Why so many "I'll never vote for Hillary" posts?

[brooklynite]

I understand that Hillary Clinton may appear too centrist for some progressives.

I understand that some people want fresh faces and see a "dynastic succession" in a Clinton run in 2016.

I understand that some people want an unfettered progressive to be the nominee.

What I don't understand is the number of people, in numerous threads, who are emphatic that they won't vote for her even if she wins the nomination.

In 2008, she racked up more than 17,000,000 votes; nearly half of the Democratic Primary votes cast. The notion that she's now completely unacceptable as a candidate really escapes me.

[hedgehog]

1. On the other hand, if nearly half the votes went to her, more than half went to

someone else. That suggests a large number of people looking for someone other than Hillary Clinton.

[Little Star]

4. And there was a large number looking for her, enter TPTB.

[ZombieHorde]

2. I think people who have been very pleased with President Obama

will also be very pleased with former SOS Hillary Clinton.

[L0oniX]

3. Those who are pushing for Clinton obviously don't want progressive lefty voters. n/t

[Little Star]

7. Did you vote for a progressive lefty in 08? If so...

What'd ya get? Better yet, please name me the last progressive lefty president...that long ago, huh?

[leveymg]

14. He ran as one, twice. Hillary can't even pretend.

[Little Star]

25. Yep. Just because someone runs as one doesn't mean they actually are.....

I'll take the lady with the thick public record. At least I know what I'm buying and Hillary brings a lot of good with her.

What good will any candidate pretending do us? I'll stick with her & her very public record. I know who she is & there is plenty to admire, not all, but plenty. Plus, she can win the general election.

[leveymg]

30. We'll be at war with Iran within a year if HRC is Pres, if we aren't by the time she's elected.

Other than that, we could do worse.

I just get a really bad gut feeling about her and the Mideast.

[Little Star]

41. I really don't think she wants to start any war.....

I'm sorry about your gut feeling about her and the Mideast but I don't fear that from her at all.

[leveymg]

52. I can't help how I feel. And, I've come to trust my gut feelings,

which are pretty accurate. I'm sorry - I wish it were otherwise. It may not be a conscious animosity on her part, but she lets her enthusiasms show sometimes, such as during this interview where she lets it hang out about Ghadaffi:

[Little Star]

55. I can't tell much from that little snippet without more context.

[HardTimes99]

57. Iran will make Iraq look like a Sunday stroll in the park by comparison. - nt

[Walk away]

83. Did she tell you that in a dream?

She was our SOS for four years and we didn't start any wars.

[leveymg]

110. We didn't start any wars during HRC's tenure as SoS? Really,

tell that to the Libyans and Syrians.

Sirte, Libya after the US and NATO "humanitarian intervention" (September, 2011)


Qossour, Syria, stronghold of the Sunni insurrection, lies in ruins after a bombardment by government forces (late October, 2012 - HRC was still SoS)

[Deep13]

5. Iraq war resolution probably. nt

[elehhhhna]

101. That! And all the "Hil will be the nom in 2016 and tough shit" posts

[Warpy]

154. That's it for some people

others, like me for instance, dislike the Third Way/Wall Street Democrats she represents.

I hope a viable primary challenger surfaces. I thought Ms. Clinton would grow into the job of SOS and she didn't disappoint me. She repaired a lot of the damage the bulls in china shops that Stupid favored did to international relations.

However, I don't want her for President, appointing pro corporate judges and other officials.

I will vote against her in the primary. I will vote for whatever stiff the party gives us in November, even if it's Ms. Clinton.

I just hope it doesn't come to that.

[kentuck]

6. I think many consider it a "dead end" vote...

No change from the status quo and a continuation of present policies. That is not progress.

[Wilms]

8. If you don't understand

"the number of people, in numerous threads, who are emphatic that they won't vote for her even if she wins the nomination", consider reading those threads. Their position is amply explained.

[JimDandy]

150. +1000 Hey Wilms!

Haven't run into you really, since I last frequented the Election Protection group in 2007, when the protracted fight for transparent elections was going on and educating the public on the fallacies of "The Secure and Transparent Electronic Voting Machine" was an uphill battle (Seems not much has changed in those regards).

Nice seeing you around the board.

[Wilms]

157. Greetings to you too!

And if only the election management system was the only problem with elections. (Seems not much has changed in those regards, either.)

[JimDandy]

158. No indeed. (sigh) n/t

[Wait Wut]

9. And then...

...there are those that are already sick of hearing about 2016 when we haven't gotten past 2014.

But, to answer your question (IMO) people need to be pissed off at something. Might as well be Hillary. God forbid they get pissed of at the freakin' GOP.

[socialist_n_TN]

113. So we're ONLY allowed to be pissed about the GOP?.......

That won't fly with me. I'm personally pissed off at the ENTIRE neo-liberal mindset, from Reagan, to the Clinton's, to the Bushes, to the Obamas and back to the Clintons. And you can throw in all the Euro neo-liberals too.

Fuck 'em all. I think they all should be in prison for robbing the working class blind. Prison or worse.

