Until today I would have voted for any Democratic candidate running for president, not anymore

[still_one]

If Hillary wins the nomination, she will not get my vote. Anyone who didn't learn the lessons of the IWR, and effectively voted for a permant presence in Iraq has lost my vote permenantly

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[movonne]

3. We need everyone here...its true hillary wants to become the

war president..

[Gman]

No, we don't need people like that

or anyone else that accuses any of our candidates of wanting to be a war president. People like that are no better than Republics.

[still_one]

28. I guess you must of have stood in line during Nam to enlist huh? /nt

[tekisui]

63. We do need them.

[roguevalley]

149. not pulling out until 2013, when she assumes she will be safely

into her second term is the height of cowardice and calculation. For those of us with people in this war and young enough people in our families to be drafted --and that is the only way this shit storm can be sustained that long-- we can only say, fuck you, lady. put some of your own skin in the game and maybe we can talk.

[LittleClarkie]

5. I hope you don't plan to canvass for Hillary that way

"Oh yeah, well we don't need you" could tend to lead to a loss in the primary if you say it too many times.

[Gman]

10. Ha! As if there are that many votes lost here for Hillary

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Gman]

11. Because I'm tired of

unmitigated, unapologetic, unforgiving, snarky, petty, in-your-face, vitriol-filled assholes that bash Democratic candidates. The line is drawn.

[burythehatchet]

16. Do you wear fatigues when you post?

[Gman]

18. No but I think I'll start. Good idea for

when people bash another Democrat

[still_one]

36. so let me ask you, what is your opinion on the Iran resolution today? /nt

[kysrsoze]

104. Didn't you just bash a Democrat yourself? Hillary can blow me. She's a Dino, Repub-Lite, DLC

dirtball and I can't believe that this is all we can come up with as a party. I'll have to think long and hard about voting for her stupid @ss, because I abso-f*ckin'-lutely deplore her pro-war, pro-corporate voting record, as well as her bullshit "mandated health insurance premiums/shove your tongue right up the insurance providers' @sses" medical plan. I used to respect Bill a LOT, but almost everything Hillary stands for these days just sickens me. I've been Dem all my life and suppose I may (I repeat, MAY) hold my nose and vote for her over the Repub candidate, but who knows anymore.

And bravo, still_one, for calling a spade a spade! :patriot:

[still_one]

113. I to have been a life-long Democrat, and I have just seen the party going down hill

I will not vote for her in the primaries, and who knows when I finally get into that voting booth on general election day what I will do. Maybe she won't be the nominee.

We lost 60000 plus Americans in Viet Nam, millions of civillians, and half of that was due to Johnson, and the other half to nixon

This stay the course crap is really getting to be old hat

Yes, I know the Supreme Court is at stake, and that is bothering me big time

I am shaking my head, this isn't a game, people's lives are in the balance

[roguevalley]

150. Pray Iowa kicks her ass and compells Gore to come in. He won't

keep my family in this until 2013. Count on it.

[Moochy]

142. ALL the Internet Tough Guys are wearing them!

[yodermon]

29. kay.

btw nice to see you emulating your candidate's favorite bible verse.

[KoKo]

125. Didn't John Dean worry about Authoritarians? If Dems can't criticize

other Dems constructively...then it seems to smack of authoritarianism...like the Repugs are victims of.

[burythehatchet]

15. I am absolutely certain

that many are campaign drones

[Lerkfish]

24. well, that would explain things a bit, but if they are

they are doing their candidate more harm than good, I'd say.

[Lerkfish]

23. not exactly reassuring, eh?

[still_one]

30. I find that pretty interesting also. Instead of trying to defend the position, they display

an aragonce which alienates

[yodermon]

44. it really mystifies me, I mean she's up by like 40 points.

Why do they feel the need to be such massive assclowns? Hell, if I were them i'd try to "make nice" for now, what with such high poll numbers; if things get tight (after early primaries) then i'd re-up the snark.

Ah well. prob'ly violates their t&c's.

[still_one]

51. I am sure part of the reason is because if they are viewed as passive, it will be 2004 again

However, their is more than just being agressive, it is also voting on the right side with some issues

If I understand the resolution today correctly, what it says is that we will stay there to prevent Iran from taking over Iraq.

It was the U.S that has made that a possibility, by invading Iraq, and it was those in Congress who voted for the IWR which made it a reality

[awoke_in_2003]

77. The arrogance they display

is learned from the one they support.

