If 2008 election is between Hillary and Newt or Brownback...?

[kentuck]

Who do you vote for? I notice a lot of anti-Hillary comments of people painting themselves into a corner. But, it the choice is one of the above, who do you vote for? Hillary or Newt? Or do you just sit it out because you hate Hillary? Or do you vote Green or Independent? I don't think a response requires a whole lot of thought?

[KingFlorez]

1. I would vote for Hillary

[iconoclastic cat]

2. What if, in 2008, I turn into a 16 meter tall, fire-breathing mango?

Cue Rummy: "Who knows?"

[jobycom]

4. I'm allergic to mangos. But I love Jimmy Buffet songs. nt

[LynneSin]

5. Hell I'd vote for that

:woohoo:

[snowbear]

63. Jimmy Buffet would be an awesome president!

Wasting away in Washingtinaville...

[jobycom]

3. A better question would be "What Republican would you vote for over Hillary?"

And that answer should include any Green or Independent, as well, since a vote for a third party is a vote for a Republican, as it stands now. If polls start showing a clear chance for a third party, obviously, that changes.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. That's a nightmare scenario...

Of course, I'd vote for Hillary, but with my teeth clenched.

[mike_c]

7. two words....

Green Party.

[CTD]

9. Why bother voting for Hillary? Just because she has a "D" after her name?

She is further to the right than some actual Republicans. Why bother voting for her?

(Not to mention, she has ZERO chance in hell of winning. She is THAT polarizing.)

[mike_c]

10. eggzackly-- I won't vote for ANYONE who supported invading Iraq....

Period.

[kentuck]

11. You didn't vote for Kerry last time??

You didn't vote for Dubya..?? did ya??

[mike_c]

12. nope-- I voted for David Cobb....

As Poppy sez, "Read my lips." I will not vote for ANYONE who supported the invasion of Iraq. Their political careers should be over as far as I'm concerned. They betrayed America.

[CTD]

14. With Hillary, IMO, it's more than just the war. She's Lieberman in a skirt.

Aside from being pro-choice, she's quiet conservative. Hell, Rudy Guilliani is further to the left than Hillary.

And that should scare the hell out of any Hillary supporters.

But I pray I'm not forced to vote third party in 2008.

[kentuck]

15. So, would you vote for Giuliani over Hillary?

Since he is more "left"?

[CTD]

19. Don't be silly. No. But I could never vote for Hillary. I pray it doesn't come to that.

Hopefully enough people in the party will see the light re: Hillary and deny her the nomination.

Her nomination is the Republican wet dream. If she's nominated, she WILL LOSE.

[MH1]

18. Kerry NEVER supported invading Iraq.

He did vote, reluctantly, for IWR. That is not the same.

[mike_c]

it is precisely the same, since the IWR enabled the invasion....

It is rather disingenuous to say that anyone voted for the IWR while opposing war against Iraq. That's like fucking for virginity.

[LynneSin]

23. As far as I'm concerned, voting green IS voting republican

Hell the green candidates are even funded by republicans (just google Carl Romanelli).

I will not do anything that will enable another 4 years of republicans in the White House. If I lose my right to choice I blame any idiot that felt it was ok enabling the republican party by voting green!

[ElizabethDC]

37. Agreed.

Voting for green candidates or third-party candidates is essentially the same as voting for the Republicans. If so many people hadn't voted for Nader in 2000, Al Gore would have won the election much more clearly.

[MH1]

28. Well, you can also say that the moon is made of green cheese.

That doesn't make it so.

Kerry statement before IWR vote

...As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack. ...

The invasion of Iraq met none of the criteria on which Kerry based his vote. So, it is incorrect to say that he supported the invasion. You can rail against him for voting for the IWR as written - but you have John Edwards to thank for that, as well as the Republicans; Kerry states in the same statement that he would have much preferred the more narrow Biden-Lugar bill. But the repugs (and some dems, like Edwards and Lieberman), insisted on the version that ultimately passed.