[Wait Wut]

129. Yes.

If that's what you think I said, that must be what I meant.

[socialist_n_TN]

147. You said "God forbid that they get pissed at the GOP"...

That IMPLIES that people who are pissed at the neo-liberals are NOT pissed at the GOP. I'm personally pissed at ALL of them, no matter the Party label. And yes, that INCLUDES the GOP.

[lob1]

10. I,for one, don't want another corporate president.

It'd be nice to have a president who represented me, not BP, bankers, etc.

[NoPasaran]

11. There's no big "Hair on Fire" story at the moment

Hillary hatred is a fall back for a certain element that needs to demonstrate their "progressive" bona fides.

[leveymg]

12. Three word and one picture explanation: Libya; Syria; Neocon; >

[darkangel218]

13. Because we dont want "more of the same".

sorry.

[Whisp]

17. more of the same like the Bushes.

I can agree with that.

[darkangel218]

22. And Obama. nt

[uponit7771]

69. Obama = Bush = bullshit

[darkangel218]

70. Pretty much

what it turned out to be.

[CakeGrrl]

75. I have no patience for anyone who honestly

thinks this Administration has ACCOMPLISHED the same things that would have occurred had Bush remained in office.

Ridiculous.

[William769]

38. Are you saying President Obama's highly respected Secretary of State is like the Bushes?

WOW!

[darkangel218]

72. Im saying he PO hasnt followed any of his promisses

except the LGTB rights, which I give him credit for.

What about everything else?? we shouldn't care about it??

Has he closed Guantanamo? has he stopped the drone war?? has he got our homeless off the streets?? has he pushed for Universal medical care??

Will, you know he hasn't.

[William769]

90. Sorry that was not directed at you it was in response to "whisp"

It had the intended effect.

[Whisp]

84. One of these things is not like the others.

And that is President Obama in many respects. He is less concerned about his legacy and more concerned about how he can positively affect peoples lives for years to come, not only for the 8 years he is in power. He stands outside and above the Clintons and the Bushes for this reason.

The Bushes and the Clintons are buds. Now I wouldn't expect Bill or Hillary to snob the Bushes off or go out of line of expected protocol but they are just a bit too chummy chum. Bill and the Chimperor and their humanitarian efforts *cough, in Haiti is a perfect example of Neomi Klein's definition of Disaster Capitalism. They feign helping the needy but it's mostly a front to build hotels and investment opportunities for their bud buddies.

Also, Bill and Hillary are pushing for Keystone pipeline, pushing haaaard like a bad labor. Now how is that in favour of the overall needs of Americans? Not many jobs in the overall compared to the risks, contrary to the propaganda. They have their trough set out and ready to go but that damn Obama just might be cutting some dinners short.

I have yet to hear all the accomplishments of the Hillary Clinton who was SoS. I hear a lot of generalities like 'she was the best ever', 'she flew so many miles', 'she is so tired, because she works so hard (compared to whom?) and I also hear her talks about equality and humanitarianism and the deep care for women and children words - coming from someone who supported the Chimp Iraq war and also whose husband caused the suffering and deaths of so many Iraqi women and children during his 2 terms - well, that is a bit hard to accept as something other than empty words.

These things alone, and there are so many others, make her and her husband far more kin to the Bushes than to the Obamas.

[millennialmax]

15. There's quite a "groundswell" of statements like that across the Internet.

Coinciding with the barrage of attacks against HRC from the RNC.

[FSogol]

64. Exactly. It is pure and simple rat fucking to try and suppress moderate and liberal voting in the

2014 midterms. Look down the latest and greatest pages. There is post after post doing the same rat fucking.

[leftstreet]

16. Because people like to talk about stuff?

[avaistheone1]

18. I don't see Hillary as centrist or as progressive.

I see her as another DLC corporate shill.

Same old, same old.

[Scuba]

26. +1

[Marr]

29. +1

[Link Speed]

35. That's the only way to get elected

If a Presidential candidate doesn't yield to corporate handlers, said candidate will not be nominated.

It's just that simple.

The 'progressive', 'uber-liberal' faction of the Party will be left to do exactly what they have been doing for decades - shouting into the wind.

[L0oniX]

44. ..and all the others are happy to capitulate to the corporate and MIC shill candidate. n/t

[broiles]

74. She'a a hawk. Want more War?

[RedCappedBandit]

89. +1

[AgingAmerican]

156. 'centrist' = half republican

Im GLAD she isn't a centrist

She is definitely far to the left of Obama though

[lamp_shade]

19. I suspect many here still hold out hope for a Kucinich candidacy. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

20. It's pretty much the last realistic chance to get that off their chests

Anyone who has dreams of someone other than Hillary has pretty much only got the next six months to fantasize about this. After that, we'll be swept up with the midterm elections, and the day after that, the Presidential race is on, full swing.

Let them express themselves now, they'll realize by Election Day that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz is way, way worse. They're the only fools who think they can beat Hillary in the fall of 2016, who have a snowball's chance in hell of being nominated by the Repukes.

