IF Hillary gets the nomination will you vote for her?

[cynatnite]

Poll question: IF Hillary gets the nomination will you vote for her?

With all the Hillary bashing threads popping up this seems like a reasonable question. Chances are we're looking at Rudy, McCain and maybe Brownback for the repuke nomination. Perhaps if we hate Hillary enough if she gets the nomination, maybe it'll make it easier for another repuke in the WH.

We've got a very long campaign season ahead of us and anything can happen between now and the general election.

[Solo_in_MD]

1. While not my first choice as the Dem candidate, I will support the party

vs supporting the repukes

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. a bunch of nazis and trostkyists said the same. they all died.

OK it is not the same, but she will destroy our party. She will lose all that we have gained. It is not a reasonable choice ever.

[cynatnite]

23. How so? n/t

[Mz Pip]

26. Then this will have to be

dealt with in the primaries. THe base of the Democratic Party will decide. Hopefully, more than just the base will turn out.

Is she my first choice? NO. WIll I vote for her if she's the nominee? Yeah, given that the Repug nominee will likely be some RW nutjob fundy or fundy wannabe.

Will she destroy our party? Too soon to tell. Given that the Repugs are on self-destruct, Hillary is a far site better than anything they have to offer.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Solo_in_MD]

89. My point exactly

[Cascadian]

203. Give the DLC back their power? Forget it!

I want the Democrats to stay the course since Howard Dean took over. We are going in the right direction. To give Hillary the nomination would be a setback for the Democrats and cause irreparable damage to the party. She would lose!


John

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. a bunch of nazis and trostkyists said the same. they all died.

OK it is not the same, but she will destroy our party. She will lose all that we have gained. It is not a reasonable choice ever.

[xultar]

2. If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee U R voting for the Republic cadidate to win.

I just want to make sure everyone is crystal clear on that.

[flashlighter]

90. Don't try and sell that nonsense to me!

I live in Massachusetts, my vote in the general won't count anyway, and I AM NOT holding my breath and voting for the lesser of the two evils, EVER AGAIN. No. No. No. to Hillary, Biden, Kerry, or ANYONE who voted "yes" on the Iraq War Resolution.


I will write in Tom Brady, hell, I'll write in Derek Jeter before I vote for one of those people

[xultar]

97. So who are you going to vote for? This is Democratic Underground...we support the nominee.

[Cascadian]

204. Thank you!

It is good to see people who are willing not to sell themselves out. I am sick of this attitude that we have to support a candidate all because they have a "D" at the end of their names. It is just stupid and petty!


John

[Tesha]

175. Worked out like that in CT in 2006, did it? (NT)

[Wapsie B]

3. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I'd vote for Hillary if only to have half the gop base have a terminal stroke at the thought of her getting her hands on the power of the Presidency.

[pitohui]

8. i know won't it be cool?

:-)

[Webster Green]

17. Yep!....That would be the prime motivation for me as well..

Exploded freeper heads all over mom's basement.:nuke:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. what is the point of this? eom

[cynatnite]

9. To see how many will cut off theirs noses to spite their faces n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Ha! You And I Think Alike.

Just posted that same line below, having not realize you already had used it. :)

[cynatnite]

33. And here I thought you stole it from me...

have no idea who I stole it from though :)

Loved what you wrote :patriot:

[Toucano]

14. I think it's a fair question.

I was wondering the same thing.

[cynatnite]

16. I answered the question n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

5. Never, ever. I'll do indie or not vote at all.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Congratulations: you are on super-duper ignore.

See you in 2008.

:hi: :nuke: :applause:

[Subdivisions]

77. Super-duper ignore? Such a harsh punishment for not agreeing

with you?

[LoZoccolo]

88. Such a harsh punishment for supporting the Republicans.

I come here to support the Democrats. If someone wants to take my work here and use it to support the Republicans, by squatting in my threads and replies to spam for third parties, well, they won't be able to.

It's about reclaiming DU for Democrats, and using my time wisely.

I've thought this out well, so I doubt anyone will be able to convince me otherwise. I had over 900 people on regular ignore between 2004 and the 2006 election (I took everyone off after it). I might just have that many people on super duper ignore by the time 2008 comes around. I'm not obligated to waste my time, or let other people waste other peoples' time in my threads and replies, just like I'm not obligated to go to Free Republic and read their threads or let them post here. Neither do I have to let Republicans or third-party agitators interrupt the political stuff I do outside of DU.

[Subdivisions]

93. Thank you for clearing that up. I too will support the Democratic

candidate, even if he/she wasn't my first choice.

In the meantime, Al Gore is placing serious concerns on how I have planned to spend my time leading up the the nominations. I'm willing to gamble, though, that he will announce long enough before the Convention to wrest the nomination from the concurrent front-runners.

[crispini]

164. Pssst... Planning to spend your time up to the nominations?

Click on the links in my sig!!!! :D

[stranger81]

166. you can go ahead and add me to your ignore list . . . .

I come to this board for reasoned discussion with like-minded people, not to converse with the narrow-minded, dualistic thinkers you can find at FR.