Right or wrong, Kerry showed consistency through the years in mistrusting Hussein's disarmament. Coming from the point of view of believing that Hussein may very well have been maintaining WMD, Kerry (like others) made a rational, responsible choice of the options he was given. It was BUSH who violated the terms of the IWR.

Saying a vote for IWR was a vote for the invasion is just a smear on the Democrats who were faced with this vote. Who wants to smear democrats? Repukes and third-party shills. Blaming Democrats helps takes responsibility off of republicans, after all. And third-party shills don't care about this country at all - they want the republicans to stay in power and continue to do damage that they will try to blame on Democrats.

[mike_c]

34. yeah, he made a lofty statement and then authorized the invasion....

Right.

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. You made no effort to address the substance of her post.

You didn't even bother confronting MH1's entire point, which was that the IWR, properly followed, would NOT have led to invasion. You can read - so maybe you can read MH1's post, as well as the text of the actual IWR, which stipulated that a multilateral consensus must be reached with the UN after irrefutable proof of WMDs via the weapons inspectors had been found. None of those things happened, and Bush could be impeached for violating the IWR. Breaking that resolution is one of the strongest arguments for impeachment there is.

But, as long as the "I'm more lefty than thou" crowd continues to help the Republicans by obfuscating that point in order to blame Democrats as much as Republicans (which is, of course, absurd on its face), that truth will never see the light of day.

[mike_c]

36. I have already adressed that point extensively....

Here's a link-- http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mike_c/1

Now YOU read. The previous poster used her comments as a vehicle for calling me a republican enabler. I don't care to respond to comments like that.

The IWR was a direct authorization for invasion under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Read the analysis linked above if you doubt it. And know that John Kerry, as well as every other memeber of congress, knew it full well.

[MH1]

54. You ARE a republican enabler

if you didn't use your energy to support Kerry in 2004, I hardly see how you can consider yourself anything else.

[AJH032]

61. Prove it

"She's is further to the right than some Republicans." Can you point to any evidence and specific Republicans she is to the right of? Or is that a baseless claim?

[paulk]

62. a deafening silence ....

[AJH032]

73. yep

doesn't surprise me though...

[AtomicKitten]

75. hard to qualify

internet puffed-up howler monkey lore

[MadHound]

20. I hear you

If this is how '08 plays out, with two pro-war conservatives putting on a mummers' show of opposing each other, I'll go Green. Both would continue their support for the war, both are pro-corporate, both are rather close to each other on most issues.

Sorry, I want to see a real difference, not just a faux one.

[bullimiami]

8. if its hillary vs newt or brownback its over in a giant landslide.

hillary already knows the measurments for her new carpet and drapes.

[AndyTiedye]

38. Might Not Be That Kind of Landslide

Hillary's negatives are too high. Such high negatvies are incurable without the media on your side.
She is unelectable.

[Kerrytravelers]

13. I would vote for Hilary.

When it comes down to the final vote, if it's so close that the rethugs could win, voting for someone who doesn't have a chance at winning (in this case a third party candidate) is passively voting for the rethug since you've taken a vote away from the Democrat. Even if the Democrat doesn't win in the end, we don't want the rethug winning by a landslide. The primaries is when you can vote for your actual choice, but in the final election, especially given the stakes of our current elections, strategy (looking at the big picture and the message sent) is so important. As we've seen, every vote does indeed count. We are looking at human rights, civil rights, the direction of this country, more wars of choice and the Supreme Court.

Case in point: see California and the landslide of Arnold.

[CTD]

21. If Hillary is the Dem nominee, the Rep WILL WIN IN A LANDSLIDE.

It doesn't even matter who their nominee is.

People need to get that through their heads. Hillary is unelectable. Outside of the blue enclaves most of us live in, there is venomous hatred for Hillary - even among women and Dem voters. She'd be lucky to win 5 or 6 states.

[geek tragedy]

32. "If Bush is the nominee, the Dems WILL WIN IN A LANDSLIDE.

It doesn't even matter who their nominee is.

People need to get that through their heads. Bush is unelectable. Outside of the red enclaves most of us live in, there is venomous hatred for Bush--even among men and Republican voters. He'd be lucky to win 5 or 6 states."

Look, she's not our best bet, but this talk about her getting stomped is premature and overwrought. She runs a tremendous campaign (Rove based his 72-hour plan on her 2000 campaign), and has effectively connected with the Republican areas in upstate New York.

[Kerrytravelers]

50. Sadly, I agree with you.

Whether or not I would vote for her, there are many people that wouldn't even consider it. I will do my best to convince people, but I don't think she could win. I'm always ready to listen if someone wants to convince me otherwise, but right now, no.

[bagimin]

16. Hillary could win

but she would need support from some around here who are waiting for the ghost of Paul Wellstone.
If you want 4 years of McCain go ahead and vote for a third party.

[ooga booga]

60. I don't see Hillary winning as it stands now.

I just don't see how Hillary pulls 270 electoral votes. Be honest with yourself. Do the math. Run through the electoral votes for each state, and add 'em up.

That said, Bill Clinton was considered a long shot through a good portion of the 1992 race. H. Ross Perot managed to play spoiler in that one and left Clinton as a strong candidate as he himself bowed out. Right now, I don't see a third party candidate on the horizon to ride to the rescue like that. (Perhaps, Bill & Hillary oughta quietly recruit one. Put a call into Pat Buchanan maybe?)

[nodular]

66. Agreed. Most people---on both sides---have learned the 3rd party lesson

"Right now, I don't see a third party candidate on the horizon to ride to the rescue like that."

It cost the Repubs the election in '92, cost the Dems in 2000. Pretty recent lessons.

[bluestateguy]

17. Of course I'd vote for Hillary

She is not my choice for the nomination, but I will support the nominee of my party.

[wisteria]

22. I'll leave the country before I would vote for any of them- they are all the same.

party affiliation makes no difference.

[LynneSin]

24. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out

:D

[MH1]

30. Well, Hillary won't be the nominee.

At least I fervently hope she won't be.

[wisteria]

47. Oh, don't worry,but thanks for the suggestion. n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

31. Yeah, and there's not a dime's difference between Bush and Gore

I thought we learned our lesson after 2000.

[geek tragedy]

33. People obsessed with their own personal purity

instead of improving the world never learn.

[wisteria]

48. Hillary is not Gore! n/t

[nickshepDEM]

25. Hillary w/o a blink of the eye.

[Vinca]

26. You're kidding . . . right?

Actually, I'm holding out for the dream team - Hunter/Brownback.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LynneSin]

41. these anti-hillary people are not kidding

Kinda sad, they'd rather have another 4 years with a republican in the White House over having at LEAST a moderate democrat in there

[mike_c]

42. you want a corporatist war monger in the White House...?

Well, you've got one now.

[LynneSin]

44. Well, if I have to choose between a democratic war-monger and a republican one

the options are very very clear to me. A democrat, even a 'corporate war-monger' is still not going to piss me off as another four years with a republican

And don't fricking even ATTEMPT to convince me that voting green would make a difference. This is the electorial system we have and when push comes to shove on election day 2008, if we didn't work hard enough to get the democrat we really wanted on the ticket I sure as hell am not going to vote 3rd party

[mike_c]

45. I'm not trying to "f*cking" convince you of anything....

I've told you where my line in the sand is. Your's is evidently in a different place. I respect that. *I* will not support someone who represents politics that are diametrically opposed to my beliefs and interests, regardless of the letter after their name. Hillary Clinton falls into that category. So did John Kerry during 2004-- he's tried to rehabilitate himself somewhat, and I'd be willing to reconsider my oppositon to him in light of his recent repudiation of his IWR vote. But that's just me-- you do as your conscience dictates and we'll both be able to look in the mirror.

[LynneSin]

46. Great, but as someone posting at the DEMOCRATIC underground

this is where I draw the line in the sand. I'm sorry you have issues with Hillary and have no problem with four more years of an actual republican in the White House appointing the same assholes that Bush ha been appointing.

I won't support Hillary in the campaign; hell I won't even support my own senator who is running (Joe Biden), but the DU is just a small population of the total voting block of people in this country. Oddly enough, I know plenty of people who don't even know how to find email on a computer that have no problem with Hillary and would vote for her. This is probably the reason why Howard Dean didn't win the primary in 2004 - he was popular on the internet folks but everyone in real life had no clue about him. I mean, geez, Hillary had a primary opponent and still won pretty easily without even bothering to do any campaigning against him.

So rant all you want about Hillary, but hear this now and hear this clear. If she wins the nomination Hillary is MY GAL and I will campaign vigorously for her. I would rather spend four years fighting tooth & nail with the bad decisions she might make over having to do the same thing with a republican governor who could appoint judicial nominations that could affect your GREAT GRANDKIDS. Hell RoeVWade passed in 1973 and only now are the republicans ONE judicial nominee from getting the thing overturned. Do you want to wait another 33 years for women to have rights again? I don't think so!

[AtomicKitten]

52. word

It's called seeing the forest for the trees.

[wisteria]

51. Oh please, the Clinton's are no better for this country than the Bush's.

I would rather see a real leader for a change, similar to a Washington, Jefferson,Lincoln or a Roosevelt, than another term of suggestions of corruption and scandal with the Clinton's. I would rather see our party as one, united for the people and not for anyone self-serving interests. I would like to see a leader do what is right-not just what the polls tell them is OK to do.

[AtomicKitten]

53. If you can't discern that difference

you probably don't acknowledge that Hillary is way ahead of her next possible contender. She may not unite the internet community that puffs itself up like a howler monkey, but she clearly is supported by a majority of the party in the real world. Coming to terms with that reality would be the start of a substantive discussion.

[wisteria]

67. Polls me nothing at this point. They can be manipulated and spun.

Besides, outside of NY, everyone I talk with virtually prays she doesn't come close to the presidency. Honestly, I have never come across a person who likes her. Newly registered Dem's have even threatened to change parties or at the very least not vote if she is our candidate. So, out side of the "Hill", NY and some on DU, I can't see where she has much enthusiastic support. Frankly, I don't give a damn about the polls, AK.

[AtomicKitten]

74. I consider polling

only slightly more reliable than astrology ... I like 'em when they reveal what I want to hear. It does give a general indication of the highs and lows, but it is way too early for any of this. In about a year all this will start to resonate. Now it has as much relevance as a hobby, passionately engaged in but limited individual appeal.

[LynneSin]

57. Yeah, just like Bush wasn't any different than Al Gore or John Kerry

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

No one here is advocating we support Clinton in the primaries just that if she is the nominee that we'll support here then because even on a republicans absolutely best day and Clinton's absolutely worst, Clinton would still be the better choice. At least she'll protect our supreme court which can do 1000 times more damage than any president in the White House!

[wisteria]

68. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to vote for her Dem or not.

I don't trust her, even on a Supreme Court nominee.

[LynneSin]

76. Well, since Hilary Clinton has supported all the filibusters

I'm not sure what the problem is there.

I trust her, I trust her 110% which is 111% more than any republican out here

[paulk]

64. trash on Hillary all you want,

but when you start trashing on Bill, you are going to lose a lot of credibility.

Especially when you say things like -

"the Clinton's are no better for this country than the Bushes"

That's an absurd thing to say.


-------------

Some accomplishments of the Clinton administration -

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html

[wisteria]

69. Clinton was good for our economy, however some of that was

short lived, such as the tech markets that soon crashed almost immediately when he was done in office. The Economy was in an unnatural state and it was bound to slide back to a more normal level and this is what happened right after he left office. Now, I have complaints with Clinton due to major character flaws and his lack of scruples and morals.I don't like what he has done to our party and I feel he and his wife had had there shot. It is time for them to fade into the background and let others run the party and the country.

