If You Don't Vote For Hillary In The General

[ruggerson]

(assuming she wins the nomination, which is by no means a foregone conclusion)..

Everyone with Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Multiple Sclerosis and scores of other diseases which WILL get stem cell federal funding under Hillary, has reason to despise you and your mindless selfishness.

The family of every woman who dies during a back alley abortion in a state that criminalizes abortion after Rudy or Romney appoints the final judge to overturn Roe V Wade has reason to despise you and your selfishness.

Every gay and lesbian couple who will continue to be second class citizens under the law has reason to despise you and your selfishness.

Everyone who cares about the environment and global warming and the future of the planet for our grandkids has reason to despise you and your mindless selfishness.

And the list goes on and on and on.

Go ahead and interpret this as flame bait. You couldn't be more mistaken. I'm just, frankly, totally pissed off at the stupidity of people here who scream "corporatist" and "DLC'er" at Hillary (many of these same people, you will note, continue to defend Hugo Chavez as he systematically destroys the freedom of the press in Venezuela). You don't have a FUCKING CLUE what a "corporatist" is, it's just a buzz word that you toss around to enable you to come up with a reason to explain why you wouldn't vote for a center-left, vastly intelligent, tough minded woman over some rightwing tool.

The name of the game in '08 is the Supreme Court. It will affect all of us for generations to come. If you don't vote for Hillary because you cling to some brand of far leftwing purity, you are basically telling mankind, your brothers and sisters, to fuck off.

[Alamom]

1. Bravo & rec. eom

[The Count]

2. I'd vote for Hillary in the general easier than for other candidates who

under the guise of "anti-war" they actually never met a war they didn't enthusiastically embrace. Let's just say, it's not Hillary who's the PNAC's candidate on this side of the isle.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Good post. I love the folks who fling around "corporatist" and "DLC" because

it just makes them look so COOL and ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT! Gotta fight against "the man", the bourgeoisie, gotta show that they really know what's going on, nobody's pulling the wool over THEIR eyes! Fine, y'all do that--be pure as the driven snow. I'll vote Democratic, no matter what, and thus vote to preserve the PRACTICAL things an electable mainstream Dem in office can accomplish--stem-cell research, SCOTUS appointments, health care, education, etc. Hillary is not my first choice, but I believe she's a good lady, and will be MUCH, MUCH better than whichever psychopath the GOP puts up, and whatever third-party candidate emerges.

[sandnsea]

4. Most people will vote for whoever the Dem is

It doesn't change the fact that she is NOT a center-left Dem and that her corporatist policies hurt working people - and will also make it more difficult to pass real environmental legislation, reduce the military, change the way we interact with the actual people of other countries. You can't serve two masters and in the end, the Clintons always choose the corporate world outlook. But she'd still be better than a Republican. Everybody knows that.

[Sonicmedusa]

5. Such drama!!!

Edited to add: Sorry, you did not convience me to jump on the "My party, right or wrong" boat.

[NMDemDist2]

65. you may be in the wrong forum then

We are Democrats here. We vote for the Democratic Party, we work for the Democratic Party and we support our Democratic candidates even when we disagree with them (oft times vehemently)

:hi:

[Pastiche423]

68. Incorrect

We are NOT all Democrats here.

DU rules:

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives.

[NMDemDist2]

69. did you keep reading?

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

[Pastiche423]

80. I was replying to your

"We are all Democrats here."

We aren't.

[NMDemDist2]

84. but I didn't say that.

there is no 'all' in my post.

:hi:

[Pastiche423]

85. So, you are agreeing w/me

that not all Duers are Democrats?

[NMDemDist2]

87. of course not

but all DUers are expected to support Democratic candidates to what ever level they are able/willing

Skinner et al have made that very clear and many occasions

[Pastiche423]

88. He said that for the primaries?

Where did he say that?

[NMDemDist2]

91. here's one instance

I thought we had a deal. Democrats are supposed to fight it out during the primaries, and then we all put aside our differences and support the nominee, whoever it is.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/109

and here

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Pastiche423]

94. You just proved that what I said is correct

"I thought we had a deal. Democrats are supposed to fight it out during the primaries, and then we all put aside our differences and support the nominee, whoever it is."

[NMDemDist2]

98. but we're talking about the DEMOCRATIC party primaries

and what the hell does this have to do with my post to the guy who said "Sorry, you did not convience (sic) me to jump on the "My party, right or wrong" boat.

I don't know why you've jumped into this, but it's really none of your business since I wasn't addressing you in the first place.

this is Democratic Underground not ProgressivesUnderground or LiberalsUnderground or IndependentsUnderground.

why is that so hard for you to understand? We are here to support and elect Democratic Party candidates.

:shrug:

[Pastiche423]

105. I KNOW IT'S THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES

That was my point!

Democrats are supposed to fight it out during the primaries, and then we all put aside our differences and support the nominee, whoever it is.


I "jumped" into the discussion because you said, "We are Democrats here". Your statement is incorrect. I am not a Democrat, but I am a progressive. And progressives ARE allowed to post here. I've been posting here for five and a half years.

Btw, this is a public forum. Anyone can reply to anyone.