[still_one]

97. There is definitely some truth in what you say, but also they media does not give us a fair shake

so I understand the defensive attitude. However, that still does not rationalize bad judgement

[The River]

38. They Have "Mommy" Issues

That kind of behavior proves the point.
They think she's going to "save" them.

[Strelnikov_]

39. Don't know

But I have been thinking the same thing.

Level of discourse was much higher in 03/04.

[Elidor]

42. It's not all of them, by any stretch

Just a select and vocal few.

[yodermon]

45. yes, I do agree.

Hence the "almost".

[mikelgb]

43. honestly

and they choose the most unbecoming arrogant looking shots of her for their avatars

[madeline_con]

88. Birds of a feather? n/t

[Hoof Hearted]

105. I support Hillary

But I will without hesitation support any other person who earns the nomination as well. I'm not even settled on Hillary, but I DO support her, as I do all of our candidates.

[WilliamPitt]

112. Maybe because they're constantly under attack?

Dunno.

As an '04 post-Kucinich Kerry-supporter-because-we-have-to-fucking-win person, I was constantly under attack, as was a lot of fellow types, and I'm not talking about the primaries. It still happens; the other day during the taser thing, someone replied to me and referred to Kerry as "Your guy," which was true, but then this person went off, etc.

Kinda sounds familiar. The constant warfare absolutely turned me into an unmitigated, unapologetic, unforgiving, snarky, petty, in-your-face, vitriol-filled asshole. It's tough stuff to be a we-need-to-win person on DU...at least until the nomination is set, anyway.

What sucks is...well...WE NEED TO WIN. SCOTUS, etc. I shouldn't have to explain it, anymore than it needed to be explained four years ago. Except on DU, somehow, sometimes it does really need to be explained. Which I ain't doing (again) cuz I'm beat, and don't want to get beaten.

If I ever do wind up supporting Hillary, though, you can bet your whole ass I won't talk about it here. Been there, done that, got the concussions.

;)

[yodermon]

121. Good points Will, but

i did forget one adjective, though - "gratuitous".
Like this post, in light of this article.

And you're right, we do Need to Win. I just hate to see the soul of the Democratic party get crushed in the process.

How will we feel when she's president and we still have 100,000+ troops in Iraq in 2011? And the abuses of the current regime are all but forgotten? And when none of the players will have been indicted, or even investigated, because hey, they're out of power now, so why pile-on? Don't want to seem like mean-spirited Democrats now, do we. That might endanger the 2010 midterms.

sorry for the pessimism.

[KoKo]

146. I wonder what will be achieved if we Win? No money left to do anything positive

because of Bush's Wars... Maybe the Chinese and Saudi's (Dubai and Quatar, too)will help fund health programs for children, rebuild our roads and bridges in exchange for "toll fees" and maybe they can even help privatize our SS and build more charter schools where the investments will give them more of a return than our worthless treasuries they are holding, now.

I do believe Hillary or whomever will hold the Supreme Court. But, it seems a high price to pay to be told: "...oops we don't have money for any of the programs we thought we could give you or even sustain...because our National Security is the most important issue we have to deal with. Spreading Democracy throughout the ME. Sorry we can't do more....but it's all Bush's fault for putting us in this position and it's going to take awhile for Democrats to straighten out this mess he's made...be patient." :grr:

[Mojorabbit]

9. Ooooh

lets all walk in lockstep. No one is allowed to vent their major disappointment in any of the candidates.
I want people with all kinds of viewpoints in the party and as thinking caring humans, I want them to vote their conscience.

[burythehatchet]

14. hahahahahahah

Who you gonna hate in two thousand eight? Nader's not running.

[still_one]

For over 30 years I have been a Democrat, how many have you been. How many wars have you seen?

I could care less whether you want me in or not, it isn't your decision

[mikelgb]

41. what happens when the only ones left in the party are Hillary supporters?

[Tesha]

137. Perhaps we're about to find out? (NT)

[Selatius]

47. You don't own the party anymore than I do. Shove your hideous arrogance.

This kind of attitude is disgusting regardless of which quarter it comes from. You're response is disgraceful.

[leftofthedial]

58. rah rah rah

go team!

[madeline_con]

86. Who put you in charge of the party?

"speaking as one Democrat" "we..."