[leveymg]

24. I'll support her about as enthusiastically as I did Hubert Humphrey.

For roughly the same reasons.

[customerserviceguy]

28. And you saw how that turned out

Even with George Wallace bleeding off the worst of the racists in all fifty states, and actually winning the electoral vote in five of them, we still got Tricky Dick.

Are you ready for President Paul, or President Cruz?

[leveymg]

32. Why do you think I'm so damned depressed about this?

I'm old enough to remember what comes of this sort of situation.

[customerserviceguy]

37. Would the Vietnam War

have turned out any worse with Hubert Humphrey than it did with Dick Nixon? My feeling is that having won the Presidency on his own, Humphrey would be free to cut our losses, instead, Nixon kept the thing going for another several years, invading other countries in the process.

There's an old saying about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[leveymg]

43. Have to think about that hypothetical. Maybe, maybe not.

HHH might have doubled-down, as well. Who knows, maybe he might have invaded China or bombed Russia? G-d knows, there are a lot of possible scenarios.

There are no perfects in American politics,and damn few goods. The choices are usually pretty bad, IMHO.

[customerserviceguy]

86. Didn't Nixon

already double down, with his "secret plan to end the war"? That's what it felt like to me.

I cannot imagine any US President, even the worst of the worst, directly trying to engage the USSR or China. Proxy wars were the name of the game from 1945 on.

[HardTimes99]

61. Had Humphrey won in 1968, there's a damned good chance LBJ and the Vietnamese might have reached

a peace deal even before HH's inauguration. (Nixon's campaign used proxies like Claire Chennault to talk Thieu into holding off on peace negatotiations until after the election under the idea that Thieu would get a better deal from Nixon.)

[customerserviceguy]

87. I agree

And by Election Day, 2016, we'll all manage to convince ourselves that Hillary is at least the lesser of two evils around here. What's happening now is just wishful thinking, and it doesn't change the outcome one little bit.

She runs, she wins. It's that simple.

[Logical]

21. Anyone who will not vote for her if she gets the nomination should be banned. But I will not...

support her in the primaries or donate if she wins the nomination.

[Xithras]

31. Nah, the rules are pretty clear about that.

You won't be banned for not voting for her, and you won't even be banned for saying you're not voting for her. You WILL be banned if you advocate for a third party candidate or try to convince others to not vote for her. That last one can be a bit tricky, since a "Here's why I'm not voting for Hillary" post could easily be construed as trying to spread your opinion, thereby convincing others not to vote for her. It's OK if you don't want to vote for her, but be prepared to keep your mouth shut.

I didn't vote for Obama in the last election, and I make no apologies for that. As a left-progressive, many of his policies and administrations actions have become increasingly offensive to me for several years. Still, here on DU during the election cycle, I only mentioned my intentions when directly asked, and never tried to convince anyone else to join me. I simply stayed out of the presidential discussions, and focused my efforts on state and local races.

I highly recommend that any anti-Hillary posters do the same, should we be saddled with her nomination.

[L0oniX]

46. ...not to mention how this is going to affect the DU jury system which is already wack. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

62. yeah, freedom of speech is not a strong point around here but we are talking about a

message board.

[liberal_at_heart]

51. yes if she does get the nomination there will be a lot of censorship going on.

I have not decided yet whether I am willing to keep my mouth shut if she wins the nomination. I'm sure some on here would love to get rid of us who do not support the corporate wing of the democratic party. But whether they censor us, ban us, and pretend like we don't exist, we liberals are here. We are living in their neighborhoods. We are working with liberal candidates' campaigns and working to get them elected. We are voting for liberals. Just like republicans will never get rid of democrats, democrats will never get rid of liberals.

[gulliver]

91. After the general election begins you can definitely be banned for not...

...voting Dem.

From the terms of service.

"...when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Xithras]

119. They key word is "supporting" not "voting"

This has been discussed ad nauseum over the years, and Skinner has consistently said that he doesn't want DU members posting things that undermine Democratic candidates during the election season. There's no requirement that you vote for the Democratic candidate, but you can't do anything that might be construed as working against them. It's the old "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" line. I don't really have a problem with that. This board has a purpose that I agree with 95% of the time. During the 5% that I disagree with it, I take those issues elsewhere.

In my case, during the last election, I just stayed away from discussions where it might have become an issue. I voted for Obama the first time around and everyone on DU who read my posts knew it. During the reelection, I voted third party, though you'd never know it from anything I posted here.

If you can't bring yourself to post anything supportive of a candidate, you just have to shut up about it. Even during a presidential election cycle, there are plenty of non-presidential topics to deal with.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. well if the choice is being forced to vote for someone or be banned, I'll chose being banned.

We live in a free country. It may not be a democracy anymore, but no one can make me vote for anbody. So, if I get banned because a liberal democratic candidate does not win the primary then so be it. You will not take my freedom of voting away from me.

[dembotoz]

23. i have honestly tried to like her and quite frankly i can't

will I vote for her?

in the general over a republican yes

but in a primary the rest of the field would have to be really pretty damn bad

[DJ13]

27. she racked up nearly half of the Democratic Primary votes cast

She lost in 08 because the majority thought Obama was the more liberal (or "progressive" if you prefer) of the two top candidates.

