For those who refuse to vote for Hillary in the General...7 words that may change your mind!

[RiverStone]

Seven words spoken by Rudy Giuliani this morning,

Said to a hall filled with conservative Christains...

"You have nothing to fear from me."

He went on to say he would appoint conservative judges “in the mold’’ of Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts.

Seven words that could change the fragile balance on SCOTUS to take away CHOICE for a generation.

I can give you a thousand words why I will not vote for Hillary during the primaries!

But I give you seven words that say why I will vote for her if she is our nominee in the General.

It is as simple as that.



peace~:)


* * * * * *


more words from Rudy's speech here:

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/giuliani_you_have_nothing_to_f.html

[cali]

1. I want to add something.

All that is true, but it's not only about abortion rights. The Supreme Court effects every aspect of our lives- from our civil liberties to the environment. And it's not only the Supreme Court, it's the rest of the Federal judiciary as well.

[rodeodance]

4. BINGO

[liberaldemocrat7]

45. 6 words about Hillary: She won't change Medicare Part D

to any great degree.

I will probably only vote down ballot if she gets the nomination.

[CTyankee]

64. I'm interested in knowing how you know this. I don't recall hearing her say anything

about Part D. I am a senior citizen and will be facing a choice about prescription drugs once my husband has retired. So this weighs on my mind a lot.

Thanks, I realy do appreciate a response. You can pm me also if you prefer...

[AuntPatsy]

67. I agree, it is so much more thank you for adding this.

[JMDEM]

2. As usual, this is not a reason to vote for Hillary

It is just a reason not to vote for a Republican.

Why do we keep getting this "Hillary is the annointed queen, and you have no choice but her or a Republican?"

[niceypoo]

3. Because if she wins the nomination that will be the choice

and because there is so much negative obsession with her here.

[movonne]

11. Not only here...lots of dems I know don't want hillary, but I'm sure

they would have no other choice but to vote for her if she wins the nomination..but I also live in a small town in a rural area that is very repug and they sure do hate her..

[Froward69]

49. exactly

Rethugs will turn out in droves to vote against her. whereas they would stay home if our nominee were say Biden. they don't like their candidates, but actually hate Hillary.

[Cameron27]

57. I would say that Biden

may have a smidgeon less hate than Clinton, but Obama and Edwards don't. FWIW, I think Biden and Clinton can do the best smackdown on the hate attacks than anyone else running.

[bryant69]

13. Exactly - if Edwards or Obama wins or Kucinich or Dodd

this issue won't arise.

Bryant

[Th1onein]

28. We are obsessing negatively about her because she will LOSE!

She is too easily hated. If she wins the Democratic nomination, the Democrats have a very good chance of losing the White House.

[AllyCat]

41. And she's a bad choice. Sure, she might about some different folks

for the SCOTUS than say Rudy, but they will all be corporatists that will only work for their and her interests, not ours.

[Th1onein]

66. I think, most importantly, she is the BEST way to lose.

And that's all I care about, at this point: winning. Americans are going to lose America, if the Democrats are not put back into the White House. It's as simple as that.

And, she is OBVIOUSLY the candidate that the mainstream press wants us to pick. I have a problem with that, since they ARE corporatists.

Hillary is not a candidate for the people. Edwards, Gore, Kucinich; all of them, are better than her, in my opinion.

[AllyCat]

68. Any of them ARE better than her.

This is the easiest field of Republicans to beat...we should not put forward our weakest candidate just because of that. They'll cheat. We know they will. Personally, all I care about is ending this war, which not only takes a Democrat, it takes one committed to stopping this madness. Clinton and Obama have said they'll keep this going until 2013, the Edwards people I've spoken with say this is NOT his position despite his answer in that debate...the only ones in that debate who said they would really end it were Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson. Dodd and Biden might.

[DearAbby]

69. If the thought of her nomination

is causing a division within our own party...I can't see how she can win, with % of Indy voters also divided on Hillary...and the overwhelming % of GOP voters that would rather rip off a limb than vote for Hillary.

The last thing we need is another close election they can steal. FOR GOD's sake let's nominate someone that will unite this country, not divide it further.


edit: to place a <.> instead of the <?>

[RiverStone]

6. Ralph Nadar offered an alternative too

We know what happened there.

Hillary is neither anointed or a queen (that differs from the corporate MSM).

