You wouldn't vote for Hillary because Obama was allegedly way more liberal.
Now, I'm reading you don't want to vote for her because she is too much like Obama. She will be his third term.
There is a bad track record of picking a liberal. I'm going to take these types of opinions with a grain of salt.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Do you mean the modern republican mainstream? I have seen a host of polls that show majority (mainstream?) republican opposition to many Obama policies.
I gave up telling people what their opinion "should be" long ago. (Even though I am much smarter and more honest than they are. 
) Opinions are like - well you know - everybody has one. My perception of what others "should" think really does not have more weight than what they profess their opinions to be.
All our lives would be simpler if a president we do not trust were supported by voters we do not trust. (Also, they would be simpler if he were not supported by voters whom we do trust.) That does not mean that you or I are wrong, just that it is complicated. Sometimes reality is not simple.
and averages around center on social issues.
The problem is people are using the "moved goalposts" for the spectrum. If you use that and let the radical right wing represent the center of the right of the spectrum and the DLC represent the center of the left of the spectrum it's skewed and leaves out all the people who really are left and still believe in what the Dem Party used to stand for.
Here's why Obama is not a mainstream Dem. Because radical right wingers, DLCers and the corporate media are succeeding in their conscious effort to keep moving the goalposts even further right. Obama really helped do that.
What we need this time around is a real old school Dem, one who embraces their base, who actually tries to make things better for average citizens rather than one who makes back room deals with corporations and tries to secretly pass something as devastating as TPP (when they claimed they were against free trade and were going to be the most transparent admin ever.) Oh, and one who doesn't open the front door of the White House to banksters.
According to the system, both parties have been on a trajectory toward more “extreme” positions since roughly 1970, the natural result of which is more polarization. However, the parties do not quite share equal responsibility for this: Republicans have moved about twice as much to the right as Democrats have to the left. Also, while the Democrats’ leftward shift was essentially a one-off event, the result of many moderate, Southern Democrats losing their seats in the early 1990s, the Republicans’ rightward transition has been continuous and steady.
The rightward shift of Republicans is even more apparent in the scores that DW-Nominate assigns to their presidents. George W. Bush was more conservative than his father (although similar to Ronald Reagan); Reagan and both Bushes were more conservative than Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford; and Nixon and Ford were more conservative than Dwight D. Eisenhower, according to those scores.
By contrast, there has been no consistent pattern among Democratic presidents. Mr. Obama, according to the system, rates as being slightly more conservative than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy, but slightly more liberal than Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman — although all of the scores among Democratic presidents are close and generally within the system’s margin of sampling error.
Another finding is that the Democratic presidents, including Mr. Obama, have often adopted a different strategy than Republicans. Whereas Democratic presidents usually have scores fairly close (but just slightly to the left of) the median Democratic member of Congress, Republican presidents — with the very clear exception of Eisenhower — articulate legislative positions that are equivalent to those held by one of the most conservative members of their party.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/how-liberal-is-president-obama/
Obama got through a Health Care reform law. It's imperfect. It doesn't go far enough. But the Repugs call him a communist for it.
He overturned Don't Ask, Don't Tell. NOT a GOP position.
He advocates raising top income tax rates. Yeah, the Repugs LOVE that one. 
He ended the war in Iraq and is ending the war in A-stan.
Those are just a few. Don't like Obama? Fine, but sheesh!
If all else fails use "Hate".
Check!
-p
-p
gay rights
equal pay
a step toward a fairer system for health care...
and a whole list of etc's...
yep, all that sounds EXACTLY like what Republicans would do! 
Hillary, is the one who is closest to Republican in this match.
Oh and if she is to be lauded for her '30+ years of experience' we can talk about what she actually did in the last 30 years, including the anti-union gig she had at Walmart. But the Dharma/Clinton Initiative chooses their own rules to live by, as always.
"LBJ didn't pass universal health insurance reform?"
Thanks LBJ
"How many folks will gain health care coverage under ACA?"
Well, 32 million, and it took Medicare 20 years to reach that level. In fact, Arizona didn't join Medicaid until 15 years after it was implemented.
