If you won't vote for Clinton if she's the nominee

[cali]

because you believe she's no different than Rudi, Fred or Mitt, how did you come to that conclusion. Much as I hope Clinton isn't the nominee, I see significant differences in who she'd appoint to the Federal Bench, in her support for social programs (did you know she wants to give each baby born $5,000 dollars for college or buying a home?). She won't try and dismantle social programs. She'll support stem cell research and choice.

I'm leery about her getting us completely out of Iraq, but no one else will either, but I don't believe she'd have an out of control foreign policy.

I guess I'm just confused as to how one can't see the differences.

[LisaM]

1. I've concluded that many Americans no longer care about choice

They simply don't see it as important. Maybe they'll feel differently when we go back to the days of coat hanger abortions.

[progpen]

3. Choice = responsibility

If we have our choices made for us then we have someone else to blame when everything goes to hell. It's more convenient to let others make the choices and tell us what to do.

[ShortnFiery]

71. There's no TRUE choice with a WARMONGER in the White House. nt

[emilyg]

11. "They" better wake up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. She supports the war with Iraq.

And she's encouraging war with Iran.

Being that I'm adamantly against both, I can't support Hillary Clinton.

[itsrobert]

7. B-I-N-G-O

She's just like George Bush. She has no understanding of military service other than to use the military as a war making machine to further her corporate contributers.

[cali]

9. She does not support the war with Iraq

She voted for IWR, and she won't commit to pulling all troops out immediately, but it's a mischaracterization to say she currently suupports the war.

Does nothing else matter to you at all?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Yeah, she does.

Don't piss on my hat and tell me its raining.

I'm not stupid.

"Does nothing else matter to you at all?"

She's got the blood of 1.2 million people on her hands. She might have voted against John Roberts, and she might be very kind to animals, but I can't trust her with the Presidency.

[cali]

23. I consider you're

third line debatable, considering the rest of your post. I may not trust her, but I know for damn straight she's better than the repuke alternative.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Sounds like trusting her is exactly what you're doing.

Despite all evidence that you shouldn't.

Your loss.

[maui9002]

78. What then do you do?

If Clinton is the Democratic nominee and Thompson/McCain/Giuliani/Romney is the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, what do you do?

1. Vote for Thompson/McCain/Giulani/Romney? (I gather you would not.)

2. Abstain from voting? (which increases the chances that Thompson/McCain/Giulani/Romney would win)?

3. Vote for an alternative candidate? (unless a third party or independent candidate catches fire, the same result as #2).

For a number of reasons, I can't support Kucinich, but if he becomes the Democratic nominee, and there are no viable third party or independent candidates, then he gets my vote and my support.

[renie408]

77. Play nice. n/t

[renie408]

76. And I can't trust Fred Thompson, John McCain or Rudy Giuliani with the SCOTUS. n/t

[JuniperLea]

79. That's the thing that pisses me off most about her...

We really have no idea what her ideals are because she sways in the political breeze too much. Come on... there were millions of people who knew this war was a bad idea! Remember that HUGE protest march in NYC?? Come on! To think that Hillary knew what we knew, and had access to even more, and she still voted for the war... puhleeeez!

[movonne]

28. Is it a mis-characterization to say she currently supports the war with

Iran...I think her vote is saying so...it gives this nut running the WH all he needs to do so....although saying this I still will vote for her if thats all we got, but will we really see a difference...I hope all of you who do support her are right and she will make a fairly good president...

[FogerRox]

50. Not when that foriegn policy consists of Empire to a very hi degree

AS the worlds oil production declines, US muscle can be used to protect the US need for oil. Energy wars seem to be on the table with these people, and some of these people, to their credit, have stated that this policy is their stated ambition.

That is no world I wish to live on.

This is:
US Electricity: Getting 25%+ from Solar and 25&+ from wind, lots of electric cars and gas cars getting 73 mpg, would put the US on a completely different footing in 20 yrs. This sort of thinking greatly degrades the rational used by the Bush Administration as the basis for their Foreign policy.

As far as Hillary's plans are concerned, I feel they fall short of any reality based options. On the other hand she could win and end up being a great true liberal president.

[blondeatlast]

12. Have you noticed that her supporters will jump in and defend her on nearly every other issue

but won't touch that one?