The Democratic party is comprised of all of its members, not only those who agree with your point of view.

And by the way, it's not "your" thread. You lead with the first post, and others reply. That's the whole idea.

[Crunchy Frog]

173. 900?!?!!!11

Isn't that practically the entire population of active posters here? This must have been a pretty empty place for you after MrBenchley got tombstoned. :rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

176. Around 3000-4000 people post here per week.

Plus there were people on my ignore list who got tombstoned, stop posting, etcetera. This accumulated over a two-year period.

[Dorian Gray]

193. I've never put anybody on ignore...

I don't know why you would choose to do this to a fellow poster who posted a dissenting opinion in a reasonable way. There was no rudeness. No argument. Nothing. Just a general statement made because he just doesn't like Hillary right now. I completely disagree with his opinion (I'm assuming magellan is a "he!" Sorry if "he's" a "she."), but many people here disagree with opinions. I just think that your knee jerk reaction (and having NINE HUNDRED PEOPLE ON IGNORE at one point) is a little unfair and... unreasonable.

[High Plains]

148. The censor cometh

Wow, that's at least two you've zapped today. And it's still early.

If you add me to the list, does that mean I don't have to read your shit? If that's the case, please add me.

[LoZoccolo]

160. It is against the rules to advocate for third parties.

Not to mention it's boring to listen to after the 1000th time.

[stranger81]

169. There's a big difference between advocating for a third party

and choosing not to vote for a candidate at all.

[LoZoccolo]

174. Nope. n/t

[stranger81]

182. so where's the DU Rule stating that all board members

must vote in every presidential election?

[LoZoccolo]

183. There isn't one. n/t

[stranger81]

184. My point exactly.

If you want to make the rules, start your own board.

[LoZoccolo]

187. The rules, for your perusal.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Besides, if saying that you are going to abstain is not a threat, why say it?

[stranger81]

192. Abstention is not the same as working for defeat --

the former is passive, the latter is active.

Of course it's not a threat, silly -- it's a simple, straightfoward response to the direct question posed by the original post.

[Dorian Gray]

194. She's NOT the nominee right now

this is all speculation and hypothetical until the primaries IN A YEAR AND A HALF occur. Nobody's advocating for the defeat of any Democrat. This is absolutely ridiculous.

[stranger81]

196. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess

that you got to be hall-monitor a lot in grade school . . . . . maybe reliving the old glory days?

[LoZoccolo]

198. Well, I was right, wasn't I? n/t

[stranger81]

201. Ummm, no. [n/t]

[Tesha]

177. It's also against the rules to publicly announce that you're ignoring...

? It is against the rules to advocate for third parties.

It's also against the rules to publicly announce
that you're putting someone on ignore, but that
didn't stop you, did it?

Tesha

[LoZoccolo]

181. Nope.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

I say that that's a smart thing to put in the rules. In real life, there are consequences to being annoying, disingenuous, or manipulative, and those consequences are immediately apparent when, say, someone walks away from someone else because they are sick of all that. This brings those consequences to a forum where those mechanisms don't inherently exist.

Plus, it is apparent to them that they are on super-duper ignore. I figure it is better to let them know why.

You know, people don't get a free ride on my attention span in real life. Why should they here?

[Olney Blue]

6. ABR- anybody but republican

[cboy4]

7. I'm pretty sure I'll be voting for my hero, Brownback.

:puke:

[illinoisprogressive]

10. Now yer talkin'!

[thatsrightimirish]

11. Yes I would

And if anyone doesn't I'm sure they'll enjoy watching McCain or Brownback pick the replacement of John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Funny how many "no" votes there are, and how few "no" replies.

Meow.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Meow Indeed! ROFLMAO!

I posted a message for them below, however.

[flashlighter]

91. ok, I'll explain my No vote (again)

I don't like her. I didn't like her vote on the IWR, and I didn't like her shuffling of to NY to become a senator.

I held my breath and voted for a guy I wasn't excited about last time ( my own senator, btw) and look what it got me. Not doing it again. I want the DLC to understand that they can't just throw a bunch of Sh*t to the wall and see what sticks.

[LoZoccolo]

96. Really? I want people to understand they can't just throw a bunch of shit on my posts!

:hi: :nuke:

[johncoby2]

15. If she gets the nomination, hell yes!

There is no perfect candidate. Hillary is not perfect. Neither is Obama or Edwards.

We need to stop acting like Ralph Nader and start acting like thinking adults.

Remember what Ralph gave us?

[skipos]

18. Remember when people thought there was "no difference" between Gore and Bush?

I wonder if enough people have learned that lesson yet. Hillary is my last choice for 08, but I am certainly not going to hand the election to the Repubs. Voters played with that fire in 2000 and America got burned.

[JohnnyLib2]

19. Yes, and it's amazing that the question needs to be asked.

Let's see. (President) McClain, Brownback, Romney, perhaps J. Bush?

[BobRossi]

21. Supporting a DINO is not supporting the DNC.

If we keep accepting the underachievers thrown at us by the DLC we are only serving to undermine the Democratic party.