:wtf:

[stranger81]

100. and who appointed you hall monitor and party leader?

the more Democrats that see through the neocon visage that is Hillary, the better. And for the record, you don't speak for all Democrats. And you certainly don't speak for many progressives.

[David Dunham]

2. Obama and Edwards also said they'll keep troops in Iraq

[Blackhatjack]

8. Edwards said he would remove all combat troops, keep those to guard US Embassy...

[still_one]

31. and that is why right now Edwards will get my money and support /nt

[southerncrone]

4. Not to mention the vote today allowing * to declare ware on Iran!

[liberalmuse]

13. No they didn't!

Fuck.

[still_one]

32. That is actually what I was referring to, although it is non-binding, it represents a view

that nothing was learned from the IWR vote

[superkia]

6. Typical politics, if you believe in honetsy and integrity in what you do...

you need to get out of the party? Thats how it works on the hill and its washed down to the voters. If Americans stay asleep at the wheel the way we have for sometime now with politics, the democratic party will be taking a hit. You will have the tried and true who take the all or nothing attitude and they wont be the majority. I feel your pain about voting for Bush Light and more of the same and don't worry about what other people tell you, they don't control the democratic party and your opinion matters!

[still_one]

34. This is why we deserve the government that gets elected. I would like to hear a Clinton

supporter justify this vote, and their reason.

[liberalmuse]

12. President Romney? President Guiliani?

Oh, you don't mean that!!! I understand where you're coming from all too well. I'm there every day. All I have to do is think about a Republican President and I snap out of it. I know Hillary seems like a Republican, but the truth is, she is not as bad as they are.

[saracat]

53. Justify her vote ytoday. Just tell me why.

[still_one]

107. Forget romney, it will be guilliani. How is Hillary going to distinguish herself from him?

They are both for choice, civil unions, and it appears staying in Iraq

They differ on healthcare, civil rights, i.e. patriot act, etc.

so there are differences, but will they ever actually get to THOSE differences, or will the focus be on Iraq?

[MazeRat7]

17. Richardson, Kucinich, and Biden all committed to "ALL OUT" before end of their 1st term.-nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

21. Didn't Dodd and Gravel also commit to that? eom

[MazeRat7]

25. I dont recall them answering the question directly...

I might have missed it.. but I'm pretty sure only 3 actually made the commitment.

MZr7

[goodgd_yall]

152. Yes, Dodd said he would have troops out by the end of his first term

Which is what the question was---if they would have troops out of Iraq by 2013.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

19. okey dokey, thx for sharing

[skids]

20. I know how you feel, except for the voting part...

...my opinion of Hillary wasn't high to start with but is much lower as of today.

But if I was in a swing state and it was down to her or Rudy/Mitt/whatnot, I'd still show up to the polls for her.

Fortunately I don't think the general will even be close in my state, so there's 3rd party options.

[uppityperson]

26. I know what you mean, how OP feels too. It is depressing.

Someday I want to be able to vote for someone I want to be president.

[still_one]

46. California is a strange state. They are thought of as Democratic, but it is really mixed

As I said in the beginning I was planning to vote for any Democratic nominee for president until today. The supreme court was my basic reason, but this vote blew me away

What it IS saying is that a lot more people are going to die for nothing

When she has previously come out and said that she learned from the IWR, and would never allow herself to be trapped again, and then votes for this resolution, what is the message?

[RamboLiberal]

22. Hillary is certainly not my first choice among Dems

And I don't understand why she is leading in the polls while Obama is leading in the money, but having said that if she ends up with the nomination I will vote for her. The prospect of Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain or any other Repuke in the WH is a far worse fate.

Any Dem that takes their bat and ball and goes home in a huff or votes for a third party candidate with no chance of winning is a fool IMHO! Yeah you can be smug and stand on principle but the country will finish it's trip to hell!

My candidates of choice would be either Edwards or Obama or an Edwards/Obama ticket or a Obama/Edwards ticket.

[awoke_in_2003]

81. She is not my first choice either

but like you, I will vote for her if she wins the primary (may have to take a shower afterwards). What make it bad here, though, is you have a few, very vocal, Hillary haters, and a few, very vocal, Hillary super-supporters. It begins to hurt the brain after a while.

[DearAbby]

120. I donno know. With all that is at stake

why nominate a person that is so polarizing? Why not pick one that had broad appeal. One that has a chance of winning?