Over time, however, the lure of federal dollars proved strong enough to win over resistant states. Eleven joined the program in 1967. Another wave of eight, largely Southern states came on board in 1970. Arizona proved the last holdout, not joining Medicaid until 1982.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/09/six-governors-say-they-will-opt-out-of-medicaid-how-long-will-they-hold-out/
Still, here is something we can agree on, Obamacare brought single payer to this country.
Uh... we should be thanking *Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden* for single payer in America.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088636
Fully funded by Obamacare:
By Laura K. Grubb, M.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine, April 4, 2013
In May 2011, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed legislation to implement Green Mountain Care (GMC), a single-payer, publicly financed, universal health care system. Vermont's reform law passed 15 months after the historic federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law. In passing reforms, Vermont took matters into its own hands and is well ahead of most other states in its efforts to implement federal and state health care reforms by 2014. The Supreme Court decision last June to uphold most of the ACA left many states scrambling, since they had postponed reforms pending the judgment. Although Vermont is a small state, its reform efforts provide valuable lessons for other states in implementing ACA reforms.
<...>
Finally, Vermont policymakers are maximizing federal financing and have projected cost savings. In January 2013, the state released a 156-page financing plan for its single-payer arrangement; the plan outlines federal financing sources and the anticipated generation of savings. Vermont has been awarded more than $250 million in federal funding for its state exchange — the fifth-highest amount among the states, although Vermont has the country's second-smallest state population. “We feel strongly that the exchange is not the answer to all of Vermont's health care problems,” Shumlin remarked, explaining that “the exchange is helpful to Vermont to bring us federal dollars to achieve our single-payer goal.”3 In fact, state exchange development will be 100% federally funded.4
- more -
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/april/lessons-from-vermonts-health-care-reform
Section 1332 of the health care law:
Why the 1332 Waiver in the Senate Health Reform Bill is the Only Opportunity for State Single Payer Systems Under the Bill
The health care reform bill passed by the Senate requires that all states set up Exchanges through which private insurance companies could sell their plans. Because federal laws preempt state laws, the federal health care reform bill would supplant any state attempt to set up a single payer system in lieu of an Exchange, which by its nature calls for multiple payers to compete. If the Senate bill is enacted, the only opportunity for states to move toward a single payer system is found in Section 1332. This section would allow a state with a plan that meets certain coverage and affordability requirements to waive out of the requirement to set up an Exchange for private insurance companies. Only with such a waiver could a state move in the direction of a single payer system.
- more -
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/state-single-payer-waiver-provisions-in-the-senate-healthcare-bill-legislative-langu
Vermont Delegation and Gov. Shumlin Hail Obama Endorsement of State Health Reform Waiver Legislation
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The Vermont congressional delegation and Gov. Peter Shumlin today hailed President Obama's endorsement of legislation allowing states to provide better health care at a lower cost starting in 2014.
At a meeting of the National Governors Association Monday morning, Obama announced his support for amending the Affordable Care Act to allow states like Vermont to seek a federal waiver to the new law three years earlier than currently allowed. States would be required to design plans that are at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people
Last month Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced in the Senate and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced in the House legislation that would advance the date waivers would be accepted from 2017 to 2014. The three joined Gov. Shumlin at a Montpelier press conference to announce the legislation, which would provide Vermont the flexibility it needs to adopt reforms Shumlin is pursuing.
Leahy said, "This is a wise decision that keeps in focus the goal of continually improving health care in America. I applaud President Obama and Secretary Sebelius for supporting efforts by Vermont and other states to go above and beyond what the Affordable Care Act requires. They know that the federal government does not have a monopoly on good ideas, and innovations by the states will prove - and improve --- the benefits of health insurance reform, on the ground, and in practice. While some in Washington want to turn the clock back and repeal the new health reform law, Vermont and other states want to move ahead. Vermont has already been working hard to improve the state's system of health care, and passage of the delegation's waiver bill will move our state one step closer to that goal."
Sanders said, "At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer approach. I am delighted that President Obama announced today that he will, in fact, support allowing states to innovate with health coverage models sooner rather than later. I worked hard to draft and secure the waiver provision in the health reform law and I am very pleased the president now agrees that we should make it available in 2014 as originally intended. While there is a lot of work to be done, I look forward to working with Sens. Leahy, Wyden, Inouye, Brown and others in the Senate and Rep. Welch and others in the House to get this done as soon as possible."