Maybe we're imagining that Kyl/Lieberman happened, ya think?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Windy]

22. Yes, they are quick to change the subject.

I emailed Wes Clark to see if he is considering pulling his endorsement of Clinton in light of his positions as stated on his Stop the Iran War website. He takes Joe Lieberman to task often regarding his posistion on Iran.

Funny....I've not received a response...

[LisaM]

26. Well, so will any Republican

and the Republican won't care about choice. I feel strongly about the Iraq war, and Hillary is certianly not even in my top 3, but I don't want another white, anti-choice male appointing Supreme Court justices.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Yeah, and I don't vote for republicans.

For the same reasons I won't vote for Clinton.

[LisaM]

31. Yeah, and according to Nader and Alexander Cockburn

There wasn't any difference between Bush and Gore, either. Sorry, bud, that ship has sailed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. They were wrong about Gore.

They were right about Lieberman.

Would you vote for Lieberman?

[LisaM]

40. If he was running against a Republican for President?

I wouldn't like it, but he would be stronger on choice and the environment than any Republican. I am a woman, and I value choice, so yes, I would.

And they were SO wrong about Gore. I kind of practice up - if I ever have the misfortune to MEET Ralph Nader, I want to call him on that, on the fact that as a consumer advocate he didn't stick up for disenfranchised voters, and to give him the opportunity to clear up the rumor that he wouldn't let his own employees unionize.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. No. If he were the dem nominee.

Four years ago he was the leading candidate, and people were out with these same dumb loyalty oaths.

And Hillary Clinton is no Al Gore.

[LisaM]

43. If we have one more Republican president

we are going to lose the right to choice in this country. First of all, Lieberman isn't running for President - you're asking me to make a false choice - and second of all, any of the Dem nominees are better than any of the Republican nominees. I am anti war, but as a woman, I cannot make war the only issue I vote for.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Then you better work your ass off to make sure Clinton isn't the nominee.

If you truly anti-war, then you wouldn't even consider Clinton.

[Marr]

108. That's what I've been saying to her supporters. None of their sales pitch makes sense

if you're talking about supporting someone during the primaries.

A portion of the voting base is saying they will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination, but her supporters keep selling her anyway. As far as I'm concerned, her current supporters will be the ones to blame if she loses the election-- not the people who said all along that they would not vote for a pro-war candidate.

[scarletwoman]

111. Exactly! Couldn't have put it better!

As far as I'm concerned, her current supporters will be the ones to blame if she loses the election-- not the people who said all along that they would not vote for a pro-war candidate.

Thank you!
sw

[LisaM]

80. Well it's all hypothetical anyway

But if she is the nominee, I will vote for her, because I am not a one-issue voter. Some people are.

[LSK]

56. AGAIN, HOW DOES THAT DIFFER FROM RUDYMITTTHOMPSON???

Who also do not want you to have healthcare, ignore global warming and want to hand your social security to wall street?

[Mme. Defarge]

59. Fool me twice,

shame on me!

[TwilightZone]

4. It's a convenient excuse.

It's easier to say that she's just like Bush than to defend the real reasons why she shouldn't be the nominee. It's a cop-out.

As I posted in another thread, if she's just like Bush, consider whether or not she would have done the following:

John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Pushed tax cuts for the rich.
Submitted anti-choice judges to various appeals courts.
Pursued an anti-choice, anti-gay rights agenda.
Given all of our money to Halliburton.
Pushed abstinence-only education.
Tried to privatize Social Security.

I don't think that ANY of our candidates would have done that.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Didn't you hear Malloy? You are supposed to hate Hillary because of

of some nebulous corporate ties that she has. Also, she is practical about the mess in Iraq, that's bad too.

[Greyhound]

68. The ties to corporate America are quite concrete and well documented, and her consistent,

unwavering support of the mass murder in Iraq has nothing to do with practicality.

Just like her husband, she pays lip service to helping, but actually accomplishes for her financiers.

[Warpy]

6. Oh, if she's the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for her

and continue my plans to move out of this country to one where I can get national health insurance.

[dflprincess]

She supported the Kyl-Liebermann amendment

using pretty much the same reasons she used for supporting Iraq.

Worry about her foreign policy.

[blondeatlast]

21. Some issues are deal-breakers, and that's mine.

I can't say I won't or will vote for her if she gets the nod, I probably will when I consider the alternative, but no way will she get my support in the primes.

And if she gets the primary nod, the Democrats will be seeing a LOT less of my money and time--oh yes indeed.

[Zandor]

8. I'm convinced some DUers have frontrunner aversion

I gather Kerry (a fairly liberal Democrat) was hit hard in 2004. Biden gets fawning posts here, though I'd challenge anyone to show me how he's significantly more liberal than Hillary. He'd be crucified by some if he were in front.

I suspect there would be quite a few dogs turning on even Gore if he jumped in and somehow became the frontrunner.

[emilyg]

17. You are probably right.

[TwilightZone]

30. Oh, yes, Kerry was branded as a right-winger by many in '04.

It was kind of amusing, considering his record. Funny how the same candidate can be vilified as a conservative in the primary and an ultra-liberal in the general election.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the reasoning was very similar to the reasoning provided by those now claiming that Hillary is a Republican.

[Windy]

10. Her position on the length of time its going to take get the hell out of Iraq doesn't concern me

I was ready to support her after her vow to cut off funding. The truth is as Edwards, Obama and Clinton hav said it. Its going to take quite awhile to safely get out of iraq 100%.
What concerns me about Clinton and why I can't support her in the primaries is the fact that she voted for Lieberman/Kyl. That vote shows an incredible lack of judgment. bush has a few years left. Giving him the green light to finesse a way into Iran by parsing the language contained in the amendment that is rift with loopholes is inexcusable. She did not learn from her IWR vote, even with everything that has happened since.

If she is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her, then pray that she does the right thing while in office. I will, however, work hard in the primary cycle to try and prevent her from becoming the nominee.

[saracat]

13. I will try to vote for her but I do not believe she can be trusted to not sell us out even on

Choice or Stem Cell.

[lazyriver]

54. Trust.

That's my problem with her. The more I see and hear from her, the less I trust her. I get that same feeling when listening to any Repuke. I struggle with the question, "Would I vote for her in the G.E.?", because I just don't believe her most of the time. Her vote on Kyl-Lieberman is a major problem for me because she told us she was misled on the IWR but wouldn't make the same mistake again. Well, guess what? She did make the same mistake again and justified it using the same reasons as the first time around. How can anyone trust her to make progressive choices in the future?

[Selatius]

16. As far as the SCOTUS goes, we need more civil libertarians on the bench, ASAP

I don't know who to trust beyond Kucinich as far as appointing somebody who truly believes in novel ideas like the right to trial by jury, the right to free speech, the right to face one's accusers in a court of law, the right against self-incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and so forth.

The Drug War that a fair number of Democrats and Republicans have supported has already eviscerated the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Neither Clinton nor Obama or even Edwards has talked about this at all. The Drug War is still raging, and it's a quaqmire, like Vietnam.

[Windy]

18. Kucinich isn't electable.

he has some wonderful ideas, but he comes across as a bit out there. He'd never make it in the general.

[Selatius]

29. That's irrelevant to the lack of civ-libs on the bench.

I just don't think Hillary is going to draw the line in the sand and fight when the Repubs set up a battle that makes Dems choose between upholding freedom in the face of a national security crisis. Whenever freedoms have conflicted with national security, the record is rather clear as far as national security winning many battles.

[Windy]

86. I don't either, but Kucinich isn't the answer... n/t

[stimbox]

120. Kucinich IS electable.

You just have to think for yourself and VOTE for him.
If everyone who likes his positions, but thinks that he's unelectable would just vote for him, he just might win.

[book_worm]

19. I think some who say they won't vote for so and so if they are the nominee

will by November of 2008 change their minds. To those who don't and if we get a GOP president then they will piss and moan and if asked if they voted for the Democrat, the only candidate who legitimately could have beat the Republican, they will say "No." Just like the Nader voters who still justify their vote for him in 2000 instead of Al Gore.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. The ONLY thing that redeems her for me

is that she would have Democrats around her. Not much of a reason to vote for somebody, but it's the best I can come up with.

[jgraz]

25. The "no difference" is a straw man.

I think a better term is "not enough difference". Yeah, I know people say "there's no difference!", but we both know that's hyperbole.

What's really meant is that, in the core issues that a particular voter cares about, Hillary will be more of the same.

And of course, many of those saying they won't vote for Hillary are in uncontested states. That makes the decision real easy.

[cali]

36. That's a damn good point.

If you live in MA or CA, it won't make any difference if you don't vote for her.

[jgraz]

73. One of the nice things about living in an uncontested state

And, of course, I live in an uncontested city in an uncontested district in and uncontested county in an uncontested state. That adds up to a lot of free votes for the Peace and Freedom Party.

[TwilightZone]

39. *whacks head*

I second the comment that the "uncontested states" point is a good one.

It's easy to say or do anything you want if your vote is essentially irrelevant.

[sandnsea]

32. Yep, at least we'll get a reprieve

It's still up to progressives to create a campaign to change the minds of Americans.

[bobbolink]

34. "She won't try and dismantle social programs" -- Like her husband didn't do away with welfare????

Some of us remember history.

[cali]

38. He didn't dismantle Head Start or Social Security

He started Americorps. And although Welfare was changed and requirements tightened, it was not dismantled.

[bobbolink]

49. HE STOPPED WELFARE. PEOPLE DIED.

That doesn't have to be important to you, but stop dissembling.

[jgraz]

74. And people are still dying from his decisions

Bill got the two-fer. Ship our jobs overseas and then deny us a safety net.

[bobbolink]

103. what are you talkin' 'bout.... those were the golden years!

Why, all the DLCers keep telling us that!

Some died?

Well, hell, just kick 'em out of the way, and nobody will notice.

[jgraz]

104. For some of us, they were

But there are a few of us who can look past their own personal fortunes see that there are many people who haven't been as lucky as we've been.

[bobbolink]

105. And I'm thankful to those of you who have enough heart left to care!

:pals:

[jgraz]

106. It does get pretty disgusting at times

Having worked in Silicon Valley for years, I've seen several friends become brazillionaires. Most of them started out as progressives and, as far as I can tell, will still say they agree with most progressive values.

Sadly, the richest "progressives" around here just don't seem to be that interested in furthering the cause. They spend unbelievable amounts of money redesigning their kitchens or putting in that 1/2-acre japanese garden, but they can't manage to host a progressive fundraiser or even throw a few $$ to any left-wing candidate.

I did quite well during the Clinton years (and even better under the current criminal regime) but I'm nowhere near what counts as rich around here. Yet I find time and money to give to progressive causes. I guess money real does change everything.

[bobbolink]

112. Just let them know that people are dying, IN THIS COUNTRY, not around the world,

because of their self-absorption.

Because they can't be bothered to take action about homelessness.

Because they can't be bothered to take action about the lack of health care.

Because they can't be bothered to care.

Some of us are the direct result of their turning away from us, and it hurts.

Yes, it is disgusting, but... not surprising, and will continue.

[jgraz]

116. See, that's probably why they don't invite me over any more

If we want things to change, relying on the charity of the rich is a piss-poor strategy. We're going to have to take this country back ourselves and make sure we never find ourselves in the mess again.

[JuniperLea]

84. That's how I remember it too...

Welfare is such a small piece of the pie, yet it's picked on without mercy. Sure, as with any program, there are those who would take advantage. But I believe that number is far outweighed by people who genuinely need our help. That is what Jesus would do... but try telling RW Fundies that Jesus taught us to take care of our brothers and sisters. They are all about the family values as long as it doesn't mean they really have to adhere to honest family values.

[bobbolink]

102. It's such a damned good thing that NO corporations "take advantage" of corporate welfare.

:sarcasm:

[JuniperLea]

107. I hear that!

And the poor souls who have great tax breaks now that we don't have to pay out so much welfare.

[ShortnFiery]

72. "her husband" sure REFORMED the hell out of welfare and then there's NAFTA.

:thumbsdown:

[bobbolink]

101. Yes, but most DLCers couldn't care less about poor folk, and it just doesn't register.

So what if people died because of it... as long as THEY had a good decade, that's all that matterrs.

Yet, they'll go on and on about how "cold-hearted" the Republicans are.

:thumbsdown:

[Jed Dilligan]

35. I'll vote for her unless the R is strongly anti-war (fat chance),

in which case I'll abstain. My vote doesn't count, anyway. I'm from California!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. because i am a pouty child.

just because i cant have it my way, i will not let others get theirs either.

i hate this "shes as bad as a republican" argument.

it was used againts gore and kerry and bill clinton.

[Dr Fate]

45. That identical argument was also used by DLCers who supported Lieberman (I-3rd party)

So lets get the history straight here- because a lot of DLCers & "centrists" are strutting around DU acting like they are the "Party Loyalty Police" or something.

They demand party loyalty when they want us to support pro-war candidates, but they ABANDONED the party when we nominated an anti-war candidate. Harold Ford. leader of the DLC openly endorsed the pro-war 3rd party, in fact.

When it came to Lamont (D), they were traitors to the party and the nomination process.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. i supported lamont.

[Dr Fate]

51. The DLC supported Lieberman (I-3rd Party). And the Clintons campaigned for him...

...but they refused to even show up for Lamont.

The DLC, the Clinton's flagship organization OPENLY supported and funded Joe's 3rd party. How much did the DLC give to Lamont (D)?

Of course, finding DLCers on DU who will admit this NOW is quite a task- apparently the 10 or so DLCers who post here are the only DLCers in the entire nation who actaully supported Lamont. LOL! Good to know they have at least a tiny army of dissenters. ;)

In any event DU's DLCers made the exact same argument that you are trying to say is exclusive to the left- so lets set the record straight.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. i am not a dlc'er. i just dont buy the "hillary is as bad as a republican" lie

ideally i would like to see kerry or gore in the white house

[Dr Fate]

53. Never said you were. But Hillary is a DLCer, and the DLC did NOT support the DEM nominee...

...when it was Lamont (D).

The DLC and the DLC's supporters essentially have no credibility to tell others how to be loyal to the party.

And I agree-Hillary isnt as bad as a Republican-I like her and Bill on some things- but we will end up with a Republican president if she is nominated.

[jgraz]

75. And let's not forget which Democrat went on Faux and slammed his own party

Who was that again?? Oh yeah: HAROLD FORD.

[Dr Fate]

90. LOL! Yet the the DLC supporters of DU are now the "Party Loyalty Police"-it is to laugh

n/t

[Dr Fate]

42. I promise to support her as much as the DLC supported Ned Lamont (D) against Lieberman (I-3rd Party)

LOL! And I promise to campaign for Hillary in the exact same proportion that she campaigned for Lamont (Hint- she & Bill showed up for Joe-even after he threatened to start a 3rd party, but refused to show for the legit DEM nominee.)

Just kidding- I wont be a traitor to the party and nomination process like they all were. Forget the fact that Harold Ford, the DLC's leader openly supported a 3rd party against a DEM, and that DLC staffers openly work for Joe (I-3rd party)

And I certainly wont leave the nominee twisting in the wind like the DLCers did to Lamont(D).

Lucky for the "centrists" that unlike them, some of us really ARE loyal to the capital D when it comes down to voting.

Maybe someday they learn how to be loyal to the party and return the favor by supporting another nominated "Lamont" type, but I doubt it.

[tears4terra]

46. My main opposition to her - she's a corporate BFF...

Add to that her warmongering. Her positives are insignificant to me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. I'll not be voting for her because she is "politics as usual" exemplified.

The kind of politics that makes the achievement of power more important than common decency. The decency that obligates one not to support killing to achieve office.

There are issues, and there are issues. I would not vote for a candidate that's opposed to a woman's right to choice, or one that advocates suppression of minorities.

In short, there are issues that I will hold my nose on, gun-control, welfare "reform", NAFTA, naming bridges after Ronald Reagan. And, there are issues that I won't.

[superconnected]

55. Her senate voting record speaks it all.

[mark414]

57. anybody who says she's the same as any of those nuts is a nut themselves

but hell if i'll ever vote for hillary for anything.

i know she's not the same as those crazies on the right, but why would i vote for somebody that i find completely unattractive (i don't mean that in the physical sense)

and i'm getting tired of people telling me that i HAVE to vote for somebody just because a bunch of fools voted for her too - in a democracy you get to vote for whoever you want and whoever you believe will do the best things for your country. i don't think she will do good things for this country, so i won't vote for her.

[scarletwoman]

113. Well said! Great post!

i'm getting tired of people telling me that i HAVE to vote for somebody just because a bunch of fools voted for her too

I feel the same way. It's not MY fault if a bunch of people are making a stupid choice -- I've been telling them for years now that Hillary Clinton is a tool of the Ruling Class, and that is who she will serve if she is president.

I will not vote for that.

sw

[Larkspur]

58. Hillary favors shipping my job to India

She's a corporate whore who wants to suppress workers abilities to make a living wage and more.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. will the republican keep your job here?

[tears4terra]

64. Probably not, but voting for breadcrumbs does little either.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. it prevents things from getting worse.

[Egnever]

91. I think his point is when it comes to his concerns

It absolutely does not. In fact it may actually accelerate it.

[Dr Fate]

66. Make sure Hill isnt nominated and we have nothing to worry about.

n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. its funny that you think your vote for against a dem, is a threat to me.

[Dr Fate]

69. I'm not making threats- I'm telling you how to avoid a GOP prez in 2008.

We wont have to worry about Republican this and Republican that so much if we just make sure we have a nominee that can WIN. That's all I'm trying to say...

[scarletwoman]

119. I truly don't understand why that simple proposition is so difficult for *some* people to grasp!

Really. Stop telling me to support Hillary, and start listening to why I won't. And if the HRC people DON'T want to listen, I give them absolutely NO leave to lay any guilt on me. It will be THEIR doing, I declared my opposition to her candidacy years ago. I will NOT have her shoved down my throat!

sw

[Individualist]

61. I vehemently oppose DLC, its members,

and anyone who supports it.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[Dr Fate]

62. Aint it great- the org. that supported Lieberman (I ) wants to lecture us about party loyalty- LOL!!

I guess they think we are as stupid as they think swing-voters are.

[VenusRising]

109. ...

:applause::applause::applause:

[scarletwoman]

114. I'm with you -- that was a GREAT post!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Aptastik]

63. I live in New York

So she doesn't need my vote and won't get it. But you're absolutely right that she will be better than any potential republican nominee

[bigscott]

70. holy crap

(did you know she wants to give each baby born $5,000 dollars for college or buying a home?)

so her BUYING votes is OK? what about my kid? he is 15 years old. Do i get his 5,000 plus 15 years of interest? That would be nice - if she comes through with the cash i MIGHT be able to throw a going away (forever) party when he gets drafted to fight in Iraq for her

[JuniperLea]

81. We should avoid voting for her in the primary, at all cost

If for no other reason than it feels like the RW is pushing her down our throats. That in itself is a huge red flag.

[tears4terra]

82. I'm surprised that more people here cant' see that. n/t

[scarletwoman]

123. I'm not surprised, just saddened.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

sw

[Fresh_Start]

83. They'd rather vote for a candidate with no chance of success

which is sort of what got us into this problem in 2000.
I guess being "principled" is more important than being "feasible" or "achieveable".

Social change is incremental.
You can be dead on accurate, but if no one will follow you and you don't implement anything, you can feel warm and fuzzy that you're on the moral high ground.

Its what keeps the anti-choice religious right fueled as well.

[JuniperLea]

87. In the primary, it is far better to vote for someone...

... who more closely shares your views than the others. To simply vote for the one you feel can win, especially in this particular election, is in my humble opinion, as foolish a move as one can make.

There is no Republican who can win against ANY Democrat in this upcoming presidential election. This is what people are forgetting.

[Fresh_Start]

88. The thread is about not voting for Clinton if she's the nominee

so its not about the primaries. Its for the whole ball of wax.

[JuniperLea]

89. Exactly...

Which is why I found your post confusing, so I responded to your post, not to the "thread" or the OP.

[Fresh_Start]

92. Do you really believe that no Dem candidate can lose

against any GOP candidate? Because I don't believe that.

All you need is to split the party. Lieberman successfully split the party in his reelection campaign. Others can use the same strategy.

Many people in DU are saying they won't vote for the Dem candidate if its Hillary (usually, sometimes other). The screwups on the right won't vote for her. So its not a given she'll win.

You need to believe that your candidate can win AND
you can't refuse to vote for the parties candidate if its not your candidate.

[JuniperLea]

96. I think you give the general public too little credit

The American people are mad as hell, Dems and Repubs alike.

Today's Republican party is not my father's Republican party. I'm all for Repubs banding together to take their party back from the neocons. Unless a Repub grows a set large enough to take that stand, I don't believe a Republican can win in this election. Not a snowball's chance in hell. I know dozens of life-long Republicans who are vowing to vote Democrat this time. Bush has not only sullied his own name, but the name of the party.

[Fresh_Start]

99. Every time I think Americans are smart enough not to be fooled

there's another event showing me that they aren't

There were at least a half dozen races in 2006 that if the public bothered to learn about the candidates, the winner would have been booted.

I'm sorry. My faith in the average voter has been in free fall.

[cooolandrew]

85. You are perfectly correct. Not our ideal candidate but we have to get our foot in the WH door for...

change.

[leftofthedial]

93. in your typical way, you've misstated the premise and wound up flogging a strawman

There is a clear difference, other than gender, between Hillary and the three repukes you mention.

I don't support Hillary because she's basically a status-quo, pro-corporate repuke.

She is NOT a nazi scumbag like Fred or Mitt or a degenerate asshat like Rudy.

See? Difference. Repuke<-->nazi asshole repuke. Hillary's positions on civil liberties, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, healthcare and corporate regulation put her clearly in repuke territory. I won't vote for a repuke.

[BlooInBloo]

94. Yah you will.

[cali]

98. LOL

and in your typical, inelegant and rather muddled way, you've managed as usual, to say nothing meaningful whatsoever.

In other words, right back at ya, darlin'.

[leftofthedial]

110. inelegant?

And I had my nails done today just for posting on DU!

Now I'm wounded. cali thinks I say, as usual, nothing meaningful whatsoever. :cry:

muddled? You mean unlike those of you who worship Hillary for her married name and the "D" by her name, despite her abysmal record on meaningful traditional Democratic issues. She's better than the repuke field--slightly.

[scarletwoman]

117. Not at all! I loved your post -- just want you to know that. (nt)

;)

[mod mom]

95. I would NEVER vote for a republican, but I will do a DEM write-in IF HRC is the candidate.

It's not that I think she is the same as those you list but I WILL NOT SUPPORT A CORPORATIST!

[auburngrad82]

97. I will vote for the Democratic nominee

Things may not change for the better but we'll never know if we don't vote.

[KillCapitalism]

100. I'll do a write-in vote for Kucinich instead.

Hillary will bomb Iran, you can count on it.

[cali]

115. I don't think she will, but then I don't have a crystal ball.

Come to think of it, neither do you. One thing I am sure of, is there's less of a chance of Hillary waging wars of aggression, than her repuke counteparts.

[dysfunctional press]

118. d.l.c.

that's why.

i'd rather have a REAL repug, than a dlc repug-lite- because the repugs will try to take too much too soon, and ultimately cause a backlash among the population that will take us farther to the left even faster.
with a clitonesque dlc repug-lite- our society will be pulled more slowly to the right- at a pace that people won't hardly notice at first, and which will give them more opportunity to be more properly and steadily acclimated to the new fascist state.

kind of like the whole throwing a frog into a pot of boiling water vs. slowly bringing it to a boil in the water thing. only on a societal scale.

[Mike03]

121. Apathy is like Cancer

Maybe it hurts too much to hope that things can get better than they are, so we brainwash ourselves into expecting the worst, expecting nothing we can do can make any difference. It is an excuse, and a cop out, and a rationalization, but it is a rationalization I understand in the sense that Americans are so overworked, so at the mercy of the economy, that it has become a luxury to keep informed. It is hard, under certain circumstances, to remain hopeful or--at times--even rational about the importance of our vote.

[scarletwoman]

122. I already knew I would NOT vote for her for president YEARS before her "official" announcement.

And please throw away your strawman. I know of NO one who opposes a HRC candidacy who has EVER said that it's because they think "she's no different". That's just so fucking superficial -- if someone wants to be taken seriously as a critical thinker and insightful analyst of the present-day political order, they really need to start thinking deeper.

I will not vote for her because her true constituency is the Ruling Class -- the corporate globalists, the military-industrial-complex, the multinational financiers, etc. In short, the Elite/Imperialist cohort who think nothing of billions of human beings being oppressed, impoverished, and murdered outright if that's what it takes to make a profit and/or rule the world.

I consider Hillary Clinton supporters to be dangerously deluded and/or woefully uninformed as to the true nature of how power operates.

I'm NOT going to join your delusion. I will NOT vote for someone who represents the forces I am fighting against.

sw