After the 04 elections we were told polls mean nothing, now all the sudden polls are the end all thing again? I cant believe Hillary is actually leading in the polls, and why after 04 am I trusting polls again?

:crazy: just thinking about it. I plan to once in my life, vote for the person I FEEL is best for the job. I hope you do as well. Maybe, just maybe we agree...and it just takes one vote to win, and one grain of one rice to tip a scale.

[Kelly Rupert]

27. The RNC thanks you. n/t

[still_one]

40. How about this, maybe we will nominate someone who doesn't believe in a permanent Iraq

presence?

[W_HAMILTON]

48. How about

we don't, because the majority of Democrats will vote for Hillary in the primary.

Then Hillary goes to the national election, all the Hillary-haters stay home, another Republican wins the presidency, and we have a permanent presence in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.

That's a MUCH better alternative, right? :sarcasm:

[still_one]

52. sarcasm or not, it is going to be an interesting election /nt

[W_HAMILTON]

55. I don't want another "interesting" election

I want Hillary to continue to be strong and deflect the same sort of attacks that took down our Democratic candidates in recent years, I want all the Democrats (and every other person possible) to turn out and vote for her, I want her to win the presidency, and I want everyone to see the real difference in having Bush, and someone like Hillary in office, and to realize that we as a nation would be MUCH better off.

Even if she isn't the perfect candidate, she's FAAAAAAR from another Bush, and her presidency would allow people like Kucinich and other candidates a better shot at winning future elections. If we keep letting Republicans win and drag our nation further to the right, our candidates will have to continue to move to the right to appeal to the American majority, and then you'll be even more disappointed.

Hillary isn't perfect, but she represents progress in the right direction.

[still_one]

60. If you want her to be strong, then she shouldn't vote for resolutions like the one today

How do you think she will respond to this question:

You indicated that you learned the lessons from the IWR, and that you would not fall into that trap again. Based on that, how do you justify your vote for the Iran resolution?

[W_HAMILTON]

65. And she would talk her way out of it

And in the general election, we as Democrats will be better off for it.

No more "$400 haircut" moments.
No more "I voted for it before I voted against it" moments.

No more silly situations and silly sound-bytes which the Republicans can run with and win an entire election off of.

If Hillary was president before we invaded Iraq, I don't believe we would have ever invaded Iraq.
If Hillary was president today, I don't believe we would invade Iran.

Unfortunately, politics is a game. The game Hillary is playing might make you hate her now, but when Republicans have no "head-smacking" moments they can run over and over (and over and over) and scare the American public away from voting for our candidate, maybe you'll appreciate it when we actually win the presidency for once.

[still_one]

73. You are painting an extremely cynical picture. "Don't listen to what I say, trust me" /nt

[W_HAMILTON]

80. Not really

I just listened to her answer on the vote today, during the debate, and I understand what she was saying.

When she cast her vote today, do you REALLY believe that it means she wants to invade Iran? I'd prefer to see her vote against it as a matter of principle, but I'd rather see a Democrat win the presidency. If she has to make votes like this to keep it from being used against her the same way Republicans used everything else against our last two candidates, then so be it.

Again, politics today is a game. The Clinton's know how to play that game. That's why Bill won twice, and I would put money on Hillary winning in 2008. You might not like the game they have to play to win the presidency, but our last two candidates have played it nice, and stayed out of the fray, and took it on the chin when Republicans called them out for silly stuff...and it cost us the elections.

[still_one]

84. I did not see the debate, I was working, could you sumarize it, thanks /nt

[W_HAMILTON]

95. She basically said

That she viewed the vote as not giving an authorization to war, but condemning the Iranian Republican guard as an organization that has been aiding and supporting attacks on our troops in Iraq. That's probably not word-for-word, but the debate is re-running now I think.

Is it probably a non-committal answer, or an answer that most people around here don't want to hear? Yeah, probably. But again, she's playing this as if it's her run to the presidency, not her run to the Democratic nomination. If she doesn't vote for the resolution, Republicans make her out to look weak, and say that she refused to condemn attacks on our soldiers. She votes for it, and they can't say that. But she can say that in condemning Iran, it doesn't mean that she gave the president authorization to start a war with them (and that's basically what she confirmed at the debate).