I do support some Democrats, but not all. I will not support any Dem that voted for the IWR or is a member of the DLC.

I am not a goose-stepper.

[NMDemDist2]

107. you can support anyone you want in the Primaries

but you are not welcome to support 3rd party candidates here or to work against the Dem who is in the General

goose step or not, DU is for people who support Democratic candidates. I still don't get why you are so adamant about this, it ain't brain surgery. I never said you had to support any/all Democrats in the primaries, that's just ridiculous. Why would we need primaries if everyone already agree who to support?

What is you problem?? If you call yourself a progressive what other choice do you have? Or are you an old Naderhead or something?

I don't care who you support or don't support. I don't care if you vote for Puff the Magic Dragon in the primaries. What I do care about is this is DU and we support Democratic Candidates. The thing I love about the Democratic Party is that we aren't 'goose steppers'. Organizing Dems is like herding cats and I like it like that.

But if I see someone calling on us not to vote for the Dem on the ticket I'm hitting the alert button.

Peace out, who ever you are, I still don't know why you are jumping on my ass for stating the obvious to someone who stated clearly that they weren't going to 'jump on the Party bandwagon'

Whatever......

:eyes:

[whopis01]

119. We all have rights and freedoms and they are not your to take away.

but you are not welcome to support 3rd party candidates here


It is one thing to explain why you feel people should vote one way or another, but to tell them that they are not welcome to vote any way but how you want them too is going way too far.

I fully understand not allowing someone to post messages supporting non-Democratic candidates (particularly in the general election). I even understand (though I don't advocate or agree with it) the idea of not allowing someone to be a member of this board if they profess support for non-Democratic candidates. After all this is a publicly accessible, but privately owned discussion board.

However, to imply that someone, by virtue of being a member of this board, has somehow given up their right to vote for who they choose is beyond all reason.

Until you explain where anyone signed away their civil rights by registering on this board, I suggest you rethink your statements.

[NMDemDist2]

124. oh good grief!

as Skinner says in the rules

Your Freedom to Leave

All visitors to the Democratic Underground website are here voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you to post on this message board. The administrators try their best to be fair, and to make Democratic Underground a welcoming place for progressives who like Democratic Underground and who want to be here. If you do not like Democratic Underground, or the members of Democratic Underground, or the way we run Democratic Underground, then we strongly suggest that you exercise your right to leave. If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves.


In the meantime, I don't have to 'rethink' anything. I have stated my position clearly and you can take it or leave it, it's entirely your choice.

:hi:

[whopis01]

130. Of course anyone is welcome to leave this message board. That is not the point.

Everyone is also welcome to vote as they please, despite your statements to the contrary.

Telling someone to leave because of how they are going to vote is one thing, telling them how they must vote because they are here is another thing entirely.

You are also correct, you don't have to 'rethink' anything. It was merely a suggestion.

[NMDemDist2]

132. please point out where I told *anyone* how to vote?

I never would, since that is each individual's personal choice.

All I've ever said in this ridiculous subthread is that DU recommends and works for Democratic Candidates and if you don't plan/want to vote for Democrats you are probably in the wrong forum.

What has gotten you two so riled up about such an obvious and banal statement? The mind boogles at such a strident response to what should be such a no-brainer.

:shrug:

[BoneDaddy]

121. Agreed

What an immature way of trying to sway a vote.

[Raven]

6. Don't you think it's a little early for all the doom and gloom?

I'm still rating the candidates and while I will certainly vote for Sen. Clinton if she wins the nomination, I will do it holding my nose. At this point I am looking for the candidate most likely to bring ALL troops home from Iraq who also will be able to win in November. Aside from not liking some of Sen. Clinton's positions...leaving troops in Iraq and keeping the bombing of Iram on the table...I am not sure she can win in the general election.

I'm not sure that you're going to find many people here refusing to vote for Clinton in the face of any of the Republican candidates so maybe your post is unnecessary hyperbole.

[Zensea]

7. There is good reason to call Clinton corporatist and DLC

I've got plenty of clue what the words mean, thank you.

This does not mean that I won't vote for her is she gets the nomination because whomever the Republicans put up will be worse.
But I'm not going to shut up about it because I'd like to attempt to have someone else get the nomination instead.

As for whether it is flame bait -- if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...

[ruggerson]

13. I'm supporting Edwards in the primaries

and plan to vote for him. The OP is solely about the general.

[Zensea]

14. So am I

unless something changes drastically between now and then

[sueh]

93. Then why don't you wait and see who wins the primary before

you tell us we better vote for Hillary-in-the-general-or-else?
:eyes:

[ruggerson]

95. Because

there are scores of posts here every day from people saying they won't vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. So, I was addressing them. I didn't realize I was subject to your specific rules about what and when the "Hillary as nominee" discussion is appropiate to have.

[saltpoint]

8. First she has to win our nomination in Denver. Iowa will get first crack

at things this coming January. Many of us will see our fellow Democrats in other states' earlier primaries winnow the field. Sooner or later one candidate will become our nominee and I plan to vote for that nominee.

Agree that the Supreme Court appointments the next president makes will determine the quality of life in this country for the next two or three generations. You're right to suggest it holds primacy.

But I would be just as comfortable with the judicial appointments of other Democrats. Sen. Clinton is not the only candidate who, if elected, would likely choose pro-choice judges. Things drop off sharply when you get to the Republican field, but our folks know what needs to happen on that bench.

[SharonRB]

9. I'm not supporting her in the primary, but there's no way I won't

vote for whoever winds up with the nomination in the general. Not voting or voting for the Repuke is not an option.

I'm still holding out for Gore, though.

Run, Al, run.

[HughBeaumont]

15. Need to distribute some of that vibe all over.

Al definitely isn't the same candidate as the 2000 Gore.

Save this election, Al.

[SharonRB]

48. I and the rest of the Draft Gore movement all over the country

are spreading it far and wide! I hope he doesn't let us down but I will respect whatever his decision is and the work he is doing and will continue to do whether or not he runs.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. Thanks so much for the clarification

as those of us who don't choose to ignore Hillary's many many sins certainly need to be educated in politics even though most of us have been active and voting for 30+ years.

Yeah, bullying and "shut up and vote." That's the ticket. :eyes: :sarcasm:

I'll be writing in Al Gore's name, but thanks for playing.

[mike_c]

11. oh please-- this is so lame....

Want eight more years of the status quo? Eight more years of occupation in Iraq? Eight more years of imperialist foreign policy? Eight more years of the scam "war on terror" that drives immense profits for the military-industrial complex? Eight more years of the neocons achieving their core objectives? Eight more years of profits before people?

Then elect Hillary Clinton. You'll get it all.

[slay]

116. I agree - I'll vote for who I choose...

...and it WILL NOT be Hillary. If Hillary losing is what it takes for the Democrats to realize that we need a truly progressive candidate, then in my opinion, it will be a worthy lesson to all the DLC dems and their apologists out there. I'll write in Al Gore's name for president if I have to.

[HughBeaumont]

12. Every soldier and their families will THANK me.

For thwarting the Iraq quagmire she plans to continue and the Iran conflict she's open to escalate (calling for "all options on the table" for Iran. Oh, did you know that?).

Every worker who will lose their job thanks to offshoring (which she supports and says nothing about on-shore worker protection or revisements of disastrous trade agreements her husband passed into law) will thank me.

But hey, I guess I'm just being mindless and selfish for caring about these people. Am I really telling these people, which the Bewsh Administration has FAILED immensely, that I want more of the same?

What a stupid fucking post.

IBTL.

[ruggerson]

16. As if by you and those like you installing Rudy

instead, you are helping all those people you just listed.

Get a brain stem.

[HughBeaumont]

22. RUDY??? AHH AHA HA HAHAHAAAAA!!

Please. "Mr. 9/11" is primary fodder. He's got nothing, he IS nothing. That one event defined and destroyed him.

I don't really see why anyone's concerned anyway. Short of another election theft, a plant stand could win against any Repuke they put up. None of the Republican candidates has a strong platform, all want to continue the Iraq debacle, the public knows the country's been decimated by Republican policy, and not a single one of them has a connection with the American pulse; whether it's statement or name recognition. They're running 10 unfeeling sand dunes. There's no familiar "Bush" or "Reagan" name they can latch on to, so it's a toss-up among weak names, one-trick ponies, nutjob extremists and right-wingers once again passing themselves off as moderates.

I don't want more of the same. You give me ONE reason why a Hillary presidency would be any different. She's given me NO evidence through her statements and speeches that the things I mentioned will change. The next Dem candidate will be better for the environment and science, that's a given. But are they going to do something about ending the war and injecting a modicum of FAIRNESS into the economy? These issues also matter tremendously.

[Hippo_Tron]

99. All of the Democratic candidates will pull MOST of the troops out of Iraq at least

Less troops will die because of it. Reduced troop levels in Iraq is better than the Republicans who will just keep the quagmire going and going.

[MadHound]

115. Sad that now Democrats are settling for "most" of the troops rather than peace and all of the troops

Also very telling.

Once again, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[TwilightGardener]

18. This military wife won't thank you when Rudy McThompney takes office.

And I agree with Hillary on both Iraq and Iran.

[HughBeaumont]

23. Agree that you want the bloodbath to continue and another one to start?

Please. I'm SO unbelieveably curious as to why these soldier/citizen executions and useless tax drains MUST continue.

[starroute]

43. You're not just speaking as a 'military wife'

You and I were just arguing over at this other thread -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3320543 -- about the organization being formed by the CSIS people, and you said, "I don't find anyone objectionable (except for Armitage) being involved in it--it sounds like a good antidote to AEI (neocon equivalent). It's trying to EVENTUALLY end the war, at least, and it's bipartisan. I don't think they're neocons, or a 'shadow government'--where is there evidence of this being anything other than a typical foreign-policy think-tank, with a lot of distinguished/qualified people associated with it (like Hillary)?"

And "I see assertive but DIPLOMATIC policy as good, that doesn't just react but plans ahead to what's coming next. We are entering into tricky waters with Russia (nukes/missile defense shield and all that), and China will loom large. India too. I am nervous about a big oil/energy struggle against them in the future. I am nervous about us being on the losing end, and not having achieved adequate energy independence when these countries 'awaken'."

I couldn't figure out then whether you were speaking as a loyal Hillary supporter who didn't want to acknowledge that she might be part of anything dubious, or whether you seriously think the pattern of the future will be a struggle over energy against Russia, China, and India, with the primary imperative being that the US not wind up "on the losing end."

But either way, if you're going to take positions that are somewhat non-standard for DU, I think it would be helpful if you'd explain your premises and not just suggest you're looking for a candidate who'll promise to bring the troops home five years from now.

[TwilightGardener]

70. I didn't say anything that is inconsistent.

I don't have an obligation to "explain my premises", reveal that I am a military wife, or reveal who I'm supporting as a candidate in order to post an opinion on any given topic. I don't think my views are "non-standard" for DU--I do not support the Iraq war, nor do I support military action against Iran, UNLESS they become a true/imminent threat and we have a consensus from the UN/world community to do so. I also plan to vote for the Democratic nominee. I would imagine my positions are very close to most middle-of-the-road Americans, of which I am one. I do have genuine foreign-policy concerns in terms of oil and the Middle East, as I've expressed on that other thread, and I do think that the way out of Iraq will end up being a gradual, responsible drawdown, which I believe both Hillary and Obama also advocate. I am a staunch Obama supporter, by the way.

[TeamJordan23]

17. Quit the fear mongering and let people decide for themselves

We are adults, not children, let us make our own decision. I am going to be voting for the Dem nominee but this posting is just stupid. Are you saying anyone who voted Green or Independent is throwing their vote away?

[ruggerson]

19. Yes, that is what I am saying

and they helped install Bush in 2000.

Last I looked this wasn't "Green Underground".

[TeamJordan23]

20. I'm sorry, but I guess I believe in a free democracy

Instead of blaming the Green Party for Bush 2000, maybe you should blame Gore/Leiberman for not doing enough people to vote for them in the key states.

[William769]

24. Hate to burst you bubble but in 2000 Gore/Lieberman had the most votes.

They lost the electoral college thanks to SCOUTS which of course was because of Nader in Florida.

[TeamJordan23]

32. I said "most votes in the key states." Gore/Leiberman deserve blame for loss, not democracy

And it wasn't just Florida, Gore could not even carry his homestate of Tennesse in 2000.

Again, it is such stupid logic to blame the voters. If a person does not vote for you, blame the damn candidate for not doing something right. There is a reason that a voter doesn't vote for a candidate; you are you to second judge someone's vote. It is soo against democracy to blame the voter. So what if someone is against the corporate two-party system or something what a candidate stands for. They have a choice and let them decide that choice (whether it is made rationally or not).

[dsc]

21. great post

but I would replace your part about gays and lesbians with every gay and lesbian fired for being gay etc.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MuseRider]

26. Sad.

We all have our limit. Some things we can live with, others we can't. It is simply the saddest thing when we can't understand that. :loveya: Ruggerson but there is not one chance in hell I would cast my vote for her or most of the others. I am sorry if that makes you angry. Don't bother telling me what you think my particular attitude will get us. Having said the same things you are saying at one point in my life I am old enough now to know better or at least I have grown enough to know better. Seriously, you don't think we got in this particular mess because of idealists do you? I think it is because of the "D no matter what" attitude but then that is another post.

When the D's can't even stand up for what they believe in for more than one vote and they cave in at the slightest hint of "unamerican" thrown by the other side then they have left me and my country. Who says that any of them will do what they say they will? My answer is that most don't so if I think they stink now I know they will reek once they have the power. It is the nature of it and it has happened over and over. Corporate control rules most of them and if they get elected they will be beholden to the corps and them alone.

Supreme Court? Pah! Apparently Roberts and Alito were not so bad that they could even mount a stand against them. I don't care that they could not win they could have at least made an effort to oppose them strongly. So what makes you think that they won't put up similar judges? I mean really, they did nothing to tell us they would not. If you think that gays won't be pushed under the bus if it is politically expedient then I don't know what to tell you. It would happen in a heartbeat without a second thought.

I have to leave so I won't be back to answer but I do hope we can still be "friends" because I really don't want to fuck off. :hi:

[bvar22]

27. First time I ever wanted to "unrecommend" a thread.

So many inaccuracies....so little time.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[illinoisprogressive]

28. I will never, ever give my vote to that old lady

[Flabbergasted]

29. One of the most dishonest posts I've ever read here. Thanks for the laugh. nt

[jefferson_dem]

30. Oh...sweet. Vote for Hillary or else...blah blah blah!

This is just an attempt at "tongue in cheek" satire, right?

[Ethelk2044]

114. She will never get my vote

[cascadiance]

31. If the supreme court is the measuring stick, then YES, I'm concerned about Hillary...

The name of the game in '08 is the Supreme Court. It will affect all of us for generations to come. If you don't vote for Hillary because you cling to some brand of far leftwing purity, you are basically telling mankind, your brothers and sisters, to fuck off.

For the next president of the U.S., I'm concerned that not only should the new SCOTUS appointments be concerned about a woman's right to choose, but ALSO whether they follow the constitution on issues around far worse judicial activist decisions of the past surrounding "corporate personhood" and "corporate free speech", etc. The court has been pushed even more towards the corporatocracy's dominion on this in recent years than they have been on overturning Roe v. Wade. Even Rhenquist, as much of a bastard he was on some issues, at times made decisions or avoided ruling on cases with these issues because he recognized the unconstitutionality of such notions. Roberts on the other hand is a complete corporate tool, as is Alito. The last thing we need is another corporate tool as a new justice on this court. We need someone to help reverse that trend. Of the current set of front runners in the Dem primary, including as of yet not running Al Gore, Clinton is in my book the least to be trusted to put a non-corporate serving SCOTUS judge on the court, with ties to people like Rupert Murdoch, and her past associations with Wal-Mart, etc.

[bonito]

33. I won't vote for Hillary period n/t

[Totally Committed]

34. .

:nopity:

TC

[DesertRat]

35. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Period.

[AtomicKitten]

36. The ideological makeup of the Supreme Court matters

... and I completely agree with your rationale. Bunnypants has installed his own particular brand of activist judges throughout the system across this country. Our civil liberties will remain in jeopardy for generations if we don't make damn sure the insidious policies imposed by this administration are overturned.

I also apologize for the bad manners of people mocking you on your OP. It seems snark is too often confused for conversation here at DU.

[ruggerson]

50. Much of the snark

is from people who don't bother to actually read the OP and assume it's a post promoting Hillary in the primaries.

The reading skills here are sorely lacking. :)

[AtomicKitten]

54. worse

It's knee-jerk snark often expressed in one-size-fits-all rhetoric and impervious to reasonable discussion.

Oy vey. :hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

37. I wish you could convince the rest of the country

It's not just "Far left" Dems , but many downrange and rural dems and r's who are up for grabs.

I'll vote for Hill, but nominating her would be a terrible mistake. It's about the only way we could lose.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. This post is misleadingly titled. It's actually about criticism of Hillary, not voting for her.

You don't like criticism of Hillary. Tough.

[Lerkfish]

39. this frickin bogus argument again?

everyone here will vote for her in the general if she wins the primary.
I really, really, tire of these chickshit tactics by pro-clinton supporters on this boards. STFU already, we're tired of your lame threats and bogus characterizations of anyone not subscribing to the cult of Hillary.
I might indeed vote for her in the primary as well as the general. I'll know closer to the primary, but these repeated character assasinations of anyone not willing to jump immediately on your clinton bandwagon keep pushing me away, its counterproductive.

we already suffer under a cult of personality administration. And we see where that got us. If I vote for Clinton in the primary, it'll be because I've carefully weighed what I know about each candidate at that point, and I'll vote for who more closely matches my political stand. AFTER the primary, I'll vote for whoever wins the primary.

I will NOT vote for her, however, just because people like you try to threatend, chide, or shame me into doing so. Peer pressure is not how I arrive at a choice in the voting booth, and I'm tired of being insulted by the implication that I can be pressured into accepting your candidate.

I do not appreciate loyalty oaths to YOUR candidate. Let's see how the primaries work out. For example, Kerry was NOT my choice in the primary, but I completely supported him in the general. We're democrats, we vote democratic.

when will you get that through your thick skulls?

[ruggerson]

41. Your reading comprehension skills need some fine tuning

a) this post is about the general election. Read the title of the OP>

b) I am not even voting for CLinton in the primaries. I support Edwards and have for months.

c) There are many, many people here who have said they would NEVER vote for her in the general, so your contention that "everyone on this board" will vote for her in the general is flat out bullshit.

[Lerkfish]

52. nope, my reading comprehension of your intent is just fine, thanks.

I"ve said what I want to say, and you already had your say. Live with it and move on.

[ruggerson]

55. Apparently you can't address the points I elucidated

so you ignore them. It's your life and your country, bub.

[TheWatcher]

101. Yes it is, and perhaps I do not want to trade one corrupt Status Quo for

and equally corrupt one that will change NOTHING.

I'd like the chance to vote for real change.

[John Q. Citizen]

40. And those who want an American Empire will be upset at you, too. You forgot that.

My brothers and sisters wouldn't vote for Hillary in the primaries, so I'm not to sure they will be pissed of.

In fact, I'm pissed of at those who keep working to perpetuate American Empire.

Haven't you noticed what's going on?

We had two terms of Clinton back in the 90's and why are gays and lesbians still second class citizen? If you don't ask, I won't tell you why.


As long as voters are held hostage to the corporatist's agenda of either party, as long as voters are blackmailed into voting for American Empire, nothing is going to change, only the peripherals will be debated while the 5000lb elephant in the living room is being ignored.

Frankly, I'm amazed at the people here who aren't calling out the corporitist's/Empire agenda of the American ruling elite, whatever letter they stick behind their name at any given moment.

Fortunately, there is a whole world out there of researchers in many countries who are doing stem cell research, and American based big Pharma Corporations will make sure they get a slice of the government pie to get their patents, no matter which tool is elected. That will do far more than Hillary ever will. She's not doing the research, after all.

If you keep promoting Hillary in the primaries, all your bad karma will come back and bite you in the ass, and you will be left blaming others for your support of a losing candidate who is about as pro-American Empire and pro corporate elite as they come. Mark my words.

(Edited to remove an unfounded and mistaken paragraph on my part that blamed Bill Clinton's Supreme Court nominated Justice Ruth Ginsburg as voting to install bush in the case "bush vs Gore." Ginburg actually voted in the minority 5 to 4 decision and she voted to allow the recount in Florida to continue.)
I apologise for any confusion my confusion may have caused.

[ruggerson]

45. Try again

"As I recall, Bill Cliton appointed the Supreme Court justice who voted to appoint george bush president, who helped him steal the election. So what good is a supreme court appointment with frinds like those?"

Bill Clinton appointed two Justices during his tenure. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Both of whom voted against the majority in Bush vs. Gore. Both of whom wanted the recount in Florida to continue.

"If you keep promoting Hillary in the primaries"

I'm not promoting Hillary in the primaries. Don't you read OP's before you respond to them? The OP is about the GENERAL.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. You are right about Ginsburg and I am going to edit. I posted and then I googled before I

saw your reply, I came back to edit and saw your reply. Sorry for being too quick on the draw. My mistake.

[William769]

51. Not the first time and I am sure it won't be the last.

[John Q. Citizen]

56. How can you be so sure? Is it a pride thing? Or do you mean that yes, people make mistakes?

I'm not sure how to interpret your remark.

Is it a snarky personal put down or is it an acknowlegdement that humans aren't perfect, yourself included?

As I wrote, I posted and then went and googled because I realized I might have forgotten the facts as to the minority/majority vote. When I came back to this thread to correct my error, I found the OP had caught it and posted that I was in error.

Again, I apologise to all readers for my mistake.

[William769]

59. Actually it was both.

I hope that cleared it up.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. Yes, it cleared up my difficulty in interpretation, and it provides some insight as to

your personality.

Thanks for that.

[William769]

64. Anytime.

I had your personality pegged long ago.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. Glad you read my posts. I'll have to check out yours in the future. n/t

[William769]

78. I hope you do.

It's always good to broaden your horizon.

[emilyg]

42. i'll vote for Hillary - gladly

R

[Kingstree]

44. This is Bull Shit

[Larkspur]

47. stem cells aren't any good for people who lose their jobs to India

Hillary favors oursourcing of good paying American jobs to India and elsewhere. She supports the dismantling of the Middle Class and creating a permanent serf class for her corporate donors to exploit. Hillary is Repuke light.

[Kingstree]

53. They would not be able to pay for the medical bills to get the work done.

Investing in India and moving middle class jobs over to india. WOW makes me really want to vote for Hillary, when my job could be next

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

49. I will vote for whomever I want

If Clinton is running on a conservative agenda, why would I vote for her?

I'm sick of the elites taking our votes for granted.

[More Than A Feeling]

60. Amen, especially to your last sentence.

I, too, am sick of being taken for granted.

[HooptieWagon]

57. How do we know....

"Everyone with Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Multiple Sclerosis and scores of other diseases which WILL get stem cell federal funding under Hillary, has reason to despise you and your mindless selfishness.

The family of every woman who dies during a back alley abortion in a state that criminalizes abortion after Rudy or Romney appoints the final judge to overturn Roe V Wade has reason to despise you and your selfishness.

Every gay and lesbian couple who will continue to be second class citizens under the law has reason to despise you and your selfishness.

Everyone who cares about the environment and global warming and the future of the planet for our grandkids has reason to despise you and your mindless selfishness."


... this isn't just more HRC triangulation? Frankly, HRC doesn't represent me... only herself. She will abandon the issues you cited (assuming they're of particular importance to you) when it becomes politically advantageous to do so... and her corporate DLC puppet-masters direct her to do so. Sorry, Clinton STANDS for nothing, and no amount of puke-esque fear-mongering will convince me she does. She's NOT getting my vote in the general, I'll do third party or write-in for Gore or Clark.

[Nedsdag]

62. "Every gay and lesbian couple who....."

How did gay and lesbian couples feel about "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act which was pushed through by Hillary's husband?

[William769]

71. Pushed through?

Or was it a compromise after they tried to admit Gays and Lesbians into the armed forces.

[bunnies]

58. Vitriolic ranting.

Not the best mode of conversation if your aim is to change someones mind. However if you point is to insult / alienate... well done.

[Colobo]

63. If you don't vote for Obama in the General...

[ruggerson]

66. Very true

and I plan to vote for him, should he be nominated.

[William769]

67. What am I missing here?

[LWolf]

72. We might just be playing 2 different games.

The name of your game might be "the supreme court." The name of my game might be "the complete corruption of a government that is no longer "of the people, by the people, for the people," and my refusal to vote for any politician, including Hillary Clinton, that I believe will enable that corruption.

[DemBones DemBones]

73. I agree with you. nt

[ulysses]

79. hello.

:thumbsup:

[LWolf]

89. Hi, Uly.

:hi:

;)

[w4rma]

74. Let's just prevent her from getting to the general, instead. (nt)

[SoDesuKa]

76. No Chance

There has to be party discipline, just to keep potential nominees from wandering off in search of enemy votes. Sure, you can vote wrong a few times on non-essential issues. But Hillary was more than wrong on the war, she refuses to apologize.

Too bad. There are a lot of likeable things about Hillary, but that war vote is a deal breaker. She's not even interested in negotiating with the anti-war left.

[dogman]

77. I would vote for her, but I talk to a lot of people who are Independent and say no way.

If the GOPer has high negatives, they might stay home. No coat tails there. High negatives for her could cost seats. This is bigger than what "we" would do. How will others be swayed?

[elizm]

81. Some of us believe very strongly...

...That if you vote for Hillary in the primary you will get the same results that you are talking about....because she will lose in the general and the Republicans will still be in the White House. Just sayin'... :shrug:

[fujiyama]

82. All good points

People need to watch the republican debates and see what freaks every one of them are to remind them that Hillary won't be as bad as any of them.

Also, Stevens is getting old. If any of the SC justices die or are forced to vacate, there will be a lot at stake. As much as I dislike Hillary, I don't see her nominating another Alito to the SC.

[Alexander]

83. I wonder if the Hillary fans will vote for Gore or Obama?

Seems like we should have a loyalty thread going the other way.

Boxer, Dean and Feingold are very loyal Democrats.

Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are another story.

Of course if she's the nominee she'll get my vote.

But I remember Holy Joe supporters who were allowed to post here even after Ned Lamont became the Democratic nominee. That's against DU rules, and I didn't see a single one of their posts deleted.

I don't think it's the far left we need to worry about.

:eyes:

[Major Hogwash]

86. Or Kucinich or Gravel or Biden or Dodd or Edwards or Richardson

Funny how people don't like it when their heroes get pulled off of the pedestal they put them on.

[HooptieWagon]

126. The Hillary supporters

are taking for granted she will garner additional support as the primary field is winnowed down. i don't think that will be the case. Is a Gore supporter going to switch to HRC if Gore doesn't declare? Will the Kucinich supporters switch to HRC? Edwards? I just don't see it... So, if Obama remains in second, and somewhat close to HRC, I see his support growing from the other candidates. HRC will remain in the 30-40% range, which won't be enough to win the nomination in a 2 candidate field.

[election_2004]

90. If I don't vote for Hillary Clinton in the General Election....

...she will win California anyway, with or without my vote.

Because that's how the Electoral College works.

And she will win the General Election itself, with or without my vote.

Because that's how the MSM works.

[sueh]

92. Believe it or not, the primary election comes first.

So, I will vote for my candidate of choice.

And, BTW, your post lost its fire and brimstone with this: quote "(assuming she wins the nomination, which is by no means a foregone conclusion)".

[ima_sinnic]

96. you totally lost me with your Hugo Chavez BULLSHIT

I find it curious that you mockingly tie the "stupidity" of people who rightfully link HRC to the DLC and their corporatist agenda to supporters of Chavez--and your willful obtuseness regarding not renewing a broadcast license is an old tired RW bullshit schtick--

as far as I am concerned, OP deserves "most ridiculous, dumbass thread-starter of the week" award. I've been voting for 38 years and never needed some sycophant to tell me I "better or else" vote for their candidate. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON--so sue me already. I live in a democracy and have that right! I detest that woman!! she is a FAKE, a PANDERER, A CORPORATE SUCKASS. she is NOT A LEADER, she is NOT COURAGEOUS as she has NEVER TAKEN A COURAGEOUS STAND ON ONE GODDAM THING.

The Iraqi people will thank me for NOT voting to continue the genocide and mass murder in their country. Apparently OP approves of that war and wishes it to continue indefinitely, implying that OP supports the global corporatist predators' agenda of unregulated plunder of the planet's resources and labor and squelching of people's rights movements (also indicated by the transparent and laughingly IGNORANT dig at Hugo Chavez).

I advocate for Dennis Kucinich as he is the only one of the declared candidates who is innovative, courageous, original, wise, and ethical, but I will switch to Al Gore should he declare--and if he doesn't, I will write him in.

[jcrew2001]

97. I'm not voting for Hillary in the primary and I will wait until

after the primaries to decide on my general election choice.

[TheWatcher]

100. I don't have a fucking clue, eh?

After reading your post, I think that albatross is squarely around your neck.

I truly think you mean well, and I truly think you believe that Hillary is the answer.

So be it.

You don't really deserve to be flamed, but pitied

Pity for you when you finally have to wake up the fact that she didn't really feel your pain..

People like you really do live in The Matrix.

Because if you truly believe that ANY of your laundry list of concerns will come to fruition under Hillary, then I am dearly afraid that it is YOU who are befret of a clue.

And take your juvenile fuck off to those who will not do as you say somewhere else, perhaps to a Yahoo board.

It's rather tiresome and boring.

[Pachamama]

110. Guess a whole lot of us don't have an effing clue....

Well said.... :hi:

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

102. A Hillary ClinTon presidency will usher in a massive disgust with American politics and a crisis

Many will cease to vote Democratic.

Because the Democratic Party will no longer represent us, the people.

[Larry Ogg]

103. Unfortunately this country has been headed in the wrong direction for a very long time,

and conservatives (not liberals) have been leading the way. If this country does not change direction, the benefits of stem cell research will be the least of concerns confronting the New World Order’s population of serfs. For that reason and others, I will not vote for the conservative party ever. If you want a Democratic president in 09 vote for a liberal Democrat in the primaries, vote for a change of direction, vote for some-one who has not bought into and supports the lie “They hate us for our freedom”, vote for some-one who is not afraid to tell the truth about our foreign policy or stand in the way of tyranny…

[Moderate Dem]

104. Funny, I am supporting Hillary

BECAUSE of her stance on the war in Iraq.

[unkachuck]

106. what's the matter?....

....are you getting worried?....

....don't get upset, if Hillary gets the nomination there will be many, many people voting for her in the general....

....I won't of course, but then again, I don't like war-mongers; but there'll be plenty of others....(please don't call me a repug, if I was, I'd probably like her more)

[MrSlayer]

108. If she gets the nomination all those things will come to pass anyway.

Because whether I vote for her or not she isn't going to win.

[Milo_Bloom]

109. I don't trust her!

And I don't believe she would do 10% of the things she is claiming, including putting in a Supreme Court justice I can believe in.

She's sold us out before and will do it again if given the chance. I won't be a part of giving her that chance.

[GeorgeGist]

111. Thanks for the warning ...

[DeepModem Mom]

112. Writing in, or staying home, appears to be the new Nader --

it has the same effect. And I say that not as a Clinton supporter. I'm for Obama. Thanks for your post.

[zulchzulu]

113. What about Dodd?

By the time the primary season rolls around, people will have Senator Clinton's number and she won't be the nominee anyway...

The Clintons had their chance...we got NAFTA, the WTO, DOMA, the Telecommunications Act, the embarrassment of watching a cheating husband that we believed lie to our face and more... it's time to turn the page.

I see it this way. If you vote for Senator Clinton in the primary, you're voting for an overwhelming Republican victory in the fall. Then you can look at your list and see what you let happen...

[JNelson6563]

117. Wouldn't this apply to any Dem candidate?

:shrug:

[whopis01]

118. This is me telling you (as you put it) "to fuck off" for telling me how to vote. n/t

[BoneDaddy]

120. Gimme a break

Wow. So if any other Dem candidate wins then all those people will lose. what a ridiculous thing to say. Not to mention the lame attempt at guilting my vote.

[churchofreality]

122. Absolutely right!

I will vote for the nominee, period. The worst dem is better than more epublicans. That is all the justification you need!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

123. The USA will not be controlled by one person

hopefully a Democratic member will be elected as President but the person should not operate like a loose cannon. That person should follow Democratic Party policy. I'm sure that Hillary, if elected as POTUS, will operate for the people and her party. No worries!

[NaturalHigh]

125. I'll make you a deal...

When you pay my taxes, you can tell me how to vote. Until then, I will continue to vote for whomever I choose, and that won't be Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

[NYCGirl]

127. "If you don't vote for Hillary, we'll kill this dog!" The thread title always reminds

me of the National Lampoon cover:

[LittleClarkie]

128. Assuming of course that she WILL do what you think she will do

If she gets the nom, and wins the election, and becomes president, and DOESN'T do what you say she WILL do, then I think there will be a different person that all those people you list will dispise.

Maybe she will, maybe she won't.

But we won't know til she actually becomes president and we see if she has the same talent for politicking and compromises that no one was happy with that that her husband did. We will see if she is more conservative than he was. We will see how committed she is to the issues you list. We will see what kind of Congress she will have to work with.

I would say you're over-stating things just a tad.

[silverweb]

129. Hillary's not my choice for the primary.

But once our Democratic nominee is named, expect my full and unconditional support for whoever that person is!

[knight_of_the_star]

131. She's not the nominee yet

So stop acting like its already been decided before a single vote has been cast.

[OHdem10]

133. Most will vote for whomever is our candidate

However, this does not mean we shutup and never mention
Corporate Connections and DLC.

There Liberals like me left of center--more left than right
who have serious intellectual disagreements with DLC and
too much Corporate Influence. We are not anti-business
but we see that the Corporations have gained too much
power. We maintain our right to fight against this.

We are not stupid--we will vote for the candidate that is
chosen. We cannot afford another term of Republican Rule.

If one chooses to run for President, then be prepared to
be challenged on your loyalty to Democratic Principles.
The GOP is the party of Big Business or is it??

[Bake]

134. To those who have said in this thread, "I will never vote for Hillary"

I have a question, and it's essentially the same sentiment expressed in the OP: IF HILLARY IS THE DEM NOMINEE, and your choices are (a) Hillary Clinton, (b) Rudy McRomney-Thompson-Paul, (c) "Other," and (d) "Nobody," do you still say you'll NEVER vote for Hillary? That's a serious question, and I'd seriously like to know who you intend to vote for under that scenario.

I'm not a Hillary fan in the primaries. But if she's the nominee, she gets my vote.

Bake

[More Than A Feeling]

135. Really? What does that say about the people who nominated her in the first place?

If they nominate a candidate who fails to win peoples hearts and minds, don't they bear even greater responsibility?