The joke was on us I guess.

[L0oniX]

47. Yea ...he needed the lefties and progressives ...for the votes only...

and then we got thrown under the bus.

[GoneFishin]

116. ... then backed over a few more times.

[quinnox]

33. people usually say why they make that statement

I like Hillary as a candidate, but I think it is strange you don't understand why some people say that, they usually explain right there in the post. Maybe you don't read it.

[JaneyVee]

36. I'm 100% voting for whoever the Dem nominee is. These republicans are TERRIFYING!

[Andy823]

73. I agree

It should scare the crap out of anyone to think of a president Christie, and even worse a president Rand Paul! Not voting is not an option. 2010 should have shown anyone with half a brain that not voting is far worse because you get republicans in charge of your state who will do everything in their power to turn back the clock and get rid of all the progress we have made over the years. Not to mention not voting got us republicans in control of the House, and next year we not only need to try and take back the House, but keep the senate!

I am seeing the same BS about not voting now as I did back in 2010, only this time we have not only republican trolls spewing the BS, but Paulbots as well. Sadly like back in 2010 we also have some long time DU members agreeing with the trolls, and that's just plain crazy!

[Historic NY]

39. They're looking for the pony & unicorn candidate....

thats never going to happen.

[William769]

40. IMHO the biggest problem people here have with Hillary is not only that she is a female

but one that won't take no shit. People just can't wrap their heads around that.

I will say this here and now and again this is just my humble opinion, she is going to run and she is going to win and America will be a much better place because of this.

Ok, que the foaming at the mouth people.

[Zorra]

45. But I believe that the majority of us who don't want Hillary want Elizabeth Warren, who

has as much or more grit in her craw than Hillary.

So I don't see the sexist aspect so much here.

[winter is coming]

48. +1. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

56. it's just another attempt to discredit people who don't support Hillary.

I love how Warren doesn't take any crap from bankers. She is not afraid of big money. I wish I could say the same for Hillary.

[bunnies]

60. We'll all be accused of sexism anyway.

Just like last time.

[Little Star]

50. I agree that she is going to run and...

she is going to win and America will be a much better place because of this. That's exactly how I feel in my gut & my heart.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

98. Now that's a foaming at the mouth reply

[demwing]

42. Because we are DUers

And when it comes to Democrats, we love to do two things-

1) Put them on a pedestal

2) Knock them off the pedestal

[Spirochete]

49. I always vote absentee

But, come 2016, if we can't do any better than Hillary Clinton for the nominee, I probably won't even waste a stamp. I'll assume it's out of my hands, and always has been.

[mick063]

63. I will not vote for Hillary.

And I have not seen a single argument in this thread to convince me otherwise.

The arguments are:

Republicans are scary
I can get banned from DU
I am living in fantasy

To be honest, such arguments build resolve. I will not be extorted with GOP fear into backing a corporate schmoozer.

I will work against Hillary.

[Pisces]

66. Hmm. The people claiming they won't vote for Hillary have low post counts and seem to have an

agenda. I won't work. And no one should have to convince you. Do your own homework and quit raking the mud.

[liberal_at_heart]

71. I will not vote for Hillary and I have more posts than you. There are many on here who have

ten thousand or more posts and will not vote for Hillary.

[Pisces]

78. Yes, and most of those acquired their post counts trying to stir up trouble. It doesn't take a much

to know that the Repukes hire people to go onto liberal sites to cause problems. Sorry, but I don't believe that the majority of
real democrats would not vote for Hillary. I was for Obama in '08 and I will gladly cast my vote for Hillary.

I think most will and if she decides to run she will be our next President.

[liberal_at_heart]

81. you can think whatever you like about me. You may be right about the majority of democrats

being willing to vote for her. We liberals still have smaller numbers comparatively, but one number we do have is the number of poor people getting tired of both parties catering to the rich. Those numbers are getting larger and larger every day.

[Pisces]

125. I am not attacking you personally. There is a concerted effort on this board that is bought and paid

for by the Repubs, KKK Rove etc. Are there people fed up with the system. Absolutely. I do not deny this. What I am saying is that
there is a negative campaign starting to try and lower Hillary's high popularity numbers. Would I love to see an
Elizabeth Warren as President, that would be a resounding YES, but it is the same as the other side wishing Santorum had
won the election. They want to see abortion repealed, church in schools, etc.

The fact that we are championing the poor and trying to make big business pay their fair share does not change the minds of the other side.

So what we have is a mix of people on this board airing their honest opinion and others posting things to inflame anti Hillary
rhetoric. They have learned that it is never to early to try and poison the well.

[Andy823]

67. Yes, but

I remember when you told me that we "could do worse than a president Christie", which is just crazy. Also I remember you saying we should let the teabaggers run things then people would vote for change after they were in charge. Of course in both scenarios there wouldn't be anything left of the country as we know it if Christie were president, or if the tea party nuts ran congress!