Welch said, "President Obama's support for allowing states to innovate sooner is a good news for Vermont and all states looking to tailor health care reform to individual states' circumstances. This legislation will give Vermont a green light to lead the nation in providing quality health care at a lower cost. I'm hopeful that Democrats and Republicans alike will support this practical step to give states flexibility to achieve progress their own way."
Shumlin said, "I was excited to learn about this today during a visit to the White House. All along officials from Health and Human Services have expressed a willingness to work with us, as long as we don't compromise standards under the law. I think this is an excellent example of how we can work together to control skyrocketing health care costs and implement meaningful health care reform as soon as possible."
A fact sheet on the delegation's "State Leadership in Healthcare Act" is available here.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=44a664de-8e92-43f4-a871-d26e0b5a252d
"State Leadership in Healthcare Act‟
Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – the “Waiver for State Innovation” – allows states to waiver out of some of the requirement of federal health reform if they meet certain standards. The provision in the new law was authored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and strongly supported by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
The Sanders-Leahy-Welch “State Leadership in Healthcare Act” moves the availability of state waivers from 2017 to 2014. This would allow a state to avoid the expense of setting up an exchange – which is otherwise required in every state in 2014 – only to dismantle it later.
The federal waiver would allow a state to:
a) Collect all the federal funding and use for financing coverage for individuals through a plan designed by and for that state.
b) Coordinates this waiver process with Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP waiver processes that may be required depending on the design of the system. The state
The federal waiver would not allow a state to:
a) Offer lower quality or less affordable care to their residents than would be available in the exchange.
b) Obtain waivers from the health insurance market reforms implemented under the law such as those benefiting ending the use of pre-existing conditions to exclude individuals from coverage or those allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plans longer.
How does the waiver provision of the law work?
Step 1: The state passes a law to provide health insurance to its citizens.
Step 2: The Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of the Treasury review the state law and determine that the plan is:
a) At least as comprehensive as its residents would receive in the exchange;
b) At least as affordable;
c) Deficit neutral to the federal government; and,
d) Covers at least as many people.
Step 3: If the federal government finds that the alternative state system meets these requirements without certain federal rules, states can get a waiver. The state plan could receive waivers from:
a) The section requiring establishment of the exchange
b) The designs for how federal subsidies would have to reduce premiums and co-pays.
c) The employer penalty for providing coverage
d) The individual mandate.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/graphics/011411state_waiver_fact_sheet.pdf
The Affordable Care Act: Supporting State Innovation
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/02/state-innovation02222012a.html
Thanks Obama.
That just proves that you knew squat. The real right-wing kooks think that both Hillary and Obama are Socialists, Marxists and the Anti-Christ.
Speaking for myself, I hoped Obama would be more liberal than Hillary. My thoughts on that can be found here:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/15
In the end, and for a number of reasons, only some of which were beyond his control, President Obama ended up being much less liberal than I had hoped. My opinion of Hillary has not improved regarding her positions on economic issues, but I am now confident that she is a capable leader as she demonstrated in her successful stint as Secretary of State. I'd still prefer a liberal.
-Laelth
I was quite pleased with the way she represented the United States on the world stage.
ymmv
-Laelth
Hillary and Obama were my last 2 choices in 2008, Hillary because she is a wall street corporatist and a war monger, Obama because of his inexperience and likely naivete. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, my first choices turned out to be not so hot either.
I will end up voting lesser of 2 evils, and the GOP is likely to run such an ugly clown car campaign that I'll end up supporting whoever we run with a smile.
But Hillary is likely to continue to be my last choice. Ime, the older we get, the more we become who we really are at heart. And Hillary started out as a republican. I see her ending out that way, too, regardless of the letter D.
here--just typical political mendacity. Obama's lies about his positions don't "trap" anyone into having to support Hillary. The very concept is bizarre!
wow.
-p
are a sight to behold. 
Solid Potato Salad - The Ross Sisters (1944)
The one big area where they differed was that he didn't cast a vote on the IWR. Then again, he wasn't in the Senate at the time. Although, he did speak against it from his perch as state senator in IL.
To me the main difference between the two was that I thought Hillary was far more experienced in dealing with Washington, particularly Congress. I will always think that she should have come first and then Obama.
Now it's water under the bridge......
At the time, I thought that it was all B.S. said by a candidate with a razor thin political resume to garner support.
If you wanted to understand what he really said, it was better to read the transcripts than listen to one of the rallies where overemotional people would be swooning at his feet (literally, there was always someone fainting). Remove the emoting and emotions that it created, and there wasn't much there. At least not much that was clearly distinguishable between both candidates.
she has told so many lies and misinformation I'm almost wishing she is in the primaries for some fun of watching her stumble around them all and forgetting which is which.
And I'm sure you won't be emotional about that primary at all. Nope, you will be Spock the Vulcan...
Emotions are bad, robots are better. Especially if said emotions cheer on Obama but hateful emotions are okay towards him.
Go see if the pooch picked up some fleas.
He should try to smack down some Republicans like that.
Oh, and you, keep your stinky polar vortex away from us. It belongs in Canada, fence it in already.
Outside of sites like this one, DailyKos, etc.; the vast majority of Democratic voters are not against Obama or Hillary. They both get a favorable rating, even among those who consider themselves to be "liberals".
As for the primaries, vote for anyone you like. No one will stop you.
Even if that's not OK with the self-appointed etiquette police.
Do you remember the lead-up to the Bush/neocon invasion of Iraq and the steady campaign of LIES and the worldwide protests and how desperately we needed Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton to show some strong leadership in oppsing that senseless march to catastrophe?[/b
I never felt so betrayed by the Democratic Party as when nearly half of them voted for the IWR. Is it possible they knew less than we did here at DU? If so, they shouldn't be in Congress.
Did they base their vote on a calculation it would improve their chances for re-election? If so, they put themselves above the good of the country and shouldn't be in Congress.
Did they really think this war based on lies and managed by GW Bush with his group-think PNAC neocons would be a cakewalk paid for with oil revenue and produce a flowering of peaceful democracies in the Middle East? If so, they have inexcusably terrible judgement in the most critically important decision that can be made and they shouldn't be in Congress.
Any of the above, that person should NEVER be POTUS.
Caps are always considered to be rude.
As for the IWR, I don't think that it was such a defining vote. Hillary was married to a president and believed in giving presidents her support when it came to international affairs. She was also a senator from NY. That vote was cast not too long after 9/11. The Democrats who voted for the IWR were giving permission for Bush to use force as a measure of last resort. They had urged him to send more inspectors to Iraq. They didn't expect Bush to go to war a mere five months later.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the majority of Democratic voters have moved on.
I don't give a rat's ass if you or most people here think shouting is rude, when shouting is warranted.
Any Democrat in Congress who actually thought Bush would use force only as a last resort was less informed than most of us here at DU, and there is absolutely no excuse for that. It was painfully obvious that once given the authority Bush would invade -- inspectors be damned.
The fact that Hillary was married to a president should have given her better insight than what you are attributing to her.
And WTF does 9/11 have to do with Iraq -- other than using the memory of that horror to manipulate the public through fear and to falsely conflate Iraq with al Qaeda, as Bush was clearly doing?
Why give a president support in international affairs when that president is lying to the American people and has an agenda spelled out for all to see in the PNAC documents?
A million Iraqi civilians have been killed (the carnage is ongoing), more Americans have died in Iraq than on 9/11, and by the time we finish caring for the tens of thousands of wounded GI's this war will have cost $3 trillion dollars that could have gone towards education, health care, infrastructure, and so many of our country's needs.
But "the majority of Democratic voters have moved on."
Well, they need more than SHOUTING to bring them to their senses. 
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and other Democrats enabled this to happen. They showed incredibly poor judgement, and none of them should be president. That didn't stop me from going to Cuyahoga Ohio to get out the vote for Kerry in 2004 -- because it was him or Bush -- but that was a bitter pill to swallow.
Obama:
Hillary:
