The question is not 'would I support Hillary'?

[daleanime]

It's would she support me?

[Buzz Clik]

1. That's not the question.

At all. It doesn't even make sense.

[daleanime]

3. Some how not surprised....

[Buzz Clik]

5. That doesn't make sense either. You have NO idea...

... where I stand on Hillary. None.

Just another kneejerk comment.

[daleanime]

20. Yes, I have no idea where you stand on Hillary....

but you might want to get off, I'm pretty sure she's going to have charges pressed against you.



All joking aside, I'm willing to listen to anyones position and think about what they have to say. So far I don't get the feeling that's true for you.


Please prove me wrong.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. You're right on target: the answer for most of us common folk is "no"; "yes" if you're a major corporation...

who are people too according to those who stand with corporatists like Hillary.

[Cal33]

123. For me, the most important thing is that I think Hillary would at least maintain the

present status quo -- i.e. keep democracy half-alive in our country. A Republican
would be out to destroy our democracy, totally.

That is why I would vote for Hillary if she should win in the primaries, although I
would vote for a Progressive Democratic candidate at that time.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

125. Sadly, you're prolly right.

[merrily]

126. I think we have, at most, an illusion of democracy and more and more of us

are losing that.

[Katashi_itto]

4. No surprise there.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Ok, then answer this:

Do I support Hillary?

You don't have to be a bigtime Hillary supporter to point out a stupid thread opener.

Jeebus effin Cristo.

[Katashi_itto]

15. Well that's your problem isn't it?

[Buzz Clik]

18. Ok. So all you're doing is trolling for reactions.

Now, I'm not surprised.

Thanks for wasting my time.

[Katashi_itto]

22. Not particularly, you made the lame comment.

[demwing]

36. You have no room to speak

Reading any one of your posts in this thread is a waste of time.

Here's your chance to correct that...tell us now, how DO you feel about Hillary Clinton?

[Buzz Clik]

77. Oh, the irony....

I won't waste my time explaining. Ask a friend...

[demwing]

79. Yep. Exactly what everyone expected

a postful of butkus.

[Phlem]

39. yet you continue to participate in the conversation. Stop wasting our time.

[Buzz Clik]

76. You know that there's a g in phlegm, right?

With or without the g, it's the bodily waste I spit out.

[Phlem]

81. No I didn't know that at all, really?!?!

[billhicks76]

88. Wow

That person just personally insulted you for no worthy reason. Hillary supporters are becoming like FOX News.

[Phlem]

103. yep.

[Buzz Clik]

108. Poor baby.

Was he all hurt inside by the mean man?

[Phlem]

120. nope.

Right so tough behind a computer screen.

I have PTSD from being abused since early childhood from which I almost beat the bastard into the ground when i was 16. Your a joke.

Been at this for a while too so I've learned to controll my anger from idiots like, I think you know who.

But go for it juice box, bring it on.

[Jack Rabbit]

47. Why doesn't it make sense?

I understood it.

I'm not going to vote for Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. I don't think they'll support me.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. The question is: why would you?

[PatrickforO]

82. Yes it does. It makes perfect sense, and

I'll tell you why. For the past several decades, our politicians had been increasingly owned by corporate interests. This nation's tax code and policy direction have swung during that time in favor of the so-called 1%. An example is that according to Citizens for Tax Justice, about 50 Fortune 500 companies have found an 'offshoring' loophole in the corporate tax code that has allowed them to pay NO income tax for at least a couple years since 2008, and a number of them are ALSO getting substantial tax refunds at the expense of individual taxpayers such as you and I. In fact, in 1944, corporations paid in over 35% of the government's tax revenue and individual taxpayers just over 53%. Now, individual taxpayers are paying in over 83% of the federal government's tax revenue and corporations near 10%.

At the same time, we're being told we don't have the money to continue programs that help Americans. We, are, they intone, going to have to gut the SNAP program, get rid of welfare and other 'wasteful' social spending, such as Perkins funding for postsecondary schools and Pell grants.

And, there's a big push on the part of the neocons and neolibs (these are NOT liberals in the traditional sense, believe me) to privatize and deregulate, as well as gut the New Deal. An example of this is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, passed by a Republican-controlled lame duck Congress in 2006. This little gem requires the USPS to pay the US Treasury $5 billion per year 'off the top' to fund pensions for employees who haven't even been born yet. We're also seeing a strong backlash against legalizing pot, because the private prisons need to fill beds.

Now we have Citizens United, which allows people like the Koch brothers to buy elections through massive donations to 'super pacs,' and the Supreme Court gutted whole sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. Obama knows about these things and he has quietly put some pretty good policies in place, but he can only go so far. Hillary and Bill are quite beholden to corporate interests and we don't hear much in the way of populist rhetoric coming out of their camp.

Sure, Hillary's an order of magnitude better than Rand Paul would be and we won't even mention people like Cruz and Jeb Bush. But what does that really mean to you and I? Look at Obama's vaunted TPP. We lost over 800,000 good jobs to NAFTA, and now TPP will move us even further down that road. So until people like you and I begin taking the trouble to follow legislation as it goes into committee and hold sponsors' feet to the fire about how the proposed law helps the American people, we're going to get corporatists in office (from either party) and the populists we really need will be little more than voices in the wilderness, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

[daleanime]

90. +1

[merrily]

127. The US's losing 800,000 jobs to NAFTA began looking good in 2008, when the impact of repealing

Glass Steagall hit the global fan.

[billhicks76]

87. Hello!!! Yes It Is

And as with Hillary it's really all about her. She's supposed to represent the people but she instead represents herself and any power or big $ that does too.

[rhett o rick]

98. You mean "It doesn't even make sense" to me. In other words, you don't get it.

It makes perfect sense to me. If the OP author is Goldman-fracking-Sachs then of course HRC would support.

Ms. Clinton is well known for turning her back on the Democratic Party and joining the Republicon party when a good war is at hand.

[Buzz Clik]

106. Meaning: you've joined the groupthink and antiHillary is perfectly logical...

... no matter how inane.

Good for you.

[rhett o rick]

109. I decided quite on my own in 2002 that HRC couldn't be trusted. She betrayed us and doesn't

deserve to be president. Call it what you want. Why run the risk with her and her baggage, when we can find other more qualified candidates that believe in Democratic Principles and won't sell out to the Republicons.

[Buzz Clik]

110. I don't disagree at all. BUT...

I really despise what DU does with people they don't like. DU turns into a gigantic "you're with us or against us" machine and lashes out at those who resist.

So, yeah, I get what you're saying but the OP is still nonsense.

[sabrina 1]

118. I decided who would be a strong leader when given a historical opportunity to

make the right decision about one of the most important decisions an elected member of Congress can make, sending our troops to war, back when we watched the votes for Bush's illegal war, and who would not be.

Anyone who voted for that war, was unfit to lead this country. All these years later, we see the devasting results of that epic tragedy.

Group think? Not interested in the opinions of others when it comes to right v wrong. Her vote ended any support I ever had for her.

We need leaders who have the vision to be able to make the RIGHT decisions WHEN THEY ARE NEEDED.

Even those who later apologized for that vote, did not impress me as good candidates for powerful positions in our government. Because when it counted, they made the wrong decision.

It takes courage to go against the grain when you know you are right. I respect those who did that and supported them when they ran for office.

I have nothing from Hillary that convinces me she won't jump on board for ever war, proxy or otherwise, that comes along.

And THAT is bad for this and other countries.

[rhett o rick]

132. If HRC was a ship's captain and ran her ship aground killing between five hundred thousand

and a million people and later apologized for her bad judgement, would you accept it? And if you did, would you let her have another ship?

[sabrina 1]

133. I definitely wouldn't get on another ship if she was the captain.

[lild]

105. what do the rolled eyes mean?

[Buzz Clik]

107. One post? You created a nick for THAT?

Get a life. Do yourself a favor and get a life.

[lild]

131. Wow you really are a peach!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That's a very good question.....I wonder too.

She certainly supports the 1% and the military.

But most of us aren't in those groups.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Hm. Sounds like you literally want her to financially support you.

strange.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

14. Nope, that's not what I want.

When I say "support" I mean will she agree with Democrats like myself on topics such as fracking, Mideast wars, the TPP, the Keystone Pipeline, and so on.

[Jack Rabbit]

49. +1

[Enthusiast]

60. +1

[ybbor]

64. Exactly

But not just Hillary, but any of the candidates who runs. I want to support the one who does support my values and well being.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

91. I'm with you. Hillary is a .1 percenter, who's not interested in the issues I care about - only in lining her own greedy pockets.

[bvar22]

23. YES.

The true Middle/Working Class NEEDS some financial support from our Party.

In the following video, Hillary clearly discloses to whom she is giving Financial Aid,
and if you made less than $100K last year....it ain't you.

[rgbecker]

45. Thanks for that. Easy to see why Obama beat her in 2008.

Easy to understand people on DU having trouble getting excited by the idea of a Hillary Clinton campaign.

And we are now 6 years down the line. Is Hillary now more or less in touch with middle class?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

92. That question answers itself. We need someone who will stand with those of us on mainstreet, not Wallstreet.

[Enthusiast]

63. That little exchange tells me all I need to know about Hillary Clinton and her candidacy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

93. Thanks for that reminder who Hillary is fighting for, ie, the upper class making six figures...

Her debating skills are atrocious. Certainly we can do better.

[merrily]

128. When was the cap raised?

[demwing]

37. Actually, it does not sound like that at all

strange indeed

[Phlem]

40. OMG. Really!?

[LiberalLovinLug]

61. are you daft?

Or do you think you can actually fool a roomful of politically educated liberals that this is what you understood from the OP with your snarky response?

This includes your first post as well. Of course its a question! And a very good one. In fact its is the ultimate question we should be asking every candidate.

[Enthusiast]

66. A big plus one to you.

[PatrickforO]

85. Not at all.

What most people around here want seems to be that OUR tax dollars that WE pay in be used to pay for programs that actually help us, like single payer healthcare, expanded Social Security, and making college MUCH more affordable for our children.

Instead of making more guns, bombs, and carriers, and instead of wasting more money on wars that do nothing but pad the pockets of Halliburton shareholders and the like.

Since individual taxpayers are paying in over 83% of the federal government's income tax revenue, shouldn't we, rather than the military-national security-industrial complex, be getting over 83% of the benefits???

[daleanime]

11. I'm a vet.....

and her support of the military seem directed more towards those make profit from these wars, not those who bleed in them.


Hope your having a good Sunday.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. I agree that this is what her support of the military actually means.

And thanks, I am having a good Sunday.

[still_one]

6. It depends what your monthly expenses are

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. No. But, she'll say she will. Unless she decides she was "misled" by Bush.

Then she'll say her promised support was taken out of context and that what she really meant was something else.

[bigwillq]

9. I believe that very few politicians actually support us.

So, I'll give Hillary a pass on this one.

[quakerboy]

101. Well that makes great sense

Few CEOs give a damn about their workers. Shall we give them all a pass?
Few criminals give a damn about the law. Shall we give them all a pass on that?

If you give Hillary "a pass on this one", shouldn't you do the same for whoever the R's try to ram into office?

Personally, I don't give people a pass on things like that. Politicians should be in office for our(the majority of americans) benefit, not for the primary benefit of themselves or of very small groups of well to do people.

[jeff47]

104. That's a fantastic way to make sure nothing ever changes. (nt)

[HereSince1628]

12. Well it might be stated, how well would she represent my interests?

But I think I understand what you are trying to say

[daleanime]

42. Writing in wellness.....

I do not.


Sorry, I tend to enjoy an awkward turn of phrase.

[olddots]

13. I also think it is a valid part of the guestion

The biggest reason I am not in Hillary's camp is I feel people in her camp are not in mine .
This saddens me and its hard to explain , it just feels bad .

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

95. I understand completely; right there with you. And yes, it is sad.

[99Forever]

17. I already know the answer to that.

And the feeling is mutual.

[woo me with science]

19. Indeed. And we clearly already have the answer to that question.

She would be Term V of entrenching and expanding the Bush agenda of corporatism and endless war.

Another Wall Street presidency.

And, no, that's not good for human beings.



Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441

On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257

Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343

Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285

How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611

Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575

Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986

Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9

[daleanime]

21. And it's things like this that worry me...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

97. After reading this, how anyone with half a heart can support Hillary is beyond me.

[pnwmom]

24. The real question: will you support the Democratic nominee in the general election against the Rethug?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

25. And what if they are indistinguishable?

[pnwmom]

28. They won't be, anymore than Al Gore was indistinguishable from George Bush.

I don't know how you or anyone else could suggest that Hillary Clinton would be indistinguishable from whatever Republican runs. Please take a look at her actual Senate record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[CaliforniaPeggy]

30. Well, I was being facetious.

There are many areas where she overlaps with the Republicans. Not all, of course.

She is far too rightist for my tastes.

[bvar22]

26. My state won't be "in play" in 2016.

I am free to vote my conscience without "helping the Republicans".
Very few states will be in play in 2016.

[napi21]

62. Maybe, and maybe not.

A lot depends on who the pubbies finally nominate for their guy. If they nominate someone like Walker or Cruze? then I think more states will be in play than you might think. Remember how badly thee RW nutballs lost in Red areas because their nominee was saying things like "I am not a witch!". or "legitimate rape", etc. Apparently SOME candidates are even too crazy for the righties.

[bvar22]

83. Hillary will lose my state by over 20 points.

I agree that this must be done with caution to avoid another Florida 2000.
If it is even close, I will hold my nose.

I'm getting old and have some health problems.
This could very possibly be my last presidential election.
I'm an old FDR Democrat, and I would love the chance to vote for a real Democrat instead of the lesser of two republican-lite evils before I'm gone. I won't help MY Party move even further to the conservative Right.

Nobody who helped Bush kill hundreds of thousands of innocents will ever get MY vote if I can help it. Some of my early Catholic indoctrination is coming back in my latter years, and we may have to answer for our choices. I certainly will have to answer to myself for my life choices, and I am a harsh critic. I regret the times I chose convenience over principle.

[daleanime]

29. No, that's a redirect....

asking that here is like asking if I plan on continuing to breathe.


But how good will the air be? If she is our candidate, will it be because she won the money primary?


And should that make any of us happy?

[woo me with science]

31. Well, that's certainly the "lesser of two evils" con game

that corporatists in both parties keep using on us.

Red vs. Blue = Oligarchy Theater for the masses.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.
Selling off swaths of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling? Both parties support it.
Drilling along the Atlantic Coast? Both parties support it.

BUT, we are reminded by sneering corporate Democrats, Republicans will do all of this to us, too, PLUS inflict transvaginal ultrasounds!

What a vicious scam by both parties to justify relentless, predatory evil. To demand that we vote for our own sellout and exploitation and the dismantling of our democracy itself.

You know what? At a certain point it becomes necessary to say no to deliberate evil. To refuse to bow to the scam and the manipulation. *Even* when it is waving its claws and protesting that there's even scarier evil over there.

[Phlem]

48. "that corporatists in both parties keep using on us."

agreed, and to which the witless support.

Man DU's on a role today.

Finally Hillary supporters are talking and revealing their thought process which is astoundingly lacking and scary. Did you know that progressives only care about economics and not the social impacts of Dem's versus R's? Jesus H Christ. That's a blatant lie or someone broke out of the institute. We can have all the progressive socialism we want and that I am for. But what good is it going to do to any who can't feed themselves or their families and put clothing on and a roof over our heads.

We need to be alive to enjoy all the rest. Why the fuck can't anyone get that through their fricken grey matter.

This is the third time today about this same argument and I've been on DU for only 10 minutes.

It's sunny out, I'm going to work in the yard cause the third way just can't hear anything but money and the win. All one has to do is look at the reults of the midterms to figure out if corporatism is the answer for our party. We rail on the other guys but it's OK when we do it?!?




PS .. gave you my last heart woo. I know you'll use it wisely. Have a great weekend my friend.

[woo me with science]

75. "We need to be alive to enjoy all the rest."

Thank you.

To those who believe Third Way lies.....who view deliberate policies growing authoritarianism and mass inequality to be a promising soil for the magical blossoming of human rights: Read some damned history already.

Enjoy the garden, Phlem, and thank you for the heart.

[Phlem]

102. Aww

[backscatter712]

27. In the general, I'd vote for Hillary in preference to whatever GOP assclown is running...

But in the primaries, I'm supporting Bernie Sanders.

Because I want the Democratic Party's standard-bearer to actually uphold Democratic values...

[daleanime]

32. I like Bernie....

and would work my tail off for him, I think we could win, but I know it would be an uphill battle.

[woo me with science]

34. +100000 Bernie is the only potential candidate telling the truth about oligarchy.

That is why I believe the PTB would stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to marginalize and if necessary end his candidacy.

Elizabeth Warren's message on economics is important and welcome. But even her policy agenda does not clearly challenge the wars and the surveillance/police state that are dismantling democracy in this nation.

We don't just need to be more economically comfortable within an authoritarian state. We need restoration of our democracy and our Bill of Rights.

We need reform of our elections. We need restoration of our civil liberties. We need an end to the surveillance state and the militarization of our police forces, and the private prison industry, and the endless wars for profit.

[daleanime]

35. Amen....

[Android3.14]

65. So far, Bernie is the only one I have confidence

There may have been a time when she was someone I would have liked as President, but not with the Constitutional crises we will face in the near future. We need someone with a strong moral compass and the internal integrity to stand for the people.

[blkmusclmachine]

33. Hillary. Wal Mart Board member (1986-1992) and former "Goldwater Girl."

[EEO]

38. Pretty sure the Democratic nominee for president is going to get Rhode Island.

My question is "why should I support Hillary?" No one seems to be able to answer that.

[JaneyVee]

41. 10th most Liberal senate voting record.

[daleanime]

43. You really know how...

to break a man's heart.

[JaneyVee]

51. Obama was #9.

[daleanime]

67. Wonder where Raygun would place?

[JaneyVee]

70. Hardcore conservative:

Reagan:



Link scroll to bottom: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ronald_Reagan.htm

Hillary:



Link scroll to bottom:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[hrmjustin]

44. I voted for her 5 times and felt she supported me.

While I disagree with a few votes I still love her.

[Phlem]

52. I voted for her "0" times and felt

that she's never supported me and never will.

[hrmjustin]

53. Well I am sorry you feel that way. i hope eventually she can prove herself to you.

[Phlem]

55. She's proven everything to me. She's a corporatist. Not interested

in you or me. Period.

I've already got several people I would support other than the Third Way, of whom lost the midterms for us.

[hrmjustin]

56. Hillary was out for all our candidates. 2014 was not her fault.

[Phlem]

57. Did I say it was her fault?

I said the Third Way lost the midterms for us. She is a continuation of those policies. The Third Way, who currently have control of the party, the "New Democrats" are also controlling our options for us. Why do you think Hillary's inevitable?

She has her day coming, she will be challenged and I can't wait for her to open her mouth.

[hrmjustin]

59. I think she is the favorite and thst Democrats want to win and see her as a winner.

Polls show she leads in the primary and the general.

[Phlem]

68. Okee Dokee.

Polls? This early with no challenger. Yep very accurate I'm sure.

[hrmjustin]

69. I agree the polls will change but at this point who can beat her in a primary?

Sanders? I don't think so. Warren? Maybe but I don't think she wants to do it.

of course I could be wrong but today she looks the best out of our possible candidates.

[Phlem]

71. At this point, who knows?

"I could be wrong but today she looks the best out of our possible candidates." I will continue to wait for someone better. The Thirdway lost the midterms for us. All they showed and gave for votes is "look, we can be like them". I'm not surprised we lost, there was no one to vote for. Progressive policies won but Third Way seats lost. And we're thinking more of that is going to win us seats?

Yes they're widening the "Big Umbrella" so they can capture conservative votes with conservative policies, but does one actually believe liberals will vote for those? This is the party of the left while they are the party of the right. I think for all the conservative votes the Third Way tries to pick up they will also equally lose left leaning liberal votes.

Then we'll have 2 conservative parties to pick from, great.

Let's look forward not back!

[hrmjustin]

72. Well I hope we can all unite behind the nominee.

[Phlem]

73. I'm positive whoever that may be, it will happen.

Agreed.

[hrmjustin]

74. .

[MisterP]

50. maybe it's "will enough non-DUers vote for her?"

when pressed the "born-again progressive" mask will slip and she'll start cheerleading war or proposing amendments to ban flag-burning; Clinton could "campaign left and rule right" because we didn't know him

ideologically-mixed or -weak voters will of course favor Republican over Republican-lite, and they vote or people who *aren't* half lib and half con even if the voters' politics would seem to indicate that

occasional voters won't be whipped into anything close to a frenzy of turnout--they'll see a 70-year-old careerist who offers nothing notable and whose motto is "America owes me its votes" overseeing a 77-year-old party House leader (who backs off on the important issues and exemplifies all that's gleaming and yuppie about SF) and a 78-year-old weathervane in the Senate who'd bargain away his own relatives

everyone from conservative to lefty (excluding RW) will see a money-centered party whose legitimacy is based on accomplishments from over 80 or 50 that they can never seem to actually get around to defending non-rhetorically, that has slogans rather than goals it'll fight for, whose complicity and indolence is defended by hypocritical online bullies and smarmy speeches calling critics conspiracy theorists, that insists that its campaign planning is the bestest evar and to ignore massive losses, which brags about its differences with the GOP only to make sure that candidates similar to the GOP keep getting in, and which goes into every electoral cycle pre-blaming internal critics for the impending loss

the GOP is made of corporate shills, people who think Medicare's the Koch Brothers rewarding them for being white, warmongers, people who still think the media's run from Moscow, and fundies, but what they want they at least make a move towards instead of just throwing voters a few scraps while dismantling the economy

[zentrum]

54. No, she wouldn't

She's too much the neo-con both economically and in terms of foreign policy to protect ordinary, middle class people at Democratic levels. She's a good, socially liberal, Republican.