As for being banned from DU, hell you haven't been yet, so why worry!

[mick063]

82. Santorum, Romney,Bachman, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Ryan, all much, much worse.

Most would agree are worse than Christie. An endorsement for Christie?

Hardly, but........

Boiled frog with Hillary?

I say turn up the burner and hope the frog jumps out of the pot.

I can live with Christie if it provides major handwringing in the party. If those at the top are deemed incompetent for losing and a new breed gets a shot.

The differences are small enough that when one's primary goal is for the party to shiift left, hoping for humiliation of the third way is an achievable goal.

[HardTimes99]

53. She voted to invade Iraq and should have known better. She has never recanted her vote and

is accountable for the blood of many thousands of innocent victims, both Iraqi and American. That she's still seen as a serious contender is a sign of how sick the American political system and body politic are.

[derby378]

54. If she becomes our 2016 nominee, I'll vote for her - but I don't want a coronation

I have a few things against Hillary; a lot of DUers do. She put too much trust in George W. Bush's selling of the invasion of Iraq, she took too much money from health insurance lobbyists, and her approach towards gun control is more in line with her husband than it is with Obama. These will be taken into account in 2016, but I also want to take into account the good things that Hillary has done both as a US Senator and as Secretary of State, where she made Condoleezza Rice look like a Mean Girl who slept through Russian Studies classes in high school.

[DCBob]

58. My biggest gripe with Hillary is her hawkishness.

President Obama is a dove compared to her.

[allin99]

99. she wanted to bomb libya and then he did. so he's not quite a dove.

[DCBob]

123. If she were calling the shots we probably would have sent ground troops.

If a Republican was in the WH we would be occupying Libya now.

[Redford]

59. Who else is there that can win?

I think it is pretty much set in stone she is the candidate.

[HardTimes99]

65. Biden? Warren? The Dems have a very deep bench compared to the loonies in the

fascist party.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Perhaps in response to the OP's demanding we all pick a candidate NOW who is

perfect or bow to the will of the Hillary Promoters. Look, I like her as a person, she's funny and smart but I do not care for many of the choices she has made in office, nor with the tone and timber of her self appointed early booster's OPs that act as if she had the nomination owed her and anyone who expects a, you know,election wants a 'true believer'. I think that those making such posts are harming the Party because we have important 2014 elections to deal with and 2016 divas need to get that work done first, demand attention later.
For example, I don't see all these 'if she's the nominee, I won't vote for her' posts and you don't link to them so I think you are just making it up. The hype and the name calling shit are really not going to help you.

[Skittles]

76. because they are scared of her

[JoePhilly]

77. They don't have an alternative

They don't want her.

And they haven't done the hard work of developing realistic alternatives.

They've spent 4.5 years complaining about Obama. They wanted a 2012 primary that was never going to happen.

They hope Hillary won't run because they know she can't be beaten this time.

So expect endless Hillary hate until the 2016 election.

[Drunken Irishman]

79. Most DU is out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party...

They like to suggest they're the base, but polls pretty much indicate they're not. Most Democrats support and approve of Hillary (and her husband), as well as President Obama. There is a small number, maybe 20% or less, who are vocally against her, and the President. But they're not a majority and it's why, when the chips are down, they can't nominate a candidate who appeals to them. Of course, they'll blame corporations - but forget that, at the end of the day, it's the actual voters who decide the primary process and unless they're openly stating Democrats are too stupid to realize what they're getting, their point is invalid. The fact is, the two most successful Democratic politicians of the last 40 years are also the two most hated on here at DU - Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

DU continuously tells us these types of Democrats can't win ... and yet, who has won the presidency for the Democrats? It wasn't George McGovern, a hero to the left - or Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis. Nope. It was Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary is viable. She might not be my number one choice (I'd support Biden, then O'Malley and then Hillary - in that order), but I'll happily vote for her in 2016 because I'm not myopic enough to believe how damaging the Republicans will be toward major issues - like the Supreme Court, environment, war, SS, Medicare, Obamacare, the minimum wage, gay and women's rights.

I, like most Democrats, know that progress isn't made through just one president - it's a collection of like-minded leaders who build on each other's legacy. FDR built on the legacy established by his cousin, who, oddly, was a Republican. Truman built on FDR's legacy, as did Kennedy & Johnson. Had Nixon won in '60 instead of Kennedy, there is no Medicare or Medicaid or food stamps or Johnson's Great Society. Likewise, had Gore, who many on the left accused of being just like Bush, won in 2000 - there would have been no massive tax cuts, no war with Iraq, no trying to privatize social security and certainly a country better off today than what we got ... even if Gore, in 2000, was unacceptable to many on the left.

Just starting over every four years is not the answer. Refusing to vote for a Democrat in the general A) negates any claim you're a Democrat and B) just hands the presidency over to the Republicans. We did that in 2000, even though many here will refuse to accept that, and where'd it get us? Can anyone say with a straight face that Gore's presidency would've mirrored Bush's?

Of course not. Do Democrats, and liberals, really want to see Rand Paul taking the Oath of Office in January, 2017?

