Hillary voters are selfishly putting the country and the courts at risk. There is reams

of polling data that a substantial number of voters, both Democrats and independents, absolutly refuse to vote for Clinton in the general election. In national polling match up after match up the data is pretty clear.

Hillary is our weakest candidate in the general.

Yet these voters selfishly refuse to consider the consequences of their vote.

I think it's time they put the good of the country ahead of their own childish desires.

and think it's insulting for anyone to post stuff like the OP. :)

No matter who you support, your opponents are smart enough to make up their own minds based on the information available.

Except for Republicans.

:rofl:

It would have taken me several diplomatic paragraphs to answer that. Voters are voters. I'd prefer to think we are ALL voters and all fairly stupid, one way or another, to end up with what we have today in the WH. I don't think people are being selfish.

In fact it strikes me, that besides Hillary being a remarkable candidate, she carries not only name recognition but reassuring brand loyalty that is hard to fault in a vacuum that must puzzle people. It is sort of an incumbency factor. Eisenhower had that from being a nationally acclaimed leader and hero for years. With the monsters in office the natural action is an assuring reaction. Added to that factor, stronger than mere fame, is the many years of women expecting her to run. If anything there has been impatience, second thoughts and attrition aplenty, but not enough to argue against her natural ambition and self-confidence. This is her first hard fought campaign and she can do it, however well you judge she does it. That reaffirms her givens and the set mind of the electorate.

Lastly, I don't know of anyone who could back away on the logic of it being best for all if they thought they could win and thrive. The incredible destructiveness- after two heart darkening assassinations- of the Dem process in 1968 made HHH into a villain and put him at the bottom of a steep hill. From that he climbed all the way back to the top, a confidence and courage not to be denied- except by Nixon taking advantage of the situation. Were the voters stupid then? None as stupid as those who were liberals in a funk or people wanting an end to the Dem war. Or people voting for Wallace.

Stupid, yes. Distracted self-defeating anger, of course. Selfishly guarding their own ideals and thinking them so good for the country that the obvious result did not exist. I long for the day when we can be for real.

He want pull South Carolina, he want pull Georgia, he want pull Alabama or Mississippi, now which red states will he pull..in General Election, they would all go republican.

Where?

:evilgrin:

Yes it is.

Both Obama & Clinton beat the snot out of any GOPer except McCain who leads both by about the same slim margin.

then they should support her. If they truly believe in her ideals and her honesty and in her positions on all the issues and are fine with her votes and her explanations and reasoning behind those votes then they should vote for her.

I don't like her. I don't like a lot of her supporters, backers, and surrogates. But the "electability" argument is what helped John Kerry get teh nomination in '04 and we all know how that turned out so I don't really think that's the most potent argument for or against any candidate.

from fascism.

Voting for Hillary is voting for McCain... or some such nonesense.

How democratic of you...

All I can say is that I hope the Obama supporters are nicer to those people considering McCain than they are to Hillary supporters and than they were to Edwards supporters.

I don't think these Obama supporters are going to help Obama if Obama is the nominee. Their tactics just turn people off. It's a good thing Obama is a strong candidate in his own right.

I don't think a lot of the people here who claim to support Obama really do. I think they just like the "combat" aspect of it.

They act like assholes and jerks--which isn't what his campaign is supposed to be all about.

n/t

I was undecided, and planning on flipping a coin--heads, Clinton, tails, Edwards. Obama was out because of the McClurkin thing--it was not the only concern, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. JE made the decision for me.

:thumbsup: As a current Edwards supporter, so do I.

You think they ever CARED about Democratic party OR Democratic voters?

I doubt it. - If they did, the election process would have been secured before 2000 and certainly AFTER the theft tactics used by the RNC were revealed at the hearings on 2000s theft.

But, they did not and never instructed the DNC chair to secure the election process for 2002 and 2004.

He didn't want any of that Monica Stank on him. Clinton was ready to do WHATEVER Gore wanted.

But nice rewrite of history, there!!

machinations.


Vanity Fair recently had Gore folks saying Clintons undermined them constantly in 2000.

And historian Douglas Brinkley noted the backstabbing of Kerry in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

And Bill DID use his summer2004 book tour to very publicly DEFEND Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

And Carville doesn't look very clean here, either:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

What they say is "Vote for this guy."

Ask Oprah about the effect of endorsements of that nature....

The help was offered to BOTH candidates, and both candidates refused it.

:eyes:

book tour to defend him on his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war?

SHOULD any Democratic nominee have to ASK another Democrat to support their positions publicly during a presidential campaign instead of the Republican president's positions?

I suppose Carville pulled HIS stunt because he felt ignored by Kerry? Hey - let's sabotage Dem voters in Ohio so we can have revenge that Kerry didn't ASK us to do more?

And don't go tossing cute little 'BTW' questions like you actually have a query. We aren't stupid. You're trying to make a point by innuendo, to shift the topic away from the key point, that Clinton DID offer to help both candidates, and they didn't use him as much as they should have. Clinton was even trying to help Kerry from his hospital bed.

You prove your unsolicited point, if you want to make it. Otherwise, put it away.

See, I make an assertion, I PROVE it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/20/latimes.clinton/index.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E1DA1238F932A25752C1A9669C8B63

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/campaign/06kerry.html


Bill Clinton campaigned for Kerry in 2004 (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

where he spent THREE WEEKS defending Bush from those criticizing his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war - well...what was the Dem nominee Kerry doing throughout that time? Criticizing Bush on his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war.

In fact, Clinton KNEW Kerry was the nominee before his book went to print, but you would never know it by the references he makes about Kerry.

You'll be glad to know he wanted to support William Weld for Senator, but decided to go ahead and support Kerry for his technology expertise. Yep - after 9-11 and the global terror threat, Clinton wouldn't discuss that Kerry was the LEADING LAWMAKER in DC on the tracking of global terror networks and their financiers.

William Weld was one of the US attorney's downplaying BCCI and IranContra matters along with Robert Mueller. Why would Clinton be enamored of Weld and only note that Kerry had a good grasp of technology?

You don't want to see what you know is there.

So where you're getting that shit, I have no idea. It's half baked, and you're not 'proving' anything you cite.

Just because you SAY so, does not make it true.

I'm not voting for her because I want my mommy - I think she's the best candidate.

Why should we believe one-on-one matchup polls 10 months out? The campaign hasn't begun yet, you know.

And the same polls show McCain beating Obama, too. Are you just trying to diminish the margin of loss?

But listen, Saddam, it's just not "cool" to tell others how to vote. That's not what Democracy Looks Like.

It is rather pathetic--and childish in the extreme, if we're going to go there-- that the best you can come up with is a half baked Gloom-And-Doom scenario that floats free of any factual basis.

You know what's selfish? Your wasting DUer's time with horseshit posts like that one.

The hatred towards Hillary supporters and the nastiness you sometimes see Democrats here inflicting on other Democrats is just awful and in poor taste.

Go Hillary.

And I've said this in multiple threads, I don't know who I'm caucusing for. It could be one or the other. But I will stand behind them both 100% if they get the nomination and I think it is 100% quite possible both could be elected. I think we have two great candidates, and I will be happy with either of them.

Let's not forget people that D is better then R.

I want to make sure and get your approval so that when I vote, I don't make a mistake.:eyes:

paramount concern, then I would suggest that voting for Obama makes the most sense.

I can name you some states that Obama can win that Clinton can't win, but I can't think of any states that Clinton can win that Obama can't win. (I'm assuming that McCain will be the Repo nominee in this analysis)

Please see reply #40 for more on this.

of trying to evoke a reaction from the competition. I laugh at such silliness!

"Vote for my candidate OR ELSE"

and Obama can be crowned and worshiped the almighty king of the Democratic Party......We should insist that Hillery not campaign anymore and just give the race to your man?.........Why..because he is a black man.....for me the real change is having a woman in the WH..we've had enough of the men screwing it up!......so there!!

now I'm left with Obama.

But can you name me any states that Clinton can win that Obama can't win? (assuming McCain is the Repo nominee?)

Because I can name you some states that Obama can win that Clinton absolutly can't win.

Please see reply #40 for more on this.

The partisan atmosphere here at DU precludes honest analysis of data which is summarily rejected just on principle if it disputes an already entrenched POV. No worries, though, because many, many Americans will consider this data and will think twice about nominating a sure loser like Clinton.

HRC is our strongest candidate.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Please see reply #40 for more about this.

to counter the You must vote for Hillary or we will all die threads.

It is pretty flamey, calling Clinton supporters selfish and childish.

I actually think that it is Hillary who is being selfish wanting this prize for herself more than for the good of the country.

I think her supporters are sincere people who have identified with the Clintons and really believe she is the better candidate.



I know I will get flamed for the Clinton part of my comments. So be it. I believe it.

Clinton supporters are very good people who just haven't thought through the consequences of their choices.

I think your comments concerning Clinton herself are correct.

My problem is this. Assuming McCain is the Repo nominee, (and I think that's a reasonable assumption) I can't think of one state that Clinton could carry that Obama couldn't carry. But I can think of a number of states that Obama could carry that Clinton couldn't carry.

My state for instance. Sure, Montana is small in population and only has three electoral votes, but I guarantee everyone right here and now that Hillary won't carry it. Obama, on the other hand, has a shot at carrying it. It wouldn't be easy, but it's in play. With Clinton as the nominee, it's not in play.

So i urge Clinton supporters to think long and hard about the risks we are facing if Clinton becomes the nominee.

She doesn't do well with independents. She may see an anemic black voter turn-out. She may see an anemic progressive liberal turn-out. She may see an anemic youth vote. And she will certainly motivate the fundies to turn out to vote against her. McCain can't motivate them to vote for him, but Clinton will motivate them to vote against her.

I see a McCain - Clinton race as the worst possible match-up for the Dems to retake the White House.

So please at least think about it before you just follow your heart and Hillary over the edge of a cliff.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

big media to control our elections & tell us who to vote for.

remember, when you point at someone else there are 4 fingers pointing right back at you.

Selfish is an apt term.

So do Obama supporters.

HRC is a far better and stronger candidate than obama in my opinion.

states that Obama can win that Clinton can't win. This analysis is assuming that McCain is the Repo nominee.

Please see reply #40 for more on this.

It's not going to happen. So all of the whiny BS from her supporters is meaningless. If she wins the nomination, it's time to think about 2012.

A person votes their own conscious and out of their own convictions and from that, you conclude... "I think it's time they put the good of the country ahead of their own childish desires."

Another poster jumps the shark. Three in one hour!