[LoZoccolo]

35. "thrown at us by the DLC"

You do know about the primary system, right?

[Glorfindel]

24. Of course...I'd vote for any Democrat except

ol' sorry-ass Zell Miller (aka Satan)

[cynatnite]

27. Is he still living?

I haven't heard a peep out of him in well...geez, since Hardball. How long ago was that?

[NoPasaran]

25. In a New York minute!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. I Would Like To Say To ANYONE Voting In The No Column:

You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. I consider it a sign of utter ignorance and narrow mindedness to answer no to this question. Choosing not to vote for her is anyone's right, of course, but I hope anyone who votes in that column also recognizes that they are not permitted to advocate her defeat or attempt to get others to not vote for her once she is officially nominated. Thank God the Admins strictly enforce that rule.

But to think for a second that the Republican nominee is going to be better off for this country than the Democratic nominee, even if Hillary, is a sign of utter ignorance and blindness to what we see all around us. To think for a second that the repub nom will be better off for our country than the Dem nom, also makes me question the legitimacy of why the poster is even here.

Not voting for the Dem nom = Advocating victory for the Republican; PERIOD. Some can debate me all night long if they want as to that not being the case, but I wouldn't waste my time because no matter what they say, that's what it comes down to. Not voting for the Dem = Taking votes away from the Dem. Taking votes away from the Dem = Advocating for a wider margin of votes between the repub and the dem. Advocating for a bigger gap between them = Not trying to help thwart republican victory. Not trying to thwart republican victory = believing the republican nominee being elected president is better for our country than the Dem being elected. Believing the repub nom being elected president is better for our country than the dem being elected = WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE?

Shame on those that vote no. OMC out.

[cynatnite]

32. Well Said! n/t

:thumbsup:

[Marr]

140. And I think that pledging yourself as built-in support for corporate Dems is

the same as handing them the party. Why should the established party leadership give a damn about your interests if you're pledged to support the candidate they offer you, no matter what their positions are?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

142. Because The Alternative Is A Republican, DUH.

Not to mention, I'm proud of my Dems anyway and fully support whoever the people decide should run anyway.

[Marr]

154. It's way too early to be talking about compromise.

The woman announces her candidacy and otherwise well-meaning progressives stumble all over themselves to shout that they'd vote for her if nominated. You're saying that your interests can be ignored. You're saying that you will dutifully follow your party leadership, no matter how they screw you.

I won't make a the same pledge, sorry. Call me a bad Democrat.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[CherokeeDem]

34. Yes....

but not because I want to...only because I support this Party.

[helderheid]

36. HELL yes! ABAR!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3164485

[RoyGBiv]

37. I dunno why I'm doing this, but ...

Here I go.

Of *course* I will vote for Clinton if she wins the primary. She will be my party's choice of a candidate even if I don't agree with that choice. For some fundamental reasons, no Republican could possibly be any better, and as I've argued repeatedly, third party candidates at the Presidential level are worthless. (If you're tired of the Democrats and want a different party to represent you, rid yourself of your delusions of grandeur that make you believe everything works from the top down and start working locally to make that happen.)

That said, I still do not care at this point what anyone thinks of Clinton or Edwards or Obama or whomever. I'm a political animal who does not work in politics, and as such a political animal, I have the luxury of actually allowing candidates to campaign and convince me of their worthiness to serve. As far as the upcoming primary season is concerned, I support no one, and I support everyone. That's the beauty of a democracy. We get choices. Try to tie me down to one choice a full year before the first vote will even be held, and I'll tell you to go jump off a high place.

As an aside, why is Hillary Clinton referred to as "Hillary" while every other potential candidate is referred to by their last name? In a context that might confuse her for her husband, this would be understandable, but he isn't a potential candidate. Using her first name is disrespectful, and I'm getting tired of seeing it. (That's not a dig at anyone in particular, least of all the OP. It's just become so commonplace that it has started to irritate me a lot. The Republicans started this, and we adopted it, for whatever reason.)

[Alcibiades]

38. The problem with Hillary is that the wingnuts think she's a liberal

She's even further right than her husband, and has voted that way in the Senate. If we have to deal with having a president who mobilizes right wingers against the democratic agenda, at least we could get a real liberal.

That being said, yes, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton over any Republican candidate.

[Selatius]

39. I don't know. In such a scenario, I could contemplate not voting or voting third party.

I will weigh the issue of my vote carefully.

I live in Mississippi, a safe state, so unlike those living in battleground states, I do actually have an option.

This war is unjust.

[cynatnite]

41. I don't understand...

You're saying you actually have an option while those who live in battleground states don't? So, if you vote for a third party candidate it won't matter because the repuke will win your state. If you stay home it won't matter because a repuke will win your state.

Why not just vote for the repuke nominee since you know they'll win?

Confused :shrug:

[Selatius]

53. That's the nature of the Electoral College.

Why not just vote for the Repub? Because I'm not a Repub, and my principles align less with Repubs than they do with Dems and other leftist. What's causing me to keep my vote in the air is Hillary's position on the war. If it were done through popular vote, I would have vote for Hillary in the scenario laid out.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. There Is No Third Party. Third Party = No Vote. They Are One And The Same.