I doubt it. So, do something about it - and no, going third party doesn't fix the problem. Not when you know your vote isn't going to do a damn thing. It's like standing by a house fire and dousing it with a little water bottle. You might be able to claim you helped put out the fire ... but we know otherwise.

[Gothmog]

140. Good post

I will also support Sec. of State Clinton in part because she is better than any GOP candidate. I supported President Obama in 2008 but I would have supported then Senator Clinton is she had won the Democratic nomination.

We have a chance to set two important firsts. President Obama was the first non-white POTUS and Hillary Clinton should be the first female POTUS.

[Tarheel_Dem]

145. Excellent post. I wish I'd read it before I posted.

[Summer Hathaway]

155. Excellent points

eloquently presented.

[KoKo]

80. Okay...here is what I think...FWIW...

I don't understand WHY there are posts here on DU already pushing Hillary for 2016 when she has had some health problems and we have almost 3 1/2 years more to go before that Election. You are thinking only 2 years because US has endless campaigns with shorter breaks inbetween as the "New Normal."

The Younger Folks are tired of the SAME GAME...they think it's time for something new.

Hillary is not appealing to the Left Democrats because in the "Rear View Mirror" both She and Bill helped Reaganomics to Finish Off Labor and the Middle Class and to Increase the Poor in America with NAFTA and "Commodities Futures Modernization Act, Welfare Reform, and the Telecommunications Act of '96 which opened us up to more Raping of Media Viewers with Additional Fees for the Airwaves We OWN! There's more...but if I listed you wouldn't pay attention and I'm tired of it.

Anyway...we've BEEN THERE AND DONE it WITH Clinton ANGST....And "We Aren't Gonna' Take it Anymore."

We are still seeking the REAL "Change You Can Believe In"...and it wasn't the "Man from Hope, Arkansas...nor the "Obama for 'Hope and Change' of 2008 and 2012.

It's TIRED AND WORN OUT. And WE OLDER VOTERS feel it the most. BTW ...Older Voters DO VOTE in Mid-Terms and show up for Local Elections. The Young...vote when it's important to THEM in National Elections. I've been Young...I'm not so Old...but, Local Issues as one grows older in a Community..means you get your butt out there.

I wish I could have been more eloquent in my post...but there's what it is.

[hrmjustin]

85. I support Hillary and I will proudly vote for her.

[MFM008]

104. me 2

I don't see anyone else with her qualifications or experience..Its time for a woman but Warren hasn't got a chance.

[hrmjustin]

105. I doin't think Warren wants it. I like her and would consider voting for her if Hillary does not

run.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. She vociferously voted for Bush's Iraq slaughter and for Obama's drone war.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Gandhi


Next question?

[GiaGiovanni]

92. I've been wondering the same thing.

It's a daily occurrence.

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. I think it's funny; Old White People are the scourge of the earth...

Let's elect ANOTHER one!

[bowens43]

94. I understand completely.

I have voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since I proudly cast my vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976. As the years went by I became more and more disillusioned with our candidates, always feeling that i was voting for the lesser of two evils.

Then along comes Obama. He lifted me up, he inspired me. I became excited about politics again. I believed. Immediately after taking office he moved quickly and decidedly to center/right. He tossed aside and basically betrayed those who worked so hard to get him elected. Sure I said to myself, he has to get that second term. When the second term comes along, that's when he'll take off the gloves. So I voted for him again....and still Obama caves, compromises and bloviates ......

In addition to his undeniable attacks on the privacy and civil liberties of the American people IMO, he is nothing but another corporate ass kisser....


and Hillary I am afraid will be nothing more then Obama 2.0......

Vote for the lesser of two evils and you're still voting for evil. I haven't decided what I will do if she gets the nomination but I know that I won't be pounding the pavement to get her elected nor will be I donating money to her campaign.

Winning isn't everything.......sometimes you have take a stand even if you know you're going to lose.

[burnodo]

95. There's always a lot of chest-thumping

People will fold-in in time for the general election

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. And what happens when people don't fold?

[burnodo]

106. fold-in...tow the line...vote for the Dem nominee

They do fold. They always do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Nope, not always.

There is something different about this. A few won't bother voting, for example. We are talking regular, never, ever...miss an election.

The anger is very real...you discount it at your peril.

[burnodo]

109. anger at...Hillary?

[liberal_at_heart]

118. anger at all of our politicians. Anger at the fact that they have sold our freedoms and social

programs to the highest bidder.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

96. History

Especially the DLC boat anchor wold be my guess, since the third way has been shown to be a net negative for we the people.

The times demand a "forth way", something NEW.

[allin99]

97. 18 million+

[LWolf]

100. Why so many posts trying to shove her down our throats

YEARS before the opening of the primaries?

When people start pushing this early, they're going to get push-back.

Why are some people so determined to put her, and keep her, on the front page so early?

[KoKo]

111. Many reasons, maybe. NSA Spying intruding into consciousness?

So let's get started on 2016 and WHIP IT?