[paulk]

81. it's funny, I've heard Republicans use those very same

talking points when they attempt to diminish Clinton's accomplishments vis a vis the economy.

Do you really want to go there?

[geek tragedy]

27. Of course I'd vote for Hillary.

People who would refuse to vote for her over Newt or Brownback should just admit that they don't give a fuck about the environment, civil rights, our courts, or any other domestic issue.

[Kelly Rupert]

29. Hillary, of course. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to do everything

I can to make sure it's an actual liberal.

[FrenchieCat]

39. I Hillary wins the nomination, I vote for her over any GOP candidate.

period.

[AndyTiedye]

40. We'd Vote for Hillary, But Hardly Anybody Else Would

Too many people hate her too much. She would lose to any Republican.

[fhqwhgads]

56. ...except maybe dick cheney [nt]

[ddbaj]

43. From an anti-Hillary dem:

I would vote Hillary in a heartbeat :)

Against any republican

[Jack Rabbit]

49. Easy: I hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton

Next question.

[proudmoddemo]

55. If this ends up happening, a 3rd Party candidate might have a chance

Lieberman, Colin Powell, Agnus King, Donald Trump (please no), etc. If there's that big of a gap between the two nominees, this could happen. That said, be afraid of Newt. He's well positioned to run, and he doesn't have any of the Bush administration's stains on him. I think he's the only Republican that actually has a legitimate shot at winning in the Fall. And he'd be just as bad as Bush.

As for my ballot, I'd vote for Clinton. But I probably won't support her in the primaries.

[zulchzulu]

58. Why not choose between Kid Rock vs Eminen?

Both of those guys have as good a chance at getting the nomination for President in 2008. Hillary will do badly, and I mean BADLY in the primary season. Newt? Brownback? HAHAHAHAHA! They're likely to be the GOP nominee as much as I plan on changing sexes so I can go out with Denny Hastert...

[elizm]

59. Will NOT vote for HC just because she is a Dem....

...And if she IS the nominee I will not vote. If the DLC manages to push Hillary down our throats as the nominee the same way they did with John Kerry, I agree with the others who say the Republicans will win by a landslide. I voted for Kerry in 2004, not because he was my choice, but because he was a Democrat. I will not do it again. I want a candidate who speaks for me...not the DLC.

[wisteria]

70. One point I want to make- Kerry is not DLC. They did not want him

and they did very little to support him. In the end, they had no choice though but to make it appear as though their support was there.

[LynneSin]

78. Kerry actually was DLC, it's well documented that he was DLC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Senator John Kerry won the democratic primary and chose primary contender Senator John Edwards as his running mate. Both Senators are members of the Senate New Democratic Caucus, and the DLC anticipated that they would win the general election. In a March 3, 2004 dispatch, they suggested voters would appreciate Kerry's centrist viewpoints, imagining voters to say "If this is a waffle, bring on the syrup."<9>

[wisteria]

80. I am aware of that little bit of history, redheaded step child- that is how the DLC

treated Kerry. The alliance was not a smooth one and the last I checked, Kerry was on their shit list for speaking the truth and actually having plans and ideas. Edward's I can not comment on. I don't know if he still is involved in the DLC or not.

[IndianaGreen]

65. If the choice were between Huey Long and Adolf Hitler

I would vote for the corrupt and demagogue Huey Long.

[The Magistrate]

71. The Kingfish Was A Helluva Fella, Ma'am

"Never write what you can phone; never phone what you can say; never say what you can nod; never nod what you can wink; never wink what you can smile."

[zann725]

72. We're narrowing the field too soon. Time wil tell there are FAR MORE, and FAR BETTER

candidates than Hilary, Obama OR Romney.

For now, too soon to say.

[wiley]

77. Hillary. Really. Brownback and Gingrinch are evil doers.

[Joe Bacon]

79. PLEASE let it be Brownback vs Hillary.

She would walk all over that closet queen!