I hate to say it, but Hillary Clinton is probably going to be the next president

I haven't the slightest clue why she is the front runner. I don't know what people are thinking, but then again a little less than 50% of Americans voted for George W. Bush. Twice.

I really wish people out there would take the time to actually get involved, or at the very least, informed about politics in general.

We here at DU are constantly informing ourselves, evaluating, calculating, opining. We have reasons for our positions and why we believe our particular candidates are the best choice.

But we are but a tiny minority. The vast majority of America does not pay attention. (If they did, Kucninch would be leading). Their "reasons" for supporting candidate A or B often come down to what the candidate looks like, or how many ads they can run, or how religious the candidate is, or how funny/charming the candidate is.

It's hard for me to accept this as the cold, hard, reality. I want to believe that people aren't so easily manipulated by the media, but I know it's simply not true. George W. Bush should never have even been a contender, yet somehow people were convinced enough to vote for him. The same goes for Reagan and Bush 1.

And now, it looks like Hillary Clinton - probably the worst possible choice aside from any of the Republicans - is going to take it. I don't know how Democracy became like this. How did it become such a sham? How did it happen that the "choice" is always between bad and worse?

For dismissing my vote as being an uninformed one.

Really.

I'm touched.

When it is clear that so many people are making the wrong choice, it seems like many, if not exactly all, of them are just sheeple going along with the one the media, and the polls have annointed. Senator Jean Carnahan has just announced she is endorsing her (I am guessing (wrongly as it turns out, Carnahan endorsed Obama, but Hillary has a ton of endorsements, including, for some reason Bill Clinton's). How many people hear that and other endorsements, and hear that she's ahead in the polls and ahead in the money and just kinda go with the flow? Seemingly enough to give her the nomination.

Looking at her with revulsion, many progressives just wonder "what the hell are they thinking? Are they even thinking?" Perhaps they are just above the median income and could really not give a crap about people who are below it.

It's the same reaction when the doctor touched the inside of my throat and I try not to :puke: !

that at least your throat has a gag reflex...you are supposed to urp when they touch it.;)

....so what if she is president. What would you prefer? Ghouliani? Rommey? Chucklebee?

I think Hillary will be ok if she's president.

didn't vote for a war in Iraq and amendent that very well may precede war in Iran...
Someone who was more for transparency in government, and could admit when they were wrong...Someone who doesn't have an "inside circle" which keeps everyone else out...
Someone who wasn't a Clinton or Bush, cause after almost 20 years of it - I'm sick of the fucking dynasties in America...
Someone who is only considered electable BECAUSE her husband was president (and yes, I'm female, so don't start with that sexist crap)...

Does this mean Guiliani? no
Romney? no
Huckabee? no
but, Obama? fuck yea
Edwards? damn straight

It just makes me much more apathetic about the election in general...
As someone who spent weeks campaigning door to door for Kerry, who donated money to Kerry and Dean, who phone-banked, who worked the crowds when Edwards came to my town to campaign...

I'm not going to do that for someone that I don't think has MY best interests at heart...and instead simply has political aspirations...

Don't go assuming that's how he would have voted. A person can say anything they want about that vote and how they would have voted but as far as I'm concerned I do NOT see Obama as a "NO" voter on the Iraq war.

It's one thing to say you wouldn't have voted for it - but it's a hell of alot more to have been there and not vote.

Of what country?

The media WANTS to stop her, but they can't. And they're all FREAKING OUT about it! Tweety and the rest, sputtering and stumbling over their words, mucking up their sentences, wondering out loud with shock at the women's vote. It's really quite a spectacle.

*sob*

It'll happen.

stands for. People also are attracted to Bill, life with him in the WH was a lot better than it is now. I think you under estimate the vast majority of America. They're losing jobs, have no medical insurance, have kids in war...They're paying attention.

It's right there in your post "People are also attracted to Bill" BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR POTUS!!!
DAMMIT!

I'll cling to hope that we will soon figure out what's she done for 35 years that led her to "finding her voice" just a couple of weeks ago. That by itself is not making me comfortable nor confident. Add that my daughters will not take anything worthwhile away from a woman being considered for a job simply because of who her husband is, and in fact, that she has to promise that he'll be right there doing the job with her in order to get the job..... that she was elected was supposed to have been elected to herself do. Plus Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and it all makes me depressed. :(

that are out there - as in like Obama, and Edwards, she inspires people.

Also the detail and quality of her policy proposals (albeit a great deal like those of Edwards) makes for a degree of comfort with the idea of Hillary being President. Add in the well known respect that our leaders in the military have for her knowledge of their role, and the package is saleable without reference to her husband.

only a couple of weeks later, and she rarely talks about those. Of course the debate moderaters don't give them a chance to talk about domestic policy. Once Edwards is defeated it seems likely she will jettison the policies that she stole from him since they are not the basis of her candidacy.

But I do understand why SOME people like her. How condescending of you, though to believe that anyone who wants to vote for her is "uninformed". One of the people that I know is a woman who has a Master's and PhD in molecular biology and is very close to getting a law degree. AND she follows politics closely--is in fact politically active where she lives.
Would you call that ill informed? I don't. She has different opinions on things from me, yes.
You do realize that the more people bash Hillary the more sympathy she gets, especially with your holier than thou attitude?