[Coyotl]

102. Aaahhh? Maybe because lots of people will never vote for Hillary?

That would be too obvious, right?

[Recursion]

107. Because Virginia Thomas is getting people to disrupt discussions everywhere

Plain and simple.

[jazzimov]

112. I think about half of them

you could substitute "any Democrat" for "Hillary".

I'll admit that I didn't vote for Hil-dog in the last primary, mostly because I felt she was "too cozy" with Corporate Interests. However, I thought she did a GREAT job as SoS, and I think she would make a GREAT President. However, I'm still going to wait until the Dem Primary to make up my mind.

IMHO, Some of the anti-Hil crowd really think that Hil-dog is too Centrist. Some of them think Hil-dog is too Centrist because others tell them she is (band-wagon folks).

But, also IMHO, a lot of the anti-Hil-dog crowd don't want ANY Democrat to win; they want a 3rd-party ranging from Naderites and Green Party to Ron/Rand Paul Libertarians. BUT I have no doubt that there are many here who only pretend to be Dems who want to undermine the Democratic Party itself.

We still don't know that Hil-dog is gonna run!

But I kinda hope she does!

[Bradical79]

114. Of course Id vote for Clinton if she won the nomination

The reality is we have a system that makes it virtually impossible for an independent to win the presidency.

[madokie]

115. I'll vote for who ever gets the democratic nomination

and be proud of doing that too.

[GoneFishin]

117. I won't reward the party for jamming a corporatist down my throat. I'll stay home.

I'll just stay home.

Ignore that at your peril.

[TheKentuckian]

120. Because "Chickens for Colonel Sanders" is always stupicidal even when the other team is Tyson.

Tyson supplies KFC anyway and if you are going to end up on the dinner table and/or the feed bin anyway, you may as well not give active consent to slaughter.

Some folks don't actually grasp that in a lot of critical policy areas other folks in the same party are being consistently asked not to compromise anymore but rather the demand is to take no loaf and swallow the least vile turd or even the same turd better managed or even still just the same turd but taken in consideration of other areas that are more positive areas.

The fierce demands are then made by people that either have to give up nothing or else claim to be giving on common ground that are franticly waving the flag so this fosters ill tempers.

Then you take this naturally...uneasy situations and then arrogantly start hammering spikes of salt in an open wound seriously three fucking years before the earliest primary and the lashing out begins.

Lack or representation exhaustion. Voting loses value when one gets what they don't want either way. Not getting what you want is sometimes life, actively working for what you are trying to run away from is crazy and not really living at all. It seems a lot like ending up in a box with mashed potatoes and a biscuit.

[Spider Jerusalem]

121. She was apparently unacceptable as a candidate for more than 17 million people in 2008.

I think it's a bit optimistic of you to expect that people who didn't vote for her then would do so now.

[Union Scribe]

122. It's only 2013

and I'm already tired of her being foisted upon us as our inevitable queen. It's a bit early for calls to fall in line behind her.

[B Calm]

124. I'll hold my nose and vote for her if she's the only choice I have.

[Renew Deal]

126. Republican astroturf

[PowerToThePeople]

127. I am going to start voting third party until the Dems can get progressive candidates.

If Republicans take over and do what we fear they will do there will be Revolution. I will be there.

[demosincebirth]

128. Shooting ourselves in the the foot is inherent to the democratic party by many of the far left

leaning members, who would rather see a republican elected than to see a real democrat( not saying that Warren is not a real Dem) in office because they won't or haven't addressed their individual pet "peeves."

[SamKnause]

130. Hillary

I live in the swing state of Ohio.

I was not pleased with President Obama's first four years, but I bit the bullet and voted for him the second time.

I will NOT vote for Hillary.

[ecstatic]

131. Shortsighted people, trolls, and those easily fooled by trolls

SOS Clinton really angered me in 2008, but currently she's the only name being floated around for 2016. Until someone better who has a shot of winning emerges, I'm not going to preemptively jump on the hate Clinton bandwagon and make it easier for Rick Santorum, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan to win.

It's so frustrating that so many people here are 1 issue voters. There are several issues that I disagree with Clinton on, but I don't agree with ANYTHING on the batshit insane teabagger platform. I do not want a teabagger dictating what I can do with my uterus or picking Supreme Court nominees. Anyone who claims to support progressive values while making it easier for a teabagger to win in 2016 is either extremely shortsighted or a troll. Period.

[Lisa D]

132. ^^This^^

[Tarheel_Dem]

146. +++++

[RC]

133. I think I see the problem here.

I understand that Hillary Clinton may appear too centrist for some progressives.

Hillary is no centrist. She is Right of Center in almost everything. As in DLC and 3 Way. Not much Liberal or Progressive there.
That (D) by the name sure fools a lot of people, not only about Hillary, but even of the Democratic party itself.
If we had had today's Democratic Party for the last 70-80 years, we would not have Social Security, 40 your work weeks, job benefits, minimum wage, vacations... How is that Liberal or Progressive?

[PowerToThePeople]

136. ^^^THIS^^^

[Xyzse]

134. Meh... I don't care enough

Right now, I just can't see voting for a Republican, even if I am an Independent.