[still_one]

98. Thanks, I will try to catch it. These nuances always get us into trouble. /nt

[W_HAMILTON]

108. Ok, she said...

...that by voting for the resolution, it condemned Iran's Republican guard for aiding and supporting attacks on our soldiers, supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and by listing them as a terrorist organization, it allows them to put in place sanctions which will actually "give teeth" to stopping Iran, rather than (she didn't say this part, but inferred it) free-falling to a point where we have no option but a military option to deal with Iran.

In no way did she say her vote was authorizing the president to go to war with Iran.

[still_one]

111. That is a defendable position, I need to think about it. I am still pretty troubled by it /nt

[Tesha]

140. But see, you *UNDERSTAND* how to avoid that dilemma.

> Then Hillary goes to the national election, all the Hillary-haters
> stay home, another Republican wins the presidency, and we have a
> permanent presence in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.

But see, you *UNDERSTAND* how to avoid that dilemma: nominate
a Democrat who will inspire more Democrats to vote for them in
the general election rather than will war-mongering, AIPAC-
kissing, flag-protecting Hillary. That's the difficulty with
this primary process -- Hillary could win a plurality of all
of the Democratic primares and *STILL* end up with a majority
of Democrats thinking she blows when the general election rolls
around.

And that's probably what will happen.

So why not nominate someone better?

If you can see the train wreck coming, why not help us apply
the brakes now?

Tesha

[ThomCat]

128. You're right, because if HRC gets the nomination

no matter who wins we have a republican in the whitehouse. x(

[illinoisprogressive]

33. Oh but she can play victim again by saying Bush lied to her....sarcasm

[Mz Pip]

35. Think about this

before you so blithely dismiss potential Democratic candidates: What kind of nominee to the SCOTUS do you think Hillary Clinton would put forth? What kind of nominee would McCain put fort, or Romney or Huckabee.

Presidential terms are 8 years a most. A SC justice can affect our laws for decades.

Want another Scalia? Alito? Thomas? Fine, take your ball and go home.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[still_one]

54. and that is a valid argument, and one I used myself to justify voting for any Democrat

However, when Hillary indicates that she learned the lessons from the IWR, and now votes for this resolution, even though it is non-binding, what does that say?

Does it say I can trust her?

She had made statements early on questioning parts of Roe V. Wade

I don't know, and if she turns out to be the nominee I may not know until I am in the voting booth

[countmyvote4real]

67. Is there still a Democratic Primary election? Is it already over before it was scheduled to begin?

Just asking. I might have received some wrong voting information somewhere.

I assume that you assume that Hilary will be the Democratic nominee. She's got lots of money from special interest groups that will pay for advertising that says that we should vote her. That doesn't mean that we have to vote for her. Gawd knows there are few Repulicans that will ever pull that lever or punch that card. She is the most polarizing candidate beyond Rudy. (He's actually worse, but the rest of "non 9/11" doesn't get that. He wasn't their mayor.)

So, are you saying that we are already stuck with her? We have no options or choices left?

What is a "can't vote for another dynasty candidate" voter supposed to do? Should I be contributing Ron Paul's campaign?

[still_one]

90. You have a point, however, I would advise against ron paul, unless you are for states rights

for everything, including civil rights

[countmyvote4real]

110. Does that mean that HRC is both the GOP and "our" Democratic party candidate?

That's enough said for me to finally sit out a vote. As if I would. I will vote for tinkerbell before I ever get down with these dogs.

[still_one]

116. I am pretty confused right now /nt

[countmyvote4real]

118. Why are you confused? Trust me.

It will help the rest of us that are just as confused but already seem to have our minds made up.

We need to quibble a bit.

[still_one]

119. What was 2006 about? Didn't the Democrats win on Iraq?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate

[Mz Pip]

122. I am assuming nothing

Edwards, Obama, Biden all could still be our nominee. But if she is, I would trust her on SCOTUS nominees more than any Republican camdidate out there.

I am not saying we are stuck with her. VOte for whoever you want in the primaries. I know I will (I haven't decided on a candidate, yet) but if the Democratic nominee is Hillary, I'll be voting for her because of the SCOTUS, if nothing else.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[mmonk]

37. A candidate has to earn my vote.

That's why I'll only commit when they earn it. Right now, I know I could vote for Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, and Edwards. Beyond that, I have to hear more. And no, I won't vote republican or independent so no straw man bull from any of you. It's just at this point in history, I'm not going to vote for someone if I oppose their positions on issues critical to our future.

[Samantha]

64. I think you are absolutely right

I turned off the debate with the same decision. Of course, I have never been a Hillary supporter. I suspect she's a Republican Pygmalion and has been for years. As a woman, however, I do respect her; as a politician, no thanks. She's too in concert with the Bush family and she's been too supportive of Bush* during the last seven years. Add that to the fact she conspicuously did not stand up in support of Gore during the 2000 election controversy and one sniffs some very suspicious political aromas emanating from her political persona. And then there's the Goldwater Girl thing in her political closet.

As I mulled over the issues discussed in the debate wondering if others might have sensed the same discomfort with Hillary as I, Pat Buchanan appeared on the television screen declaring Hillary won the debate. A ha! An arch conservative declares Hillary the winner of tonight's debate -- what does not suggest?

Just too too many things about Hillary do not add up to the candidate I wish to support.

I have said for six years now I will not support anyone who gave Bush* the authority to go into Iraq and I stand by that statement today. Tonight when I turned off the debate, I concluded that my longstanding impression of Hillary the politician was correct. She smells too Republican, and too self-promoting, to garner my vote.

Political junkies today have a theory that not voting for the party candidate is the same as giving a leg up to the opposition candidate. In days of civic classes gone by, the act of not voting was accepted as simply abstaining. Truthfully speaking, I support that latter position. If one cannot discern on the issues enough distance between one's party's candidate and the candidate of the opposing party, it is entirely acceptable to abstain and let those who have allowed themselves to think they can to decide the election.

[still_one]

96. I wonder if they had an entry for NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot, what that would imply?

[Samantha]

115. It must imply one should write in "Al Gore."

[still_one]

117. Excellent /nt

[countmyvote4real]

49. That's the least of my problems with her.

Come sit by me.

[AtomicKitten]

50. I have to agree with your rationale.

I just don't know if I'm prepared to not vote for this particular candidate if she gets the nod, which may in turn contribute to the election of a Republican in the White House, and that simply can't happen. I am really torn between pragmatism and idealism, but I believe the former will only guarantee mediocrity at this point in time.

You're right-on, though, regarding this vote. It is in essence a pre-Iran War Resolution vote, should have been prevented from even reaching the floor for a vote (why can the GOP manage to tie Congress in knots but the Dems can't?) and that means GAME OVER for Ms. Clinton in my opinion. She may go on to win the nomination, but she is most definitely not the best candidate the Democrats have to offer America.

[saracat]

56. Game Over.You are so right.

[still_one]

57. She WILL, or SHOULD be asked about her rationale, and how she could vote for this

resolution, while saying that she has learned the lessons from the IWR

You have stated my dilemma much better than I did.

I know very well that the Democrats are taking the liberal and the left vote for granted. I also know that they have taken the African American vote for granted for many years. That is a dangerous game to play

I also am aware that the Supreme Court is at stake, which even makes them bolder, perhaps falsely so.

[AtomicKitten]

68. The Supreme Court is of vital interest and concern to me too.

And an Al Gore candidacy would solve this this entire planet's dilemma. I almost feel bad asking him with the pile 'o sh*t this country has become, but we need him desperately. Al Gore is a good citizen.

Help us Gore, you're our only hope.

[Harper_is_Bush]

59. I imagine your thread is being linked over at FR with glee.

What is your point in posting something like this?

And can I ask, who did you support as a Dem candidate yesterday?

[still_one]

66. Interesting, like you don't think this question is going to be asked of her?

Are you kidding me. How will she answer the question, "How could she say that she learned the lessons from the IWR, and yet vote for this resolution?"

Who care what the freepers think, I care about what our party stands for

Yesterday, I would have voted for Edwards in the primary, and any Democratic nominee in the general

[Harper_is_Bush]

72. The IWR is not THIS resolution. They are not the same, so please

don't pretend they are.

And yes, nobody here should (and few do) care what freepers think. I'm just sayin' they'll get pleasure from your thread, that's all.

[still_one]

75. What the resolution said is that we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary to prevent Iran

from taking over, among other things

Yes, the resolution was non-binding, but it describes a thought process.

So, did she vote for the resolution because she believed in it, or did she vote for it because she wanted to attract the conservative vote?

Either way it doesn't paint a very nice picture

[Elidor]

61. I understand your frustration

I don't know what I'll do, beyond casting a vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary.

