The Repbulcians already are after Hillary? Really?

[question everything]

Just look at the "Greatest Threads" on DU, and we can change "Republicans" to "so-called Democrats."

I don't know if the stone throwers here consider themselves liberals or leftists. But since they are members of a group that has the name "Democratic" in its name, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

A short history lesson: Nixon won in 1968 because many so-called "anti war" refused to vote for Humphrey. Wonder whether they still are proud of their vote.

In 2000 many voted for Nader and we got Bush.

Politics is the art of the compromise. And, in my book, any "DINO" is better than the most moderate Republican - if there are any.

So Hillary may be the nominee. And many here would rather not vote for her? And accept a county under Rand Paul, when the Conservatives finally take over the Supreme Court?

If you have children and grand children, will you be able to look them in the eyes and say, smugly "I stood for a principle?"

I lived in California in the 90s. There are many moderate Republicans in California. Even Reagan was pro-choice. But the Republicans lost all state wide elections because in the primaries they voted for the most backward candidate.

All I can hope is that those "greater threads" generators will be in the minority, in the margin, in 2016.

[Enrique]

1. the more you tell people they have to get aboard Train Hillary

the more they will resist. Fortunately, imho. We still think we should have a say.

[question everything]

2. I don't tell people to get aboard any "train" Hillary or whomever

What I am amazed is that already there are people, as there were in 2008, who say they will not vote for someone (Hillary or anyone else) if this someone is the nominee.

I hope that by 2016 we will all support our nominee, whoever s/he will be.

The future of the Supreme Court will depend on it.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. HRC: Queen of the DLC/Blue Dogs/Turd Way/"New" Democrats/Centrism Central

NO NO NO

[davidpdx]

4. I vote D every election

In 2008 (actually 2007) I made up my mind early that I would support Obama. At the time it was pretty clear who the candidates would be. If she is the nominee I'll support her.

As for the primary, I'll wait and see who actually runs. I know it's a novel idea isn't it?

I may decide early again or may wait until a few states have voted before I pick someone. It wholly depends on how the process plays out. I'm not ready 29 months before the first primary to say I'm voting for someone. It's ridiculous.

[question everything]

6. Bravo! That's the way we should all decide

I am not calling for Hillary to be our candidate. I don't know who should be in 2016. Of course this is why we have primaries to select the best candidate. I suspect that we will end up selecting someone that no one is considering right now.

But it bothers me that many here already say that if she is the candidate they will not vote for her. They might as well vote for Rand Paul and be ready for a conservative Supreme Court that will last for generations.

[harrylimelives999]

5. Hillary obviously wants to postpone

Formally entering the race as long as possible, while the GOP wants to make her a candidate today, because two years is a long time to go negative and burn down her positives. I imagine the Clintons will continue to ignore them until just the right moment.

[question everything]

7. Certainly smart move

and the Clintons are expert in political maneuver.

And... welcome to DU! Glad to have you here.

[harrylimelives999]

10. Thanks for the welcome!

I'm glad to be here

[RudynJack]

11. They've been

attacking her and tearing her down for >20 years. She's more popular than ever. They may want to rethink their strategy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. We can do a LOT worse than Hillary IMHO

Not that she should be instantly "anointed" the nominee- that's what primaries are for- but I will, without question, vote for whomever the Democrats put up if for no other reason than to ensure that somebody like Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, or Jeb Bush or some other Republican NEVER winds up in the WH to start messing things up all over again. We're still dragging the country out of the ditch created by the Bush "error". I don't want anything to happen that's going to hand the country back over to the Republicans again.

[question everything]

14. Right. Remember when, in 2004, Lieberman was the front runner?

I supported Hillary in 2008 but am not sure that she would be the best in 2016. Same with Biden.

[NorthCarolina]

17. Well, I'd rather we do a whole lot BETTER than another DLC candidate. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

9. Why is 1980 always conveniently left out of these threads?

[question everything]

13. You mean, when Ted Kennedy was challenging Carter

and, as was expected, we lost?

Whenever someone challenges a sitting president that president loses. The thinking goes: hey, if people in his own party doubt him, why should we accept him?

[Capt. Obvious]

15. The typical Nader hate threads never mention Kennedy

or Anderson in the general.

Why is that?

At least thread mentioned Humphrey. No one cares about Humphrey.

[pnwmom]

16. That's because Nader is the most recent example. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

24. And Humphrey was when?

[mgcgulfcoast]

12. lets fight rubio, not each other

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. If Rand Paul is president we will be all dust

[Initech]

22. If Rand Paul has even the slightest chance of becoming president...

I will look at leaving the country. That man is such a fucking moron that he'll make George W. Bush look like Lincoln by comparison. He's just a tool for the upper 1% and the damage they've already done under the teabagger House will multiply ten fold under a Paul administration. If he gets his hands on the SCOTUS, we are done as a country.

[Initech]

19. Doesn't everyone see the real picture here?

They're trying to keep us fighting among each other so they can win 2014. That's exactly what happened with 2012 and we were fighting about a possible challenge to Obama in 2010. Instead the teabaggers snuck in and won the House. Now it's 2014 and they stand to gain more seats and we're fighting about the next presidential election already. We need to focus on the bigger picture here and that's the house. Fuck everything else for the time being.

[question everything]

20. Indeed. Well said. Thanks (nt)

[BlueDemKev]

21. Of course they are!

They know Hillary will STEAMROLL whoever they put up to run against her in 2016. Their hope is to convince her not to run.

[Whisp]

23. I'm not going to jump off that bridge until I get to it.

Long time to nom and enough time, hopefully, to discourage support for another Clinton Republicrat.

If Hillitary does get nominated, I will give her as much respect as some people here give the President.

None.