If by some chance Hillary wins the primaries, I feel like I don't have a choice but to vote for her in the general election.

A 3rd party is a waste, since there is a very limited chance they would win, and without any people in congress and senate with the same party affiliation as them, they would be useless.

[on point]

135. Because she is a RIGHT of Center (NOT Centrist) DLC Third way rep. Oh yeah she voted for Iraq War...

[Scurrilous]

137. This place is rife with malcontents. n/t

[RC]

144. How is that a problem?

Democratic Underground was founded because of the stolen Presidential election of 2000. So yeah, it goes with web site because some of us originals have not been driven away yet. Over 13 years later we are still fighting the takeover by the criminal Right. They have even invaded DU. Only now they are called Centralist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. What's intriguing to me is that they say they fear she'll be exactly what Obama *IS*.

It's 2008 with chronic short term memory loss.

[MrSlayer]

139. "Too centrist" is a cute euphemism.

Reaganite is more truthful.

That's why progressives don't like her. She's no friend of labor, that's for sure.

[silvershadow]

141. I'll venture a guess for ya...People are sick of third-wayers, and the party can't withstand a

continued shift to the right. We would have to nominate Jesus Christ next time just the drag the party back to it's roots. 2014 & 2016 will decide for me whether or not I remain a loyal Democrat, or if I need to pursue other options. But, that's just me, and I'm not real popular, especially with the inside-the-beltway crowd, and with the party PTB.

[Tarheel_Dem]

142. It's probably because you think DU has some real world impact, IT DOESN'T. I know this because....

Barack Obama was elected TWICE, despite the machinations and screechings by DU's liberal'er-than-thou brigade. (D) will always be (U) because it doesn't represent the mainstream, and never did, hence the use of the word "Underground". You know Dennis Kucinich routinely won presidential preference polls here at old DU, now do you see that happening in the real world?

"The poll shows that among Democrats nationally, including Democrat-leaning Independents, 63 percent of those polled said they'd like to see Clinton take the nomination.

Vice President Joe Biden is Clinton's closest potential opponent, but she outdistances him almost 5-1, as he took just 13 percent of the vote. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo trails behind Biden at 6 percent, and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley holds 1 percent. Of all those polled, 18 percent were undecided on a Democratic candidate."

http://www.latinospost.com/articles/24405/20130725/presidential-candidates-2016-poll-hilary-clinton-leads-democratic-nomination-ahead.htm

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us130715/Campaign%202016/Complete%20July%2024,%202013%20USA%20McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Results%20and%20Tables.pdf

"Clinton tops Vice President Joe Biden 60-18, with no one else even approaching 5%. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren each have 3%, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner are at 1%, and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick register almost no support. 14% favor someone else or are not sure.

The GOP contenders are all pretty well-known and well-liked, but beyond Clinton and Biden, there are few recognizable names on the left side of the aisle. The least-known Republican is Walker, of whom 38% surprisingly have no opinion, but 55% of Democrats cannot say how they feel about Cuomo, 60% of Warren, and 80-90% of the others. Then again, few had yet heard of a certain state senator from Illinois at this point in 2004."

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/iowa-2016-presidential-preference-poll.html

I'll say again that I don't have a clear preference because it's way too early, but if Hillary becomes the nominee, I'll work as tirelessly for her as I did for her husband, and for Barack Obama.

[loyalsister]

143. I would definitely vote for her

I have reservations about her candidacy because of her age. It is absolutely certain that her health will decline as with everyone in the world. The presidency requires physical stamina. To our knowledge, whatever condition that is coming down the pike has not revealed itself. But, we are all TABs (temporarily able-bodied).
People point to FDR and his ailments to support accusations of bias. BUT, the severity of his disability was kept secret. And, he did not travel nearly as frequently or as far as presidents do today.
If we are to compare her to FDR, maybe we should remember that he was only 63 when he died. Hillary would be 67 at the time of the 2016 election. 71 for the second campaign and 75 at the end of her second term.
I think she would have made a good president, I would vote for her if she is our candidate in 2016. But I don't think it is very practical for her to be our nominee.

[pnwmom]

148. They're probably from people who usually vote 3rd party anyway.

There are plenty of DUers in that category. They identify with the "underground" part of "Democratic underground."

[Vashta Nerada]

149. Too centrist?

She's too conservative for me.

[MADem]

151. Well, we do have a libertarian contingent aboard.

She doesn't appeal to that bloc.

In the real world, amongst real voters, particularly those of the "D" persuasion, she is more than "acceptable"--she's Golden.

[Sunlei]

152. I don't understand the Mrs. Clinton hate by GOP and some Ds...the bright side is....

We got President O and Mrs Clinton as SOS because of the Mrs. Clinton dislikers from both parties in 2008.

I don't think Mrs. Clinton wants to run for President again. But I'll bet she will stick with the Ds and do what's best for the party & Americans, again.

[AppleBottom]

153. We need real change.

Not just cheap talk about hope and change.