That's not pie in the sky wishing, like for some of the other hangers-on candidates. He seriously has a good chance. He has one more state delegate than HRC does right now. It's more than likely that the Clinton Machine will ultimately win, I guess. But it's more than a little likely that Obama will win. That is based on just cold, hard facts.

If he doesn't win, though, I'm not likely to vote for HRC. I decided late in the game to support Obama. I would grudgingly vote for Edwards, if he won. But I don't think I can in good conscience vote for Hillary. NAFTA still gets in my craw. And the fact that she voted for the Iraq War, which was a vote, IMO, based on her future political aspirations and not a vote for what she thought was best for the country. AND she voted for the Patriot Act.

She is clearly part of the problem, part of how we ended up where we are. I just don't think I can push the "Clinton" button on voting day.

person running for the highest position in the country, and arguably the most powerful position in the world. Decades of vetting have made her the most credible and trusted leader currently running. No every one agrees, but most do.

Her strength and credibility will help repair America's badly damaged reputation abroad.

She is also far too polarizing to lead this country in any meaningful way.
Yes, if she wins, the Clintons will get their prize. And we will get the shaft.

I do not see how you can say she is the most trusted candidate running when she has such high negatives.

lose. I still have hope. But I feel America's still too racist and I hate dirty politics which has become a recurring theme of the Dem. party. It is truly disturbing and disgusting really. I think if this party doesn't fix this then there will be many people jumping over to the Republican side.

the party of Trent Lott and Jesse Helms.:eyes:

except how to stay in the limelight.

He picks her as #1 to win the nomination and presidency. He has McCain at #2, followed by Romney, Obama and Rudy.

"And the fact that she voted for the Iraq War, which was a vote, IMO, based on her future political aspirations and not a vote for what she thought was best for the country."

I really don't get this line of thinking. You dislike Hillary and won't vote for her in the general election because she voted for the Iraq War (although she now says she will bring the troops home). Yet you have no problem with not voting for her even if it means increasing the likelihood of the Republican nominee winning the general election (and keeping the troops there for God knows how many more years). Huh?

No, Hillary will not be the next president. And you know why? As they say, a picture says more than a thousand words:

bert! Love the grapic..:toast:

because you (or someone) draw(s) a picture of it, that makes its message true?

hilary is going to grab it? Just because the country was the victim of a bushcoup in 2000 & 2004? It ain't over yet, lynyrd!

And the answer to your last question is..ta da..The corporatemediawhores/aka/m$$$$m.

are settling for instead...

But, I don't think Hillary Clinton will win a general...which makes it all even more depressing...

I'll tell you how: every time we hear, "Support them all -- any D is better than any R," we're telling each other not to clean up our own party.

The same loyalty oath monkeys that turned the pukes into Nazis are turning the Dems into somewhat paler reflections of Nazis.

We must run good candidates or we are sunk.

I watched at least two debates in which the woman virtually had an orgasm over the thought of illegally invading a sovereign nation, via bombing raids, because she wanted to go after criminals (terrorists). Needless to say, she would be illegally destroying that country's critical infrastructure, precluding that country's people from securing essential goods and services. Many innocent civilians would be harmed (since the terrorists are long gone, usually).

She also voted against the Amendment sponsored by Feinstein, which precluded the sale of cluster bombs to nations that would not guarantee the safety of civilians (that they would not be used when and where civilian populations were present). NeoCons in Israel and the U.S.A. whined that Israel needed the cluster bombs, and she heeds the desires of that lobby. Use of cluster bombs in this day and age is UNCONSCIONABLE and disgusting; she makes me ill listening to her talk 'tough' (happily) about warmongering.

That's just my impression of what she said, and how she said it, of course; I just don't understand how progressives can find that kind of talk inspiring.

:puke:

I just wish that her supporters could explain to me why it is wise to vote for a candidate who voted for Kyl-Lieberman (and, please, I'm a law school graduate, so don't try to tell me that it doesn't open up things for another Iraq-style invasion - the same lame justification will be used) and who voted against the amendment discussed above. Why not vote for a peacemaker like Kucinich?

(Feel free to attack me here)

Hillary only leads due to super delegates, which is a stupid, patently undemocratic and un Democratic way of doing things. Obama leads in delegates that are the result of actual voters going to their state primary or caucus.

That she's getting the nom and we're getting Pres. McCain.

If the country was as informed as DU, Hillary could never win.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/33
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/32

Believed the worst president in history TWICE AND supports free trade and job offshoring AND believes national security is more important than civil rights. Wow, sign ME up for the same old same old.

Really, I don't think she'll BE the next president, because she won't beat John McCain in a general election. What's going to happen is Republican voters of all genders are going to mobilize like never before for the sole purpose of keeping her out of office. Doesn't matter HOW bad the Failure Fuhrer did . . . all that matters to them and all they will see is a "Commie Whitewater Clinton wantin' to be back in the White House for more Monica!!" Our party will be divided between the left and center because of the potential dynastic nature of our elections and disgust that the progressive message was ignored ONCE again.

We need to move away from the familiar and the past and go FORWARD. This is not the way to do it.