But regardless, here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3167159#3167317

[Selatius]

55. Well, I generally don't view things in Black and White like you do on this point.

The EC is a beast of many colors, and it's simply not so simple as you make it out to be. I haven't ruled out a vote for Hillary at this point. I admit that I would prefer Al Gore, but I would also say that at this point, all options are on the table.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. But It Is Black And White. It's One Of The Only Things Left That Is.

You either end up with a republican or a democrat, period. Two choices. That's it. By definition, that's what black and white alludes to.

For the record though, I'd prefer Gore myself to Hillary.

[elocs]

40. I am a Democrat and I will support the nominee of our party.

There is no perfect candidate. Everybody cannot create their ideal candidate for themselves, but must compromise somewhere. That's the real world. If you do not vote for the Democratic candidate and the Republican wins, then save the bitching because you helped by not voting for Senator Clinton if she is the nominee.

[AtomicKitten]

42. I question that deserves consideration

since she may get the nod. I'm sorry to see all the 'no' votes.

[diamidue]

43. Half those polled will NOT vote for her.

That is a very telling statistic for a Democratic site.

[Pab Sungenis]

44. I'm a bit concerned about those numbers.

Any Democratic candidate with that kind of negative numbers in her own party is toast in the general election.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. But these numbers

don't reflect the party as a whole, nor does DU.

[Pab Sungenis]

76. No, it's even worse.

We here on DU reflect the activist wing of the party, the people who work the campaigns and hit the streets. If over a quarter of US are saying we won't vote for Hillary, then there are problems.

We're the diehards. If her nomination could drive that many of us out, then it's a very bad sign.

[davsand]

83. Not only does she offend hardcore Dems, but also the middle of the road voters.

I'll not say that I'd vote against a Dem nominee in a General election. HOWEVER, I do think it awfully important to work the Primary for the candidate of your choice.

Hillary has some very high negatives (even inside the party) as you can tell, and as you'd expect after her time in the WhiteHouse with Bill. The woman was vilified for eight years even down to bashing her for her hair cuts. The biggest problem I see facing her, however is the fact that she hasn't been able to overcome several of those negative impressions since she and Bill left the WhiteHouse.

It isn't so much the one third Dem demographic I'm looking at it is the one third of Indy voters that you need to pick up if you want to win that General election. I honestly don't think Hil can do that.

For THAT reason I'm gonna work like hell for anybody running against her in this Primary. I'm convinced she is not able to win the General and is a bad choice for our party.

Regards!


Laura

[MonkeyFunk]

111. If your "activists" were

as important as you think, Kucinich would've won in 2004.

DU does not reflect the Democratic Party.

[Pastiche423]

45. No

I will not vote out of fear again.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Here Ya Go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3167159#3167317

[enigmatic]

46. Yep

I voted for Kerry even though he wasn't my choice; I can do the same for Sen. Clinton.

[madrchsod]

48. she`s better than nothing which ain`t much

[katsy]

49. I was leaning Green when a friend suggested I visit DU.

Think my first post was in defense of Nader. I've come a long way since then and have learned a lot.

It's not in my family's best interest to throw my vote away.

Anyway... I'll support the Democratic nominee even if I must hold my nose while voting.

But my limited funds will go to Dr. Dean and progressive democrats on the grassroots level.

That's just how it has to be for me.

Hillary won't miss my pennies... but even a small contribution may be useful at the local level.

[blonndee]

50. IF she gets the nom, yes. n/t

[kath]

54. Oh, gack. I REALLY wish the Dems could come up with a good strong nominee for a change.

[NNN0LHI]

56. I would run down to the polls to vote for her n/t

[gmaki]

57. No Iraq withdrawal, no get my vote.

eom

[LoZoccolo]

87. No get your vote, no post in my threads.

:hi: :nuke: :applause:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. I'll be voting for the most progressive anti-war candidate on the ballot.

I've been a Democrat since I could vote, starting in 1966, but I feel no lockstep allegiance to any party.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789

[JNelson6563]

60. Probably but on the up side

I will make a lot of money off of her for my local party via swag sales. It'll be a nice turning of the tables, instead of the Dem cand. gaining in a big way from my county party support, we will make a ton of money off of lawn signs, bumper stickers etc.

Julie

[TankLV]

61. yes - without hesitation.

and in spite of my misgivings on Obama, same goes for him - in a heartbeat...

[magellan]

62. No

Not compromising again.

[LoZoccolo]

86. Thanks for sharing. You are now on super duper ignore. n/t

[AbbyR]

186. How are you ever going to get a readout on opinions

if you lock out everyone who has a certain opinion? I have no idea if I'd vote for Hillary or not, by the way, but probably would if she's the only option. I would hate it, though.