I suggest when the dust settles at the Democratic Convention next August, if Hillary is the last one standing the stakes are too high to walk away from the Dem party in the General.

I hope it is not her, and there are plenty of threads that articulate that (including some of my own).

Though in the end and in the voting booth, the SCOTUS is the most compelling reason to vote for Hillary.

I'd LOVE IT if we see another name on the ballot rather than hers, but I am prepared to support the party with my vote regardless.

I'm advocating the same for any Democrat with this OP.

[MedleyMisty]

7. Then why not say that in your subject line instead of using Hillary?

Singling out Clinton in the subject line leads to assumptions like the one you're responding to.

[HughBeaumont]

15. Probably because there are no "loyalty oath" posts directed towards Edwards, Kucinich or Obama?

There's no assumption needed. It's what we see on this board every damned day and I'm sick of it. Not ONCE have I seen "well, I'm not voting for Edwards or Obama or Kucinich in the General". Why? Because these candidates (although admittedly I don't know much about Obama's positions) seem to want to put people before corporations. With the exception of possibly Kucinich, they're electable and would beat any Repuke by at least 30 electoral votes.

As a candidate, Hillary would divide the left (who cannot stand her) and the center (who somehow thinks nominating the former First Lady with less-than-Democratic positions on issues is a great idea) and bring every backwoods Repuke, security mom and millions who've been trained to hate anything Clinton since 1993 to the voting booths in DROVES. She wouldn't turn the two major red states (Florida and Ohio) and would be in danger of turning PA, Michigan and Wisconsin red.

MY vote is MY vote. I will do with it what I please. If the Democrats are worried, then they better start learning to not let the MSM pick their nominee for them, grow a set and stop doing what they're told to do.

A Murdoch-annointed, free-trade-supporting war corporatist vs another Murdoch-annointed, free-trade supporting war corporatist isn't a choice. THAT to me is a wasted vote and a wasted democracy.

Hillary is a shitty candidate. A SHITTY candidate. We can do so much better than listen to the Republican-run networks.

[Individualist]

18. Bravo!

:applause: :thumbsup:

I agree with everything you said. Hillary would, indeed, galvanize republican voters to turn out and vote against her like no other candidate ever has.

[BringEmOn]

24. You agree that Kucinich is not electable?

[Individualist]

25. That talking point is as worn out as it is inaccurate.

[cali]

32. LOL!

Coming from someone shopping this:

"indeed, galvanize republican voters to turn out and vote against her like no other candidate ever has."

that's quite amusing.

[Individualist]

36. ...and I see "Ignored" beneath post #25.

[Froward69]

48. IT Is not warn out

it needs to be broadcast!!! with the Gop behind her as their choice to run against. that doesn't raise Red flags with you?

[Individualist]

50. ?

My reply concerned the post that said "Kucinich is unelectable". I'll say it again - That talking point is worn out. It's used by people who don't want Kucinich to be elected.

I know the GOP and their MSM propaganda tools are behind Hillary. In fact, I said pretty much the same thing earlier today in another thread.

[Froward69]

52. ok

[HughBeaumont]

59. RE: Kucinich.

Don't get me wrong. In a test concerning which candidate's position matched my ideals best, Kucinich led the pack twice.

I met Dennis (he lives near my city and has been on a couple of flights I was also on). He's a nice man and it's evident he cares most about the people's needs above the corporations out of all the candidates.

But the USA is the USA. The voters want their presidents to look and sound like Marlboro Men. The media wants their candidates to be "company men" (or in our case, "company women"). In this country, even being a little bit to the left is really, really, REALLY bad for some fucked up reason (yet at the same time, they have NO problem sending Christian-right Armageddon fetishists such as Reagone and The Failure Fuhrer to the Oval Office).

And the last thing the money men need is some "loony left moonbat woo-woo" (sadly, those are words tossed around by DU people, not freepers) talking "health care for everyone, worker's rights and taxin' us wealthy people". Yet somehow, no one seems to complain about socialized fire departments, police, road crews or "terrorist protection". So they do everything in their power to turn him into a mockery.

I don't like it anymore than you do, but that's the way it is. And for those reasons, he'll never be elected.

And that's a shame.

[RiverStone]

27. I just learned something...

My bad.

The last thing I intended on this thread would be I would be defending a vote for Hillary! As a strong Kucinich supporter, that is NOT something I have any practice with --- nor do I want to get better at it!