[Blue-Jay]

62. You probably didn't mean for this to be flame-bait, did you?

hahahahahahahaha!

Of COURSE you did!

[still_one]

70. I will contact the Clinton campaign tomorrow, and ask how she can justify learning from the IWR

yet at the same time voting for this resolution today

I will do it in writing, and on the phone, though I would be very surprised if I received a reply

You are calling it flame-bait. Tell me, what is your position on the resolution today? If you are against it, wouldn't you like to know the leading Democrat's reason why she voted for it?

[Blue-Jay]

89. There are lots of things that I'd like to know.

Most of which I'll probably never get a satisfactory answer to. Such is life, eh? Sucky, but true.

Still, I'm going to vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination next year. Period.

And yes, I am indeed calling this thread "flame-bait". And no, you didn't deny it.

[still_one]

92. No it wasn't flame bait, I am frustrated by her vote, and among other things

wanted to hear a possible justification for it?

[Blue-Jay]

102. You ended your statement with a question mark, but didn't really ask a question.

Was there a question for me that I didn't infer?

[still_one]

114. The question infered was, what was her justification for her vote. Someone has already answered

it for me in a previous post, saying that she indicated this wasn't a vote to go to war, but to take a stance against Iran

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Hillary votes for what she thinks best. I also have that option.

And, she can damn sure bet that I'll be using it.

[still_one]

71. I am curious to know what her reasoning is when she is asked why she voted for it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. You'd probably do better to ask her "handlers".

At least you'd have a somewhat better chance of getting a straight answer.

[still_one]

78. Well, we shall see in the next few days if her campaign comes up with a rationale

for her vote

[Chomskyite]

76. If she does get the nomination . . .

. . . all the other Democrats who ran against her would want you to vote for her. And they would each say your not voting is enabling another four years of Republican killing and plunder.

[still_one]

83. That is probably true. One thing is important though, if people do disagree with her vote

then they should let her campaign know. If they don't, then they will be assume that most people must agree with that position

and maybe they would be right

What surprises me is that the polls for the Iraq war have shifted against it, and I would have thought that during the recess the Congress would have heard from their constiuients. Last tiime I looked we were a representative government

[Marr]

79. I won't vote for her, either.

My days of holding my nose to vote are over. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I'll say good luck to her "moderate" supporters and watch them lose as they wait for that "moderate Republican" support they're always jabbering about.

[W_HAMILTON]

82. I don't know who your perfect candidate is...

...but the more and more Republicans win, the less and less likely it is that a Kucinich-type will EVER win. I bring him up because apparently he's everyone's dream candidate around here.

So, get used to holding your nose, or get used to not voting.

[Marr]

85. My ideal candidate is one that doesn't vote to authorize

war with Iraq and Iran. If those are considered acceptable Democratic positions, then I don't particularly care if the Democratic Party wins. If that's what this party will accept, then perhaps it needs to keep losing.

I won't vote for a neocon or someone who supports neocon foreign policy ideas. That's not asking for much.

[still_one]

87. He is not my dream candidate, actually Al Gore is, but that isn't going to happen

[W_HAMILTON]

93. I'd actually prefer Gore to run as well

I think only he and Hillary can win in the national election. Hillary, because she's been attacked for years and is still going strong, and she knows how to handle those sort of petty attacks which derail most of our Democratic candidates. And Gore, because he's been through the wringer once, and has since been proven right on all the things people laughed at him for in 2000, and people will vote for him as a way to right the wrong of 2000, and everything that has happened since.

If Gore would enter the race, I would switch my support to him. But I don't think he will enter the race, and that's unfortunate. He's matured beyond all the attacks of 2000, and wouldn't be phased by them, the same way Hillary isn't phased by them. However, any of our other candidates would get demolished by those sorts of attacks.

[still_one]

103. Gore isn't going to do it. As far as Hillary or any of the other candidates, we will see

how well they stand up to attacks. It would be far better if they didn't make themseleves a target, it is going to be tough enough

[Froward69]

131. You are mistaken

Hillary and gore and Edwards are whom the republicans WANT to be matched against. they fear Obama only because he is black. Dodd simply hasn't a snowballs chance. However Biden is the only candidate the republicans are truly terrified of... they will not even mention him as they don't want him to get any more press than minimal. Hillary is a target, with more name recognition.

Biden would beat ANY repube anywhere anytime.