[xfundy]

63. She's got my vote.

The pugs and fundies have been trying to smear her for at least TWELVE YEARS, and she's still holding well in the polls--NONE of the accusations have stuck. She voted for the Bush war powers BS, but so did most others who now see how wrong the decision was--But keep in mind that she, along with the rest of the congress and the nation, was LIED TO by the evil BushCheneyCo cabal, who, as everyone knows, would never lie because they're "christians."

And if Obama or any other Dem gets the nomination, that's where my vote's going.

[benny05]

64. Write in probably

I cannot support her, even though I like Bill. Bill was always political, but he wanted to do good for the country. We know now that he meant it, but his wife wanted to keep the corporate types in welfare, and Bill went along to get elected. He goofed though by not being transparent to a grand jury. John Edwards' speech on the Senate floor helped President Clinton from being convicted in the Senate, despite an impeachment in the House.

HRC's campaign is not about serving our country the best; it is about how to feed that huge ego of hers. To me, she is disengenuous in her motivations to be president. She is a parrot and has no ideas of her own. Her announcement did not parrot Obama's; both of them followed John Edwards on their announcements. Flattering, but many bloggers know her announcement was not a novelty. MSM is 3 months behind.

Too bad there isn't another strong woman candidate to run this cycle. Heartily I support John Edwards but if there were other women candidates, Barbara Boxer would have been cool, albeit she likes the Senate and does a great job there.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. Why Waste Your Gas? Just Stay Home.

A write-in? Why even bother?

This is for you too, by the way (even though I also love Barbara Boxer)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3167159&mesg_id=3167317

[benny05]

69. I can walk to my polling place

I made a mistake of not voting period when I was younger. I won't do it again. I have the right to speak my piece via voting with my feet.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. You Said You Made A Mistake Of Not Voting When You Were Younger, That You Won't Do It Again, But You

are doing a write in?

I mean, this seriously makes sense to you? :rofl:

Again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3167159&mesg_id=3167317

[benny05]

71. Laugh if you want

But casting a vote in general is the most personal thing I do. It doesn't matter if it is for a Dem, Rethug, Indie, or someone else.

HRC is disengenious to me in her motive to be President. As a native of this country, I can express my view via my vote. Read my blog from 2 years ago, about my being the age 11: http://bennycat.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_archive.html (scroll down a bit--3rd post down)

Then laugh again if you wish. Have a few ludes too.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. Thanks For Your Permission, Though I Assure You It Was Unnecessary. The Laughter Was Unavoidable.

And again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3167159&mesg_id=3167317

[benny05]

73. I guess you didn't read my blog

Which is fine..

Good night, fellow DUer

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Didn't Need To.

The fact that you'd be willing to throw your vote away, thereby assisting in getting another republican elected to the office of the presidency (albeit ever so slightly), is all I need to know.

Goodnight and God bless to you as well, and pleasant dreams. :) ( I may be avidly against your position here, but I bet you're still a good person anyway and wish you well.)

[LoZoccolo]

85. I know one place where you won't be writing in, and that's my threads!

Because people who help the Republicans get put on...

SUPER!
DUPER!
IGNORE!

:hi: :nuke: :applause:

See you in 2008.

[generaldemocrat]

102. Eventhough you support Edwards, I admire...

your courage and conviction. I said the same thing the other day about not voting at all in a general election that had Hillary on the ticket and got flamed by elements of the Hillary Imperium.

I say again, why vote for a triangulator like Hillary when the GOP is more unpopular than ever? Why vote for a triangulator when you have a political atmosphere where a genuinely liberal candidate can win? Where most people are growing distasteful of war, even when Hillary continues to cheerlead for it? And despite all this, despite the fact that the political winds are blowing towards progressivism, we want to settle down for a DLCer like Hillary? Just doesn't make sense at all.

And yes, Barbara Boxer would have been tres cool.

[generaldemocrat]

103. LoZoccolo vows to ban everyone who doesn't vote for Hillary.

You've wholeheartedly adopted the tactic of "You're either with us or against us"....eh? :shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

110. Actually, Whether You Agree With It Or Not, It's A Core Rule Of This Board To Support The Democratic

candidate.

So LoZoccolo blocking people who are against the core beliefs of this board to begin with is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

[generaldemocrat]

114. Hillary Clinton is against the core beliefs of this board.

Therefore, saying that you won't vote for her because she's been a bad Democrat is not acting against the core beliefs of DU.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

115. In Most Ways? No, She Isn't. Does Have Her Glaring Flaws Though.

But in spite of those flaws, members of this board are FULLY expected to support the democratic nominee for president. Those who refuse to, shouldn't be here and can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

[Crunchy Frog]

185. No, that's not the rule.

The rule is that you can't use this board to advocate against a Dem nominee or in favor of a 3rd party candidate. What you do in your own private life is your own damn business, as long as you don't use this board to promote it.

BTW, I seem to recall the poster in question violating that rule when it came to the CT Senate race.

[High Plains]

158. Wow, the Democratic Party nazis are out in force today.

Must stifle all dissent on meaningless threads.

[Bryan]

65. Yes, of course

If she can somehow overcome the possibility of peaking too early, her own areas of weakness, and the most vigorous hammering imaginable from the Republicans, their allies in the media, those of us who don't like her, and every candidate in the field, and win the necessary amount of delegates, she may just deserve the nomination.