My OP was simply to point out that the rethug nominee will go for the jugular when it comes to our civil liberties in general and CHOICE specifically. They are playing their cards so obviously, that when faced with a lessor of two BAD choices - voting for Hillary is the way to go. I stand by that. Shit, would not Bill offer some influence still? I do admire him.

I learned "my bad" was putting the cart before the horse by posing the question at all. I read of Rudy's buddying up to the lock-stepping right wing religious wackos and want to close ranks immediately to defeat the threat from the dark side.

This question would be better asked IF and when HRC is the nominee next August. A lot could change between now and then.

Damn good thing I'm open to learning along the way. :hi:

[Yael]

37. Feel better now?

:applause:

[HughBeaumont]

16. It's sad.

300 million families and only two apparently are fit to run this country.

Banana Republics RAWK! YEAH! Let's nominate the former First Lady!

Imelda would be proud.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I Rather Have Imelda Marcos As First Lady Than Judi Nathan

Imelda had a flair and she didn't use puppies as lab rats...

[Pastiche423]

58. Please call her Judi Ross

She never deserved my friend, Bruce Nathan.

[HughBeaumont]

60. I'd rather have neither one, thanks.

Hillary vs Rudi is NOT a choice.

[piedmont]

5. Great, but I don't Georgia will be in contention anyway, so it doesn't matter if I vote 3rd party.

If it's within 10 percentage points, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hils.

[backwoodsbob]

10. I'll work for Edwards every step in the primaries

but if Hillary is our pick I'll vote for her in the general..I won't be happy with it but I'll pull the lever

[RiverStone]

12. I dearly wish folks in FLA did not feel the same way in 2000

You assume piedmont that the 10% distance you speak of is from a reliable and "trustworthy" polling source.

Remember, the tail wags the dog when it comes to the corporate MSM.

What if in reality she is closer in GA then it appears, but you buy into some bullshit poll that says otherwise?

I do not trust polls.

But I do know unequivocally that Rudy, Mitt, or Fred WILL TAKE AWAY CIVIL LIBERTIES if they win the presidency. They not only pander to the religious right, they drink it up.

Your vote may be worth far more than you realize, even in the red clay of Georgia.

[Individualist]

8. Words from Kucinich:

"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

No DLCer will get my vote. If the party machine gets Hillary nominated, I'll write in DK.

[cali]

14. Who cares?

I certainly couldn't care less if you don't vote for the dem nominee. It's your right to vote for whoever you wish. And it's your right to be ignorant as well. As for DK, sorry to see him say that. The truth is, if you can't see the difference re the judiciary between Clinton any of the repubs, you're either being disingenous or willfully obtuse.

[RiverStone]

17. Time will tell...

Of course notsodumbhillbilly, I share your critical concerns regarding the DLC and their corporate bedfellows. Yep, Hillary is DLC.

Minus one bit of optimism.

That being if Hillary wins the presidency, she will also have a Dem controlled Senate and House. My assumption is that she will be set free to longer pander (to the same degree) as she has done during the primaries. Just maybe ---I'm guessing here---
that Hillary would be less to the right as Pres - then she now - leading up to the General.

It may be that next fall, as you look into the eyes and read the sewage that the rethug nominee spits out, when faced with that simple choice for real - your disgust at the rethug possibility will surpass you distrust for a DLCer??? Besides, maybe Bill would have some influence behind the scenes? I do still greatly admire her husband.

I'm not going to throw away my vote if it's Hillary, but thats me.

p.s. Believe me, I'd love if this entire discussion was not relevant because HRC was a non-issue! Whatta they say...hope for the best, but be prepared for the worse. Call this my worse case preparation.

[Individualist]

23. I don't vote for neocons or DLCers

With the power of the presidency, Hillary would be more to the right, not less. As Kucinich has said, "the lesser of two evils is still evil".

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

[RiverStone]

31. For the moment anyway...

A better tact would be to use our collective energy to make the very question I asked originally, NOT RELEVANT!

Up thread a little ways I acknowledged a mistake.

That mistake being that though I stand by my OP, and I would vote for Hillary in the General - my mistake was asking the question now.

The real time to ask it would be if and when HRC is our nominee next August. SEE post # 27.

One tough thing about DU is new insights often lag behind my ability to type. I type slow!

I'm capable of shifting mid thread - though it rarely happens - it did this time.