[Ignis]

126. It's gone from "holding my nose" to "cutting off my nose."

We already have to deal with backstabbing, hawkish, corporation-fellating DiFi here in California. Why should we have the same on the national level?

Thanks for making it even harder to vote for you in the national election, HRC. x(

[mondo joe]

136. Who elected DiFi?

Just wondering.

[Ignis]

147. Idiots like myself who held our noses to vote for her. (nt)

[mondo joe]

91. I guess 8 years of the GOP running the White House wasn't enough for you.

:shrug:

[still_one]

94. 8 years, for the last 16 years I have watched the Democratic party erode into what it is today

Incidently, I am quite confident that whatever happen with the executive branch, we will take back both houses in a big way

[mondo joe]

99. Hm. If you're so down on the party, why do you care if we take both houses?

[still_one]

101. I care, because Congress has the power to declare war, and pass legislation /nt

[stranger81]

106. question is, will that mean anything at all by the time it happens?

The further the party moves to the right in the meantime, the less good it does all of us (except the Blue Dogs among us) in the event they get elected. . . . I became a Democrat because I supported the principles -- not because I really, really liked the name.

[still_one]

109. The stem cell bill wasn't helped because of Democrats like Casey in Pennselvania

I detest Nader, but as time goes on, his statement that there is no difference between the two partys may become a sellf-fulfilled prophecy

I hope not

[Poiuyt]

123. Idealism is fine, but in this case, it's not very practical

The next president will either be the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. Period. There is no third choice.

There's too much at stake to not do all we can to get a Democrat in the White House. Another 4 years of fascist rule will ruin our country. And I don't buy into the crap that there's no difference. It will make a huge difference regarding the Supreme Court, global warming, and yes, eventually peace too.

[lateo]

130. As long as people cave on their principles and...

vote for the least evil candidate this will always be the case.

[mondo joe]

138. Lifeis about choosing between many less-than-ideal options.

It's not always ideal to get up and go to work in the morning - it beats unemployment.

It's not always ideal to walk the dog but it beats poop on the living room floor.

In an election someone will be closer to what you want than another.

[lateo]

144. In this case there is a diminishing return.

Your only choice is do you want to bleed to death slowly or quickly. The end result is the same though.

[mondo joe]

148. False. Progress is what it is - sometimes you jump ahead, sometimes

you go back a bit, sometimes you're locked in place.

But all of life is still about what gets you closer to where you want to be.

[lateo]

151. Progress?

I suppose it depends on how you define progress of course. If you measure it by the middle class being screwed by the people they vote for then yeah we are making progress. If you count progress as watching out Constitution being shat upon by both Democrats and Republicans then we are making progress. If you count more people without health insurance than ever before then we are making progress. In almost every sector of America you look at it is falling apart. This isn't the progress I want.

[UTUSN]

124. So you will be de facto voting for any Rethug. eom

[bigtree]

127. then the republican will have that much more opportunity to advance

without your lifting a finger to do anything significant to stop them.

[Vilis Veritas]

129. Please Stay Strong...The Nuances Are Many...

But the issue is clear. We Need To Take Back The Government From The Republicans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1917157&mesg_id=1920543

Peace and remember,

Together We Are Invincible.

No Fear.

[ContraBass Black]

132. If she is the nominee, who willl you vote for instead

That will end the occupation?

[LeftCoast]

133. I truly do not understand this mind-set. Please help me out here

Assume for a moment that HRC actually is the nominee - though this is certainly not a forgone conclusion at this point. Hypothetical lineups for the presidential election then would be:

Clinton v. Thompson
Clinton v. Giuliani
Clinton v. McCain
Clinton v. Romney

Can you explain to me how not voting furthers your interests?

[mondo joe]

139. It's like the time machine has gone back to the "no difference between Gore and Bush

days".

Some people never learn their lesson.

[LeftCoast]

141. It does feel much the same

People forget that one of the major pushes of the RW meme-machine is to cause the LW to stay home.

[rucky]

134. We need to back them into a corner.

not the other way around.

[BrightKnight]

135. Smells like an elephant turd

There is nothing wrong with a little political fundamentalism. When you start advocating against the Democratic party I have a problem with it.

[book_worm]

143. Kucinich gets my primary vote, but if it's Hillary she will get my vote in the general

Sorry but even she would be better than any of the people on the GOP side.

[mdmc]

145. ibtl

Dems are less evil then pukes. That is the best we can do.