned is that my hope to have a voice in the Democratic Party was naive ... until the Party shows a willingness to share power with its constituents, i have no home here ...

i will continue to support progressive Democrats as my highest priority; those supporting bush's war can go to hell ... i will never waste my vote on their elitist hawkishness again ...

[sui generis]

40. To All "You BETTA vote for the dem candate" DUers and nonDUers

read this thread. And by nonDU'ers I mean, candidate staffers. Read up. A lot is being said here.

Give us the right candidate and it won't matter that Diebold cheats.

You can't hide a landslide.

Everyone else is just second best.

[leeroysphitz]

42. Jeeeeeez...... ENOUGH with the Hillary already.

If you support Senator Clinton then VOTE for her. Give everyone else a break in the mean time.

[lebkuchen]

48. I'd vote for her if she won the primaries

but I wouldn't vote for her in the primaries. With Hillary as President, we'd be back to the (present) days of Castro-bashing, which is so '60s.

Hillary needs to get with the program.

[serryjw]

49. In 2004 I would have voted for any Dem to protect the

appellate and Scotus....unfortunately now it is to late.

[Walt Starr]

51. Who I will or will not vote for in 2008

is very dependent upon whether or not the Democrats filibuster Alito.

[Larkspur]

55. I held my nose and voted for Kerry because long before Kerry was the

Dem nominee, I vowed to vote for the 2004 Dem Prez canidate because Bush was so bad. I was the typical ABB voter -- vote Dem but refuse to donate time or money to the Dem Prez candidates' campaign.

I have not made that vow for 2008. I've vowed to not vote for a pro-war Dem Prez candidate in 2008. I won't vote for Kerry, Hillary, Bayh, Biden, etc.

[lonestarnot]

58. Not vot'n for anybody that condones the war!

[godai]

63. I did this against Humphrey

He was just a substitute for war monger Johnson. Figured we'd get rid of Nixon at the 2nd term election but it didn't quite work out that way. But, we eventually did get rid of Nixon.

I see some analogies to the shrub's 2nd term. Some talk of impeachment but nearly impossible with the repubs controlling everything.