Believe me, we share far more common ground then not. Your focus should be on nominating someone other than HRC (as is mine), not responding to hypothetical questions such per my OP (at least not now).

My bad - I won't ask the likes of it again....unless I have to 10 months down the road.


peace~:)

[Individualist]

34. Not just for the moment. I'm not capricious

The fate of my country is far too important, and I find lockstep (a republican trait) abhorrent.

Given DK's stand on the DLC, maybe you should change your avatar.

[RiverStone]

40. I agree with DK on the DLC

And lots of DK supporters would reluctantly vote for HRC if she is the only Dem choice - so I have heard.

I'm not capricious either notsodumbhillbilly, but I am flexible enough to see beyond absolutes. You have already stated yours.
I have supported DK and he has been my ONLY candidate avatar from the get go.

My mistake was asking this entire question prematurely. I regret posting the OP now.

Ultimately, neither of us knows what the cards on the table will be next fall. Where we differ is I can imagine a rethug regime even worse then what HRC would bring, you see no difference at all.

DK has represented my views and in particular my view against the war and for impeachment - better than ANY DEm in the field. But if DK refuses to vote DEM if it is Hillary (and I have no clue on that) then I differ from DK there. That's OK, I'll take 90% agreement.

[Individualist]

43. Vote for whomever you choose,

and I'll vote for whomever I choose.

[Roland99]

29. Hear! Hear!

[pdxmom]

9. I'm another that would prefer to not have to vote for Hillary in the

general, and have my policy and issue reasons for why I hope she doesn't get the nomination.

But, by damn, I'll gladly mark her name on my ballot during the general election if she is the Democratic nominee.

[acmavm]

19. Relax. If she gets the nomination (God or who/whatever forbid) even I'll

vote for her. So will almost all of the rest of us. We're not stupid. Don't talk to us like we are.

[H2O Man]

20. I would hope

that everyone would at very least keep an open mind at this time. It is okay to have a favorite candidate, or to have a least favorite one. I understand that others do not feel the same as I do right now -- I will definitely be voting for the democratic nominee for president in '08. But at least do not rule it out now, because things may look very, very different in the months to come.

[terrya]

21. Exactly.

There is NO way Hillary Rodham Clinton will send another Samuel Alito for a Supreme Court vacancy.

And while he's in good health, Justice Stevens IS 84 years old.

[RC]

33. I'm sure the DFL has its own supply of right of center nominees

for the Supreme Court. So yeah, you're correct and I am still scared of just a leveling off of more of the same under Hillary till 2012 when the escalation of fascism and world domination ramps up again. A breathing spell, if you will...

The M$M is pushing Hillary. That should scare anyone that is paying attention to what is going on. We all know they are controlled by the right and are not anything near objective when it comes to who has control of this country.

Not Republican does not mean being a Democrat or Liberal. That is why we use the acronym DINO and Hillary is too close to the dictionary definition of DINO.

[Forkboy]

26. Won't be an issue here in Mass.

Any Dem will carry this state with at least 70%.I'll be able to vote, or write in, whoever I like the best without the guilt.

I do hope people in states that will be close will think long and hard about it though.There is still a lot at stake.

[MadHound]

30. Well, at least Rudy is being fairly upfront with this

Hillary on the other hand keeps her hobnobbing with radical Christian right politicians and leaders as secretive as possible, and has done so for the past fifteen years. <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html>

[cali]

35. Hillary Clinton

would nominate judges in the Breyer/Ginsberg mode. She's been clear on that. Her voting record supports that as do her words going back many years, and the majority of her associations. And what do you have? An article from MJ.

There are tons of areas to legitimately go after Clinton; such as foreign policy and corporate ties. This isn't one of them. Hillary's long history of social liberalism is, for example, stronger than Edwards'.

[MadHound]

38. Do we actually know who she would nominate? No, we have assumptions, that's all

Frankly I find it rather disturbing that Hillary is actively involved with a group that wants to establish a theocratic framework that transcends party affiliation. This is very much a legitimate concern, after all, we are going after the various Republican candidates over their religious associations, well we should be as equally critical of our own don't you think. I don't give anybody a pass simply due to the letter behind their name.

Oh, and you probably should give such a casual dismissal of Mother Jones magazine. They are one of the few high quality, investigative news organizations around. They have won numerous awards and their writers are of the highest caliber. Frankly if such top shelf investigative journalism is going after anybody, I tend to believe them. Dismissing them simply because they happen to beat up on a favored candidate is just as bad as the 'Pugs dismissing the times for their investigative journalism.

