To all HILLARYHATERS: ... Get the BIG PICTURE, It’s ABOUT THE COURTS STUPID!

I am astounded by those swearing…. “NEVER EVER TO VOTE FOR HRC”

What is wrong with you people! Don’t you know could be at stake here? We will need every DEM vote in the country for the GE because the thought of McCain appointing Federal Judges is incredible scary.

The strategy is clear! The GOP will stir up the anti-Hillary sentiment and paint McCain as a centrist who’ll pick “Liberal” judges in order to woo the Independent vote. Liberal judges.. my ass! We all know the GOP-ers will support him at the end of the day, because the one issue that ties them together is Anti-abortion. Sofar, Mc Cain has generally steered clear of the courts as a major topic BUT he has a LIFETIME CONVERVATIVE VOTING RECORD OF 83%.

Make no mistake at the end of the day the grand plan is and has always been TO CONTINUE TO CHANGE THE DIRECTIONOF THE COURTS FOREVER! And in case you forgot THEY’RE LIFE TIME APPOINTMENTS!!!!!!

Stevens is hanging on, the Senate is stalling on a huge line-up of conservative judges in the hope of re-capturing the WH in November. How much longer do you think we can hang on!

She is still a democrat and WOULD NOT appoint judges along the likes of Alito

So all you Hillaryhaters and Young Progressives! IF HILLARY GETS THE NOMINATION
PLEASE!!!!! TAKE A DEEP BREATH, HOLD YOUR FRIGGIN NOSE IN NOVEMBER and VOTE FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY!

...if not.. might as well pack your bags now and KISS YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES GOODBYE!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120165279221826997.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The talking points have begun:
http://www.boneyardbanter.com/message_board/lounge/2008/January/20/34260.php

Fot that reason I will support the nominee, because I'm just thinking ahead!
Thank you!

Are we to believe that she'll suddenly become the Liberal Darling is elected?

Do you honestly believe that HRC would put anything like that into consideration?

Joe Biden, for example. HRC might not be my favorite person, but
she will be a strong, capable president.
Stop listenng to hype in your favorite blog. The blogs are filled with
Professional Hate Mongers.
Take a look at her accomplishments. Campare her resume to Obama's.

Once the campaign hoopla ends, much of the presidency is a lot
of administrative shit work. To get anything done, a president has
to be driven. And without a doubt the Clinton's are driven, and
she is very detail oriented. That's what this job takes.

political dynamics of the this country. The fact is the country is somewhere in the middle and that what we have to work with.

No matter what you may think of Hillary, there is no way shewould appoint Scaliathomasalito clones to the SCOTUS.

Mz Pip
:dem:

How do you explain then her 97% record of voting with the Democratic majority in the Senate these last two years?

How is that a turn to the right?

and tells you it's peach cobbler. (as long as we're using your metaphor)

Read Lakoff on Clinton + CLINTON'S TRIANGULATION:

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

it doesn't look good:

Here is a portion of activist/mother, Terri Swearingen's acceptance speech for the Goldman Environmental Prize, given April 14, 1997:



I am not a scientist or a Ph.D. I am a nurse and a housewife, but my most important credential is that I am a mother. In 1982, I was pregnant with our one and only child. That's when I first learned of plans to build one of the world's largest toxic waste incinerators in my community. When they began site preparation to begin building the incinerator in 1990, my life changed forever. I'd like to share with you some of the lessons I have learned from my experiences over the past seven years.

One of the main lessons I have learned from the WTI experience is that we are losing our democracy. How have I come to this sad realization? Democracy is defined by Merriam Webster as "government by the people, especially rule of the majority," and "the common people constituting the source of political authority." The definition of democracy no longer fits with the reality of what is happening in East Liverpool, Ohio. For one thing, it is on the record that the majority of people in the Ohio Valley do not want the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in their area, and they have been opposed to the project from its inception. Some of our elected officials have tried to help us, but the forces arrayed against us have been stronger than we or they had imagined. Public concerns and protests have been smothered with meaningless public hearings, voodoo risk assessment and slick legal maneuvering.

Government agencies that were set up to protect public health and the environment only do their job if it does not conflict with corporate interests. Our current reality is that we live in a "wealthocracy" big money simply gets what it wants. In this wealthocracy, we see three dynamics at play: corporations versus the planet, the government versus the people, and corporate consultants or "experts" versus common sense. In the case of WTI, we have seen all three.

The second lesson I have learned ties directly to the first, and that is that corporations can control the highest office in the land. When Bill Clinton and Al Gore came to the Ohio Valley, they called the siting of the WTI hazardous waste incinerator next door to a 400 student elementary school, in the middle of an impoverished Appalachian neighborhood, immediately on the bank of the Ohio River in a flood plain an "UNBELIEVABLE IDEA." They said we ought to have control over where these things are located. They even went so far as to say they would stop it. But then they didn't! What has been revealed in all this is that there are forces running this country that are far more powerful than the President and the Vice President. This country trumpets to the world how democratic it is, but it's funny that I come from a community that our President dare not visit because he cannot witness first hand the injustice which he has allowed in the interest of a multinational corporation, Von Roll of Switzerland. And the Union Bank of Switzerland. And Jackson Stephens, a private investment banker from Arkansas. These forces are far more relevant to our little town than the President of the United States! And he is the one who made it that way. He has chosen that path. We didn't choose it for him. We begged him to come to East Liverpool, but he refused. We begged the head of EPA to come, but she refused. She hides behind the clever maneuvering of lawyers and consultants who obscure the dangers of the reckless siting of this facility with theoretical risk assessments.

-snip

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/wti/et0897s17.html


Stephens Inc. was founded by Witt Stephens, a state legislator's son who parlayed a Depression-era belt-buckle, Bible, and municipal-bond business into an immense personal fortune. After his retirement in 1973, the company was run by his shy younger brother, Jackson (a classmate of Jimmy Carter's at the Naval Academy). Witt Stephens and Stephens Inc. did much to create the economic paradox that is modern Arkansas: a desperately poor state with a scant 2.3 million inhabitants that is nonetheless home to a number of wealthy companies. Without the financial assistance of the Stephens brothers, Sam Walton might have ended his days as the most innovative merchant in Bentonville. Stephens money was also important to the fortunes of enterprises as various as Tyson Foods and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, the television producer and reigning First Friend. Stephens Inc. is an important client of the Rose law firm, whose chairman, C. Joseph Giroir, made Hillary Rodham Clinton a partner. And back in 1977, Stephens assisted BCCI's infiltration of the American banking system by brokering the latter's purchase of National Bank of Georgia stock held by Bert Lance, former President Jimmy Carter's friend and disgraced budget director.

Jackson Stephens (who turned over the reins to his son, Warren, in the late eighties) and his firm were both substantial contributors to the campaigns of Presidents Reagan and Bush (to the tune of at least $100,000 in 1980 and 1989), but they have been closer still to Bill Clinton (whom Witt Stephens had been known to call "that boy").

On two occasions, once when Clinton was running for reelection in Arkansas in 1990 and again in March 1992, when his battered presidential campaign was broke, the Stephens family saved Clinton's bacon with an infusion of money. Indeed, it may not be too much to say that their Worthen Bank's emergency $3.5 million line of credit saved the presidential campaign from extinction. --L.J.D.

-snip

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1993/11/davis.html





Washington, D.C. - The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the self-described political arm of the environmental movement, has given President Clinton a middling grade of "C-plus" overall for "not working up to potential" during his first year in office.

In particular, the League criticized the Clinton Administration for failing to halt Waste Technologies Industries' controversial hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.

-snip

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_fewer_onsite_hazwaste/

defending her and her husband during their fiasco for eight years. I won't vote for her because of policy. However, on this board to have principled differences is to 'hate'. This is so fucked up.

I completely agree.

Either Obama or Clinton will appoint fair, progressive justices who will uphold Roe v Wade.

while misguided, McCain tells it as he sees it.

Hillary is lying about her votes on the war, she is bush-lite, the war will never end with her in charge.

...and it will business as usual in Washington.

the same as it is now. And as for McCain, tells it as he sees it, I think not, he changes his mind more often than the majority of people change underwear. It will be business as usual with McCain.

will be a hell of a lot better than any GOP agenda. I'll support the nominee before risking a GOP agenda.
What are you doing on this forum?

he is for keeping our troops in Iraq for the next 100 years.

But no sale.

And yes, no sale.

the nominee regardless.

I believe Obama can beat any R candidate and that he will stand up for human and civil rights. Secondly, I'm done holding my nose. This is why nothing changes within the party. Everyone holds their nose. That you have to beg people to support her should tell you something.

THEN a good NUMBER OF likely Dem VOTERS WILL not VOTE for HER.

Not Dems, likely Dem voters (but yes, some Dems too). Not a sad attitude, but a realistic one. Screaming SCOTUS doesn't change it.

substantial number of Dem and independent voters absolutly refuse to vote for Hillary in the GE.

I wish they would consider the consequeces of their choices.

the voters in question sad.

My subjective feeling is that Dems who support Hillary in the primary are selfishly putting themselves above the good of the party and county. They are putting future court appointments at risk since there are obviously a lot of Democrats, not to mention independents, who absolutely refuse to vote for Hillary in the general.

While Hillary primary voters may not feel that is fair, no one said life is fair. And they need to be aware of the potential consequences of there actions.

:thumbsup:

I'm all for sparring as to who is the best candidate is etc. and may the best candidate win, but in my view those kind of statements go too far. IF she gets the nomination, those who will sit out the GE because they follow through on their threats, are essentially voting for the GOP. Life will become indeed quite unfair in that case. I will support the DEM nominee no matter what, I rather have some sort of Dem agenda than a GOP agenda, that's my point. I would have preferred Kucinich, but because of the polical dynamics of this country, that will NEVER happen. Unfortunately the majority of the country is somewhere in the middle, and that's what we have to work with period!

writing in the candidate of my choice. I will be voting FOR that person. I will NOT be voting FOR Hillary.

All I can say at that point, leave it up to the Democrats to screw it up again. I will support the DEM nominee no matter what, I rather have some sort of Dem agenda than a GOP agenda, that's my point. I would have preferred Kucinich, but because of the polical dynamics of this country, that will NEVER happen. Unfortunately the majority of the country is somewhere in the middle, and that's what we have to work with period!

be a vote for the republican nominee. Every vote taken away from her, is one vote closer the republican nominee gets to winning.

as a whole, why not ask them to hold their noses and vote for the Dem who has the better shot at winning the general election.

Poll after poll has shown Clinton to be the weakest candidate in the general we could nominate.

She does poorly with independents, poorly with the progressive wing of the party, and she will help motivate the fundies to show up and vote against her, when McCain can't motivate them to show up and vote for him.

Every vote for Clinton in the primaries is a vote for for McCain in the general. (well, maybe not one to one, but you get what I mean)

but rally behind the Democratic party nominee in November.

he would at least have a shot. The state would be in play.

Hillary is widely despised by our independents and we have a lot of them. She is also despised by the fundies and we have enough that when they turn out to vote against her, it will be a very lopsided defeat.

The shame is we have some fundies trying to stick a very regressive anti-choice initiative on the ballot (declaring that a fertalized egg be recognized to posses all the rights of a human) and if Hill gets the nomination it will mean that might pass as well if they can get it on the ballot.

Their candidate didn't get picked and they're going to pick up their ball and go home That's what it tells me. Adults, on the other hand, know compromise is the way the world works. Neither of these two are exactly what I'd like in a candidate but I refuse to cut off my nose to spite my face and give the next 2-3 supreme appointments to a puke by withholding my vote.

that a substantial number of Dems and independents absolutely refuse to vote for Hillary in the GE. Yet they are perfectly willing to put the court appointments into jeopardy to selfishly get their own way.

They can ignore the evidence all they want. But if they won't take responsibility for their voting action, what can anybody do about that?

nobody seems to want to address the fact this is still a horribly racist country and if you don't think Senator Obama's middle is going to appear front and center on every piece of campaign literature is fooling themselves. You think it's bad now? You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till Karl Rove gets a hold of him.

no denying it will play a role. I will support the DEM nominee no matter what, I rather have some sort of Dem agenda than a GOP agenda, that's my point. I would have preferred Kucinich, but because of the polical dyanamics of this country, that will NEVER happen. Unfortunately the majority of the country is somewhere in the middle, and that's what we have to work with period!

going to change their mind. They know full well why they aren't going to cast a vote for her. Whether the reason is her strong backing for the IWR, whether it's they don't like her personality, whether it's that they want to move forward and not go back to the Clinton years, nothing Hillary says or does is going to change their minds.

Let's assume that McCain is the Repo nominee. I think that's a pretty safe assumption. He does well with independents, he does well with business oriented Repos, he doesn't do that well with the fundies. They aren't motivated by him. However, if Hillary is our nominee there are going to be a whole lot of fundies showing up to vote against Clinton, because they absolutely loath her, whether fairly or not. That's just the reality of the situation.

Now who does Clinton motivate to vote for her? Well first off party stalwarts will vote for her. Senior women (democrats) will vote for her. She also does well with Latinos. Who does she do poorly with? Blacks. Will she win the South with an anemic black vote? She does poorly with independents. So we need to assume a 40-60 or 30-70 split in favor of McCain. Will she win Florida like that? Or Ohio? She does poorly with most of the left wing of the democratic party. If there is a weak showing in that demographic is that going to put her over the top?

So who does Obama do well with? He does well with blacks. He does well with independents. He does well with white liberals. Who in the Dem party would sit it out or vote McCain if Obama were the nominee? Not many. I'm sure there are some, but who are latinos going to pick? Obama or McCain? Who are white seniors women going to pick, Obama or McCain? Are white senior going to stay home if Obama is the nominee? Or Hispanics? Or 18 to 30 year olds?

The fact is Obama matches up better against McCain than Clinton does. It provides a clear cut choice. War vs Peace Old vs New

I know for a fact Clinton won't carry Montana, for instance (where I live) But Obama could. Because the people who absolutely won't vote for a black man also won't vote for Clinton. But there are a number of independents who would vote for Obama who won't vote for Clinton. It would close, but Obama has a shot here where Clinton has no shot here.

Can you name me one state that Clinton could carry, but that Obama certainly wouldn't be able to carry?

Your OP was about voting for the good of the country, voting so a better court can be installed. All I'm saying is yeah. Why not include the Clinton voters in that appeal? Why not ask them to hold their noses and vote for the good of the country instead of their heart? Why not ask them to vote strategically in the primaries. Is that somehow less fair than asking people who absolutely won't vote for Clinton to do the same thing? See, it's not enough to declare that you will support whoever the nominee is. If you are going to ask progressives in the party to hold their noses and vote for a hawk, then shouldn't you also be willing to ask Clintonistas to hold their noses for the good of the party, the country and the courts?

By the way, Kucinich is in the mainstream in terms of his issues. He was by far the most mainstream candidate in the country. It wasn't his issues that sunk him it was the fact that the media refused to give him any real face time. If you check out the Pew Research Center's web site you will see that Kucinich's issues and solutions are the most majoritarian of anyone in the race, in either party. It isn't political dynamics, it's that the corporations, including the media, doesn't give a shit about the hopes and dreams of the American people. They won't allow messages like Kucinich has (or even slightly less popular messages like Edwards has) to get a fair hearing.

straight ticket Dem) are seriously considering whether we would sit on our hands rather than vote for her come November.

I don't throw that around here as a threat.

It's depressing really.

And yes, I am aware of the ramifications.

Many of us want a REAL change.

accomplish nothing except another Nader situtation, (without a Nader) and we all know what the results were. Gore should have won by a LANDSLIDE!

an intelligent persuasive narrative. :crazy:

How LOW can you go? :thumbsdown:

I think McCain will have a real chance then. I'll hold my nose and vote for her-but I've been talking with folks around, and they just aren't going to vote for her. Too much negativity around her. Seriously, it will take more than the specter of the SCOTUS turning Neanderthal for the folks I've been talking to to change their minds. You've got to realize that unless you are a political junkie, the likelihood that you know much about the courts is small. It just isn't on the common man's radar (I say man on purpose-I think some women realize the importance of Roe v Wade and so are more aware of the role the courts play).

What voters are looking for is someone who can stand on their own two feet (this was questioned after Mr. Clinton's intervention in SC) and someone who will do something about the economy and job outsourcing. These two topics come up again and again when I talk to folks. For Mrs. Clinton to win, it will take emphasizing what she will DO and downplaying personality--and the involvement of her husband.

then I saw your post....

Our problem with HRC is not based on irrationality.

We can see through the haze. When is comes to many issues (women's issues, racial issues, immigration, GLBT, etc.) Obama and HRC are very similar and agreeable to the rank/file of the party. That includes the type of judges that they would appoint.

However, the things that stick in progressives' craws are the concessions that the Clinton team made to the right wing. In fact, some of them weren't really concessions but a convergence of values. The merging of the DLC and the neocons, orchestrated by large corporations and multi-national interests.

Obama doesn't have those major policy differences with the rank/file. I'd even go so far as to call it baggage.

People say things during the primary season that never is operable during the general.

Your thread is a back-handed way of making Hillary palatable to progressives, plain and simple. Trying to motivate people by scaring them, and pointing them away from global differences between the two that are stunning.

:thumbsup:

refuse to vote for her. I'm all for disagreeing on candidates and may the best candidate win but I think those statements go too far! We'll have another Nader situation on our hand (without a Nader) It's backhanded, & it's not supporting overal Democratic ideas.

She doesn't, and will never, represent me. Therefore no vote from me. No scream. Just the facts, Jack.

I just cannot go on anymore supporting people who are not what they seem to be. I want a new start. I think Obama will be more open and honest with the country. Hillary is too tied to too many corporations and buddy buddies in so many places - I don't want another Bush in the White House - Like some people said Bill was the Best Republican President they had ever seen. I stuck up for Bill for years and years before I saw what NAFTA and the Communications Bill of 1996 has done to our country. She is the one the associates her 35 years of experience to Bill's wagon. I will sit this out or vote for Nader. Time will tell.
:dilemma:

could you possibly compare Clinton to Bush. Most experts agree that policy-wise Hillary and Ombama are not that far apart it's all about personality. Not voting is a vote for the opposition, that's all I know! The Dems will have to listen to the rest of us and as it stands I rather have some sort of Dem agenda than a GOP agenda.

If it makes you feel better, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary in November.

That being said, why don't the Hillaryites stop posting this nonsense until after the convention? When it would truly make more sense. Otherwise, this thread and an another identical one strike me as scaremongering. Was there a talking-point email from the campaign this morning?

for sparring as to who is the best candidate is etc. and may the best candidate win, but in my view those kind of statements go too far. IF she gets the nomination, those who will sit out the GE because they follow through on their threats, are essentially voting for the GOP. Life will become indeed quite unfair in that case. I will support the DEM nominee no matter what, I rather have some sort of Dem agenda than a GOP agenda, that's my point. I would have preferred Kucinich, but because of the polical dynamics of this country, that will NEVER happen. Unfortunately the majority of the country is somewhere in the middle, and that's what we have to work with period!

Sorry, but with a conservative majority already in place, I have a bit of trouble placing a high priority on court issues, especially when there are so many other things, like the Iraq war, that Hiallry is falling down on.

As far as privacy rights go, her votes on the Patriot Acts I and II don't endear me to her either.

What if they vote Hillary in. The war drags on, our civil liberties either disappear or remain at the same dismal level that they are currently, the economy keeps taking while corporations continue to make out like the bandits they are, what then?

Yes, the court is important, but it isn't the overriding issue. While we play semantic games with the court, people will continue to die needlessly, we'll become ever more of a police state, and drift ever closer to plutocracy and fascism.

Don't you think that it's time we sent a message that we want a real change in our country, not some faux change, lesser of two evils crap that we've been getting for the past thirty plus years? If we don't get such a change, the composition won't matter, because our government will be corporately compromised beyond all hope of redemption.

You're falling for the trap that corporate America wants you to blunder into, the trap of diminishing expectations. You think that if we get the right people on the court that everything will improve, they won't, in fact they'll continue to worsen. It is past time that we stood up for real change, stop settling for the lesser of two evils, and take our country and government out of the hands of corporations.

The political dynamics of this country are such that a guy like Kucinich, who I prefer, would'nt stand a chance in hell. the composition does matter because the McCain alternative is no healthcare, 100 yrs in Iraq, do I need to go on? 4-8 more yrs of GOP Crap! I'm am not willing to take that risk. I hope that at the very least with a Hillary in office, progressives will have a chance to increase pressure, because it's been a hard fight. Let's face it Kerry and Kennedy are as much a part of the establisment as Clinton, don't kid yourself, So much for Obama, and he's the other choice! If the country doesn't get it you have to work with the cards you're dealt.

you are going to push us away and not sway us to your side. Try some diplomacy and calm down.

so a vote for either ensures another right wing leaner at the very least

Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bingaman (NM), Byrd (WV), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO)

most of them have been around for a while.

and yes she did vote for Roberts.

refuse to vote for her under any circumstances. I'm all for sparring about who's best,and may the best candidate win, but those statements go too far in my opinion. Refusing to vote for the DEM nominee in the GE is essentially a vote for the GOP. Therefore I will support the DEM nominee no matter what, I rather have some sort of Dem agenda than a GOP agenda, that's my point. I would have preferred Kucinich, but because of the polical dyanamics of this country, that will NEVER happen. Unfortunately the majority of the country is somewhere in the middle, and that's what we have to work with period!

And ensuring that the corporations will dominate the SCOTUS for a generation.

I'm just not voting for her. Ever. Period. Point blank. Get over it.

of Dem agenda, than taking the risk and end up with a GOP agenda.

Not when you've lost your husband and your life consists of the four walls around you and the idea of voting for a woman who has helped create so many more widows/ers than just me makes you want to vomit. No, indeedy, it is not. I've got kids to raise. Kids she gives two pins, or less, about.

but it's exaclty why you should support a DEM agenda. So, I have to say Get real!

It will be more of the same. I have grieving and helping my kids to work on, now that Edwards is out.

without it, they can do as they damned well please.

left it up to the eternal Dem to screw it up again and stick us with 4-8 yrs of GOP crap, because they're pulling a "Nader"

do everything in my power to see she is not elected. I will mortgage my house to send money to McCain, whom I detest. Hillary is a cheat, a liar, and a socialist.

and screw it up once again just like Nader. That's how we got into this stinking mess to begin with. You are shortsighted! You'll take no healthcare, 100 years in Iraq, civil liberties out the window. Last time I checked Socialism is better than the conservative republican crap MCCain will put us through.

WOW...

I want socialism so I am glad I am voting for Hillary!

The beer drinking less well educated are supporting Hillary. Kinda like those that support George W. Bush.

I don't like beer either.

Oops you lose.

To me, she is an ambitious politician greedy for power. A not unusual trait amongst politicians, but one that she has shown to be of paramount importance to her, whatever the cost. Even lives.

All I have to say is, leave it up to the eternal Dem to stick us with 4-8 more years of GOP crap,
and screw it up once again just like Nader. That's how we got into this stinking mess to begin with. You'll take no healthcare, 100 years in Iraq, & civil liberties out the window?

Which I probably will since Gravel's chances look pretty slim.

But, I have the quaint notion that my vote is mine and it's the candidate's job to earn it. Hillary hasn't. Neither has Obama.

know how that ended. Gore should have been a landslide. So you're willing to risk and end up with 4-8 more years of GOP crap?, no healthcare, 100 yrs in Iraq , civil liberties out the window? I'm sorry that's pretty shortsighted. Thank god I have other options, and can get the hell out of this country!

So, if Gore had picked up all the votes that Nader got, 2.7%, it would have been a "landslide"?

Also, Gore, like Hillary, made a decision to shun the left and move right for the "moderate" vote.

If Hillary fails to get elected (something I think doubtful) it will be the fault of the "moderates" that she tried and failed to get. Not the left.

agenda with a Dem in office. The political dynamics are such, that this country will NEVER be progressive, it's just NOT going to happen. And I mean progressive along the lines of most countries in Europe, for example the Netherlands (which is where I'm from). Don't kid yourself Kerry and Kennedy are part of the establisment and are extremely conservative compared to what I consider progressive, and they endorse Obama, who's the other choice. I'm not impressed! Kucinich is maybe the only exception. That said, these are the cards we've been dealt, and I'm not going to let the GOP destroy what little there's left, and hope that the left will keep the pressure on because it's the only chance we get! I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

The ONLY way the left can "keep the pressure on" is to make our votes count by withholding them and making the candidates come after them. Until they stop taking us for granted and have to earn our votes they'll keep moving to the right to capture the "moderate" votes.

out of this country if it's once again handed over to the GOP, who will destroy the little that's now left.
Good luck sweeping up the ashes!

we SHOULD be thinking about 2012, too. And I believe if Hillary gets in, people (i.e. GOP) will blame her for the shit Bush left behind. And you know what? People will buy it. She will be a one-termer.

every Dem president, the GOP will blame them

And this country is long overdue for it.

can get the hell out, is all I have to say. But heh, leave it up to the eternal dem to stick us with 4-8 more yrs of GOP crap, because they're pulling a "Nader"

Saves me the trouble of paying attention.

that's left. You'll take no healthcare, 100 years in Iraq, & civil liberties out the window? Over some sort of Dem agenda with the hope that the progressive can excercise their power on the Hillary nominee? Come on!

Awesome.

agenda with a Dem in office. The political dynamics are such, that this country will NEVER be progressive, it's just NOT going to happen. And I mean progressive along the line of most countries in Europe,(which is where I'm from). Don't kid yourself Kerry and Kennedy are part of the establisment and are extremely conservative compared to what I consider progressive, and they endorse Obama, who's the other choice. I'm not impressed! Kucinich is maybe the only exception. That said, these are the cards we've been dealt, and I'm not going to let the GOP destroy what little there's left, and hope that the left will keep the pressure on because it's the only chance we get! So IF Hillary get in, which is the poit of my question, I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face, like some earlier in this thread who claim they going to "mortage their house to help MCCain win because they hate Hillary" now that is shortsighted!

NO idea what progressive or socialism is, and don't understand the reason why it will NEVER be accepted in this country. That is my opinion after living here for 35 of my adults years. If the only wisdom you can come up with is a statement that you're simply "affended' Go ahead be affended all you want! It is what it is in this country!

Hey, if it works for you...

:hi:

That one is from last night. :hi:

out of this country if it's once again handed over to the GOP, who will destroy the little that's now left.

Good luck to you.

and good luck sweeping up the ashes! Offensive and all!

:wow:

That's a relief.

There, I did it. I called you cowards out. Seriously. Get over your fucking selves and look down the line.

At the very worst you get another Bill Clinton, and though not a great champion of progressive policy, can you really look me in the eye and tell me that he was any worse than Bush #1 or Bob Dole??

You guys are fucking crazy. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense to rid us of these horrible policies. And you're willing to let McCain appoint at least 1 new justice (Stevens) to even more fuck up the already fucked up balance?? Are you people fucking nuts?

I will not be enthusiastic over a Hillary presidency either, but come on people. Tell your bullshit fairytales to people who will actually believe them; if you seriously think that McCain would be better than Hillary for progressive and Democratic values, then I got Ralph Nader saying "Bush and Gore are the same" from 2000 for you - and we all know how much bullshit that turned out to be.

It's called strategy people. I wish John Edwards was the nominee; I voted absentee for him in NJ. I hope Obama wins it now. But if Hillary wins it I will definitely vote for her, because I can't have a man who has embraced (literally) Shrubby and a man who said we need to be in Iraq for 100 years as our President. If you are too idealistic and folksy to see that, well come back down to Earth and face reality.

Reality is that it takes time to build a progressive movement, just as it took several decades to build the neo-con movement. The pendulum will eventually swing back to us (it is currently as we speak). But the more I hear bullshit about people not voting for Hillary, or even worse, voting instead for McCain, the longer that pendulum will take to swing all our way.

But calling us cowards, almost won me over.

I didn't really like ANYONE this time around but I would never dream of not voting for the Dem. A bunch of poor losers....

What about Obama haters who say they will never vote for Obama in the general? Aren't they just as bad?