[dembotoz]

80. oh be careful how you phrase that around here......but i do agree with you

[totodeinhere]

84. So this is about you? My question is would she support the best interests

of all of the American people, not just me. It's not just about me.

[daleanime]

94. You know, you're right. What was I thinking?

This isn't about me.

Or those who can't find decent full time work.

Or those who have trouble keeping food on the table.

Or people forced to live outdoors.

Etc, etc, etc....

None of us are important enough to matter in discussions of national politics, right?

[totodeinhere]

96. That's not what I said. We need to work for the best interests of the whole country and not

just think about ourselves. And it is in the best interests of our country to solve those problems that you mentioned.

[immoderate]

99. The point is that she wouldn't.

--imm

[Man from Pickens]

86. nope! next question?

she'll be too busy starting another war or five

[JEB]

100. I am no fan of TPP or Kissinger

so why would she support me?

[Rex]

111. Well the final question might be, will you vote for her?

And I think, even though some here won't admit to it, they WILL. They HATE being told 'if you don't Jeb or Scott will be POTUS' because they already know that.

It is just some would prefer in the Land of Diversity, more than 2 or three people to pick from.

[daleanime]

114. Kind of skipping a few questions.....

Like will she run.....

How tough of a primary will it be....

Etc....


To make it easier on you, I will always choose the less damaging option. While jumping out of plane without a chute is bad, it's better then jumping out a plane without a chute while wearing leg irons.

[Rex]

122. Or jumping out of a plane on fire and exploding.

She will run. I don't think anyone at this point doubts that.

[daleanime]

124. Rand Paul....

Oh, she will ran. And every thing possible will be done to make sure that she is one of two 'possible' choices.


Is that really a good thing?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. Aren't you guys and gals scared of losing the White House or do you think it doesn't matter?/NT

[daleanime]

113. Do you really believe that Hillary is the only Democrat.....

who could win? Kind of a low view of Democrats isn't?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. Only one party has held the White House in three consecutive elections in the post WW ll era.

I want to go into this election with the strongest hand possible. If evidence arises that there are candidates who provide us with a better chance of winning than Hillary Clinton I will evaluate my opinion accordingly.

Right now the Republicans control the House, the Senate, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships. All that stands between us and Republican hegemony is the presidency and the Supreme Court and I don't want to be at the tender mercies of a Supreme Court with five Republican appointees and possibly more if they recapture the White House in 2016. We are looking into the abyss.

I live in CA now so I am immune as any American citizen can be from the unfathomably awful impact of Republican hegemony but I shudder for those on the margins who rely on government to survive if the Republicans control all the levers of government. Their welfare will guide me this presidential cycle and not some amorphous concept of ideological purity.

[winter is coming]

116. I'm not even remotely convinced that Hillary is the strongest hand.

The '08 election was hers to lose, and she did. She ran a surprisingly clumsy campaign. Apart from the baggage she carries with Dems with respect to her Iraq War vote and general hawkishness, and her ties to Wall Street, I wouldn't be surprised if she shoots herself in the foot again. We need to not put all our eggs in one basket by fixing on any one candidate at this point in time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. I welcome a primary fight

And as clumsy as her campaign was she garnered 17,000,000 primary votes.

Right now all the evidence suggests she is our strongest candidate. If and when the evidence changes I will change my opinion to reflect the evidence.

[daleanime]

119. Purity?

Thanks, I was feeling a little depressed.


Believe what you want to about my opinions, looks like no amount of honesty will change that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. I can respect your opinion without sharing it.

We (Democrats) are really in a odd place. We don't have much of a bench. When I look back at past primary seasons this cast or potential cast is actually one of the weakest.

To just pick one primary season . In 1984 we had a former vice president (Mondale) a hero astronaut senator (John Glenn) , a charismatic young senator (Hart), a former presidential candidate (McGovern) , and up and coming civil rights leader (Jesse Jackson) running.

[merrily]

129. And, in 1985, the Party's right wing incorporated as the DLC.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

130. I'll vote for ANY Democratic candidate who will appoint liberal judges

I may not like them much but if they are running well and can beat the Republcan, I'll vote for them for the Supreme Court issue alone.