[cali]

39. I'm not dismissing MJ. I read it regularly.

I'm suggesting that the evidence is monumentally greater supporting the likelihood that she would nominate judges like Breyer and Ginsberg-Including the fact that they were both nominated by her husband, and reportedly had input into those searches. It's very simple. All opinions aren't equally valid, ergo the opinion with the most evidence, is the opinion that should be given most weight.

Oh, and one more time, just for you: She's not my favorite candidate. I will not vote for anyone, in the primaries, who voted for the IWR.
But I won't use bullshit pretexts to go after anyone, and I won't stay silent when I see it being done.

[MadHound]

46. Methinks you doth protest too much

Nowhere did I state that Hillary was your favorite candidate. You've repeated this ad nauseum, which is why I specifically stated it in generalized terms, to wit: "Dismissing them simply because they happen to beat up on a favored candidate" Nowhere do I state that she is your favorite candidate, but you're squawking all the same. Hmmm:think:

Frankly I don't consider the MJ article to be bullshit. Frankly I find it another disturbing example of how we're all being suckered in by this game of good cop/bad cop that is being used as a diversion for the masses by the two party/same corporate master system of government. Can you honestly say that the fact that Hillary has been on intimate terms with such theocrats as Brownback and Santorum doesn't disturb you in the slightest?

This isn't Bill running, as the Hillary supporters have said time and again. So no, we don't really know what sort of appointments she would make. Sure, we can speculate, but we can also be fooled by such speculation. Am I automatically assuming that she'll appoint somebody in the mold of Roberts? No, but articles like the one in MJ certainly put some serious doubts in my mind, and frankly is just another reason why I can't vote for her.

[cascadiance]

42. I think the important thing is to GOTV!

IN THE PRIMARIES!

THAT is where we will shut down corporate America from having power! THAT is the important time to vote! If we wait until the GE to vote for the right person and we have Hillary then, we may win keeping the Rethuglicans out, but we will have lost the war of getting corporate control out of our government then!

[AtomicKitten]

44. Primary vote BEFORE purity pledges, please.

[RiverStone]

51. Thanks

I realized my mistake mid-thread.

The question made sense, but it would have been better asked in about 10 months (after the convention).


peace~:)

[AtomicKitten]

53. no worries

Speculation breaks up the tension of the waiting ...

peace back at ya! ;-)

[Initech]

47. I would never, ever, ever, ever vote for Guiliani.

:puke:

[stranger81]

54. There's no "precarious balance" in the SCOTUS left to preserve

The SCOTUS, with the appointment of Alito & Roberts, is already solidly conservative for likely two generations, given the youth of the right-wingers on the bench.

If the Democratic party was committed to keeping the Court out of the hands of the wingnuts, the critical moment to have acted was two years ago. Instead, they wanted to make nice.

That ship has sailed.

[cali]

55. Not so. Scalia is in his seventies.

Kennedy isn't young either. It's entirely conceivable that the next pres will get to appoint 2-4 Justices. And the Court could swing to the liberal/moderate bloc quite quickly. If Kennedy, Stevens and Ginsberg go, and you've got a dem president, there's the opportunity to appoint young liberal judges, and marginalize Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

The Ship has not sailed.

[stranger81]

63. But Kennedy and Breyer aren't going anywhere soon, and

Scalia will likely be there for at least another 15 years. So for that time, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas remain a core 4 votes for the right wing (no matter what the issue), and Breyer, Souter and Kennedy vote with the right more often than with Ginsberg & Stevens. In most cases, we're dealing with a 7-2 conservative leaning court at best.

[cali]

65. Could you provide some evidence for the claim

that Breyer and Souter vote more often with Scalia et al than with Ginsberg and Stevens?

[eallen]

56. I wish that would persuade enough. Better, let's nominate Obama.

So that we don't have to convince people which of the two major party nominees is the more frightening.

:hippie:

[EFerrari]

61. No sale. nt/

[spotbird]

62. Hillary doesn't want my vote

I've stayed out of these threads because they go nowhere.

The bottom line is that Hillary has no interest in my vote, or progressive votes generally. So why beat this dead horse? Some may come on board, others know they just can't be stretched that far. Either way, this fear card has been played.