[geomon666]

66. Yes, but there's no chance in hell of her winning. n/t

[Imagevision]

68. That's brilliant! don't vote for Hillary, instead vote for McCain

[benny05]

84. I don't think McCain will be the nominee

It will be someone else. I don't know who, but if I had some extra money for betting, I would place one on Hegel.

[tnlefty]

109. I mentioned to my spouse just this morning that Hagel should cause

more concern than McCain, who my spouse has been 'afraid of gettin' the GOP nomination' for quite some time. Just so happened that Hagel was being interviewed on c-span at the time, and the spouse's concerns altered.

[MonkeyFunk]

74. of course I will

I'll vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is - I'm not a petulant child.

[terrya]

78. Yes. I'll vote for her.

I am NOT voting for John McCain. Unless I go certifiably batshit insane first. And I'm not sitting out the election.

[WinkyDink]

79. Big "D" all my life; ain't stopping now.

[peaches2003]

80. Not happily, but

I will NOT vote for a Republican after the entire party has allowed Bush to be a dictator and destroy our Constitution, so therefore I will vote for any Democrat. But she is not my first choice by any means. She is way too divisive and I think will loose.

[Alamom]

81. Solid Hillary Supporter here, but I will vote for our DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE

NO MATTER WHO IT IS.......always have.







ABAR

[misternormal]

82. If Ms. Clinton wins the nomination...

... I will vote for her, and support the party.

The problem as I see it is this:

The Progressive, or Liberal Party has always stood for change from the status quo...

To vote for the repuke candidate, one knows what we will get, more lies and deceit. Some see it that is the safest way to go.

Some fear the unknown:

What will happen if a woman is elected President?
What will happen if a black man is elected President?

A certain section of the voting public will choose to vote in a way that is safe and sure, rather than take a chance, even if the Progressive candidate might be the better choice.

[SaveElmer]

92. Those 57 "NO" votes so far...must be part of the "base" eh?

:rofl:

[generaldemocrat]

105. This is DU.....

If 30% of people on liberal DU say that they won't vote for her, then she's bound to pick up even more resistance from the Indies and Repugs.

With Hillary, we lose.

[SaveElmer]

106. Hardly...

DU CW has all the accuracy of a Dick Morris prediction...if Hillary were popular here then I would be worried...

[generaldemocrat]

108. Which Republicans and Indies will vote for her, seriously man....

do Hillaristas have blinders on our something? Out of all the Dem candidates, she is the most polarizing both within the party and outside. If she gets the nomination, a larger-than-normal percentage of Dems will not vote for her.

To win a national elections, Dems historically need at least 90% of Dems voting for their candidate to offset the usually high Republican turnout. Can you envision 90% of Dems voting for Hillary when something like 15-20% have basically made a commitment to not vote for her? And I can think of nothing better that would turn Republicans out to vote for their party than a Hillary candidacy.

[SaveElmer]

116. Hillary will get the same number of Democrats voting for her...

As have voted for Democrats in past elections...DU notwithstanding...there is a school of thought that the potential of a woman President will make that number even higher

She has proven her ability in New York to appeal to moderates, Independents and even Republicans...if she can translate that appeal nationally, which I believe she can, than I think she has a very good chance...

When has a Clinton ever gone into an election they did not think they could win?...Between Bill and Hillary they have won 11 out of the 13 political races they have run in. Bill lost his first race for Congress in 1974, and was defeated for reelection as Governor of Arkansas in 1980. Since 1982 Bill was Governor for 5 terms, President for two, and Hillary New York Senator for 2. She would not be in this if her analysis told her she didn't have a chance...not saying it is a guarantee of victory, but she will be formidible, and will have appeal far beyond what people here suspect...

The only blinders people have on are folks here that think DU is even close to representing the majority view in the party...

[generaldemocrat]

120. You seriously underestimate her unpopularity...

The biggest flaw of a triangulator is that they try to impress everyone and in the end impress no one. When given the choice between Republican-Lite (Hillary) and a full-on Republican, Republicans choose the latter.

Hillary has furthermore p!ssed so many people in her own party with all-the pro-war bantering. Finally, and most important, she lacks the charisma of Bill Clinton, which was a crucial factor in the longevity of his rule.

She-is-polarizing.

[SaveElmer]

121. You repeat the talking points very well...

Doesn't make them true...you know if its a choice between trusting the political instincts of Hillary Clinton or DU (the land where Dennis Kucinich actually has a chance to win)...I'll go with Hillary...

"The biggest flaw of a triangulator is that they try to impress everyone and in the end impress no one"

Despite the use of this term as a perjorative, folks on the left view Bill Clinton as the biggest Triangulator of them all...yet he was elected to two terms as President and left office with a 65% approval rating...guess he did impress alot of people eh?

[generaldemocrat]

122. Bill Clinton wasn't as polarizing and had charisma. Hillary doesn't. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. Her support is far higher overall than on DU.

The fact that DUers hate her should not be taken as in any way a good indicator of her ability to win the election. I suspect that she's actually one of the more electable candidates - the Republicans hate her, but she'll play well among indepentants and most Democrats. Whether that's sufficient reason to support her is another matter.

[generaldemocrat]

123. Forget about DU, talk to people on the street.......

How many red states do we win with Hillary? Better yet, how many blue states do we keep with Hillary?

The mere mention of her name in rural areas evokes a lot of negative emotion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

153. Forget about people on the street, look at polls.

There is no way to build up an accurate assessment of a candidate from personal experience. You need a statistically valid sample, and the only way to get that is from poll data.

[mzteris]

143. well - seeing as how

we're never really sure just who all the DU posters ARE . . .

I don't think you can automatically extrapolate a "no" vote to be a "liberal Democrat" who hates Sen. Clinton.

[generaldemocrat]

Yeah, Senator Clinton is a liberal democrat.......

and it's not as if we're opposed to her because she's abandoned liberal values or anything.

Yeah, we're all Republican plants here.

:sarcasm:

[MadHound]

94. No, I will not vote for any pro-war candidate, nor one who is as deep in the back pocket

Of corporate America as Hillary is. Therefore, I will either not vote for the office, or I will vote Green. I don't reward those who are in favor of taking innocent lives and who value corporations over real, live people.

[LoZoccolo]

95. Thanks for sharing.

:hi: :nuke:

See you in 2008.

[MadHound]

98. So this is what the new block feature is all about LOL

Get in a snark, and make the conversation one sided by blocking it.

Ooo, that takes a lot of guts there LZ, I'm impressed:eyes:

So why don't you wish to have an OPEN dialogue on this? Why are you doing drive-bys? Frankly, I think such actions say a lot about a person, and none of it good.

Talk to you later:hi:

[VelmaD]

99. I have a feeling I'm going to have to repeat this a lot

I already said it yesterday and now I'll say it again...anyone voting "no" in this poll deserves the granite sammich. Not voting or voting 3rd party is no different than if you voted for the republican. Get over yourselves. Vote with your heart in the primary...but once it's over, put on your big kid undies and work for the nominee no matter who it is. We cannot afford to deal with the same loser bullshit we had last time around.

[LoZoccolo]

107. I agree. But in absence of that...

...you can always give them your own granite sammich!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. See Velma? There Are Definitely Things We Agree On. Well Said!!!!

:toast:

[VelmaD]

149. yuppers

I'm sure there are people who just swallowed their tongues. *snort* :toast:

[donsu]

100. don't know - depends on who makes it through the primaries

what I would like to vote for is:

Kucinich
McKinney
Gore
and/or:
anyone who will give global warming 100 percent attention and action
anyone who has always been against the invasion of Iraq
anyone who wants all the troops back on US soil NOW
anyone who will take apart the green zone and the obscene embassy
anyone who is against torture and will close forever Gitmo and the hidden prisons around the world
anyone who will decrim weed and release from prison anyone there for weed offense and barring prisons from being private owned
anyone who will give us universal health care
anyone who does away with corp. lobbyists
anyone who will destroy Halliburton
anyone who will get the stink out of the Supreme Court
anyone who will make all public schools equal in financing and teaching ability
anyone who will make college available to anyone
anyone who will stay the hell out of women's wombs
anyone who will make the House and Senate equal male and female
anyone who will make senior care humane
anyone who will give 100 percent attention and action the hormone pollution and what it is doing to all life forms

sigh

[Nikia]

101. Of course

Of course, she and any other person who would win the Democratic nomination would be better than whoever would win the Republican nomination.

[cabbage08]

104. Yes. I'll vote for her.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. I'll Say It: Those Clicking On No, Are Really Clicking On "I'm A Narrow Minded Jackass Who Stands

by ignorant principle".

Anyone clicking on the no option, that's what you clicked on.

[generaldemocrat]

125. Those who click "no" are people who have legitimate reasons...

for not supporting Clinton. On the issues that are important to them, Senator Clinton has failed to lead because she sticks her finger in the air everytime she makes a decision.

And I am really getting wary of Hillaristas and other DLC types criticizing people who were opposed to Iraq before it became "fashionable", we were right, Senator Clinton was wrong and yet she continues to be a huge cheerleader for the war.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. Don't Really Care. My Comment Is Accurate And Binding.

They either support republicans or they support Democrats. If they support the republicans for election to the office of the President, than they can kiss my ass. Yes, it is that black and white. Only one of two parties will be elected to President. It will either be the Dem or the Repub. If you ain't votin for the dem, than you are condoning election of the repub. If someone's condoning election of the repub, then they're on the wrong fucking board.

[generaldemocrat]

129. You expose the fallacy of our system....

If you don't support one thing, it means you're supporting the opposite. Hell, this sounds like "If you're not with us, you're against us." That's very fascist, no?

I've lived in multiple western democracies and can definitely say that ours is one that is based on excluding people and is so obsessed with conformity that it ultimately retains some authoritarian characteristics. Here we have 300 million people living in a society that has the "choice" of picking between two parties that complement each other. That is democracy? That is choice?

Democracy is about upholding precedents. You do not reward those who commit misdeeds (Lieberman, Hillary, DLC), because if you do then those misdeeds effectively become incorporated into our system of government. If we reward all the people who start wars in Iraq, commit corporate fraud, etc then it means that we approve of those things and it means that history will repeat itself again down the line (Iraq today, Iran tomorrow).

Hopefully, you understand our reasoning.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. ROFLMAO! What Idealistic Nonsense. I Got News For Ya; It Ain't My Doing. It Is Either One Or The

other.

Now you may not like that fact, but get over it. Your dislike of the concept does nothing to change the reality of it. This is reality: In 2008 either the republican or democratic nomination will win the presidency. It is that simple. Nothing you can say will change that layman fact. Either the republican or the democrat.

So therefore, the only reasoning that carries any relevance and legitimacy is the reason of "I want the dems to win" or "I want the repubs to win". If someone here wants the repubs to win, then they are on the wrong board.

Pretty clear cut, actually.

So who do you want to win in 2008? The republican or the Democrat? You have to answer one or the other, as those are the only two choices. There is no response of "Neither" or "the green candidate" or otherwise. It is only those two choices, as that's all it will come down to.

So what's your choice? Who do you want to win in 2008? The dem or the repub?

[generaldemocrat]

134. If they both support preemptive war, who gives a sh1t?

Seriously, if they are beholden to the same special interests then who cares? Why should I vote for Clinton so she can go sit in Washington and play pattie-cakes with her Republican friends?

I can support about 90% of Dem candidates out there, why are you establishment people so adamant on choosing the worst choices for us? Our nominee has to be a corporate warmonger? Have you learned nothing these past 7 years?

You people are putting forward one of the most pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-progressive candidates out there in the Democratic Party save Joe Lieberman when we, the Democratic Party, now have the mandate to push forward an actual progressive agenda, which hasn't been implemented in the past 30 years.

[cynatnite]

137. Warmonger? Who is that?

Did a Dem start the war and someone not tell me?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

138. The Country Gives A Shit. And Don't Change The Subject Now. You Need To Stay Focused.

This OP wasn't a question of "Do you want to push Hillary for the nomination?" was it. No, it wasn't, so don't turn it into one now.

I am not pushing her whatsoever, since that wasn't the fucking question. The question was whether after she GETS the nom (theoretically), would you vote for her.

Those saying no are narrow minded and ignorant, are effectively saying they support the election of the Republican to President, and are in my opinion quite simply on the wrong board.

[cynatnite]

128. What's a Hillarista?

Plus, I haven't heard her cheering for the war lately? When has she done that? The other day on TV she was talking about capping the numbers of troops and beginning a phased withdrawel. That didn't sound like cheering to me.

[generaldemocrat]

131. It only took her 4 years to see the light.......

following in the footsteps of others like Kerry and Edwards in issuing apologies. And even then, her glowing words of support for the war throughout the past have been permanently etched away.

It's nice that she's finally seeing the light, but that doesn't mean she should be rewarded for her past mistakes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

133. Yeah, You're Right. Let's Reward The Republicans Instead.

Oh how I love narrow minded logical arguments!

Don't reward Hillary, support the republican. Oh, that's just too cute of a logic!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[generaldemocrat]

135. No, let's nominate someone who isn't a DINO.....

How about that one?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. Pay Attention. That Wasn't The Question. The Question Is If She's The One Nominated.

It's pretty silly to respond to an argument of "If person x gets the nomination, will you vote for person x?" with "wait, let's not nominate x at all!".

It's a simple question with simple terms. If Hillary is nominated, will you vote for her. Answering no means supporting election of the republican to president, thereby providing reason to believe that person is on the wrong board. Pretty cut and dried.

[generaldemocrat]

145. I will not vote for Hillary period.....

This is effectively the one candidate I will not vote for, if Hillary is the "best" the party can do out of a potential field of 7-8 candidates then I won't vote for her because the party gave me little choice. It's about CHOICE and you didn't give me any.

So yes, if it's Hillary, in terms of the fascist characterization that has been put out there, "I would support the republican", as if that means anything when the nominee of our party is highly supportive of the republican agenda.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

147. So You Want The Republican To Win In 08, Huh. Nice.

[generaldemocrat]

150. 30-40% of Americans don't vote in election time....

They have to be "traitors" too. Perhaps, it's because people apathetic because people with your mindset are destroying the quality of our democracy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

155. Big Difference:

They are not here posting on this discussion board. You are.

[cynatnite]

136. Then you're wrong...

Hillary isn't a cheerleader for the war. I don't think she was even at the beginning. The senate failed us by voting for this thing, but I don't put the entire blame on them. The bush regime did a fine job, along with the media, in putting the unpatriotic label on anyone who didn't walk their line. Grant it, there are things I wish she had done differently and some stances she's taken I don't like, but hell, it was the same with Bill Clinton. Given who her husband is and her experience with the RW machine she has to walk and talk carefully. She has to think ten steps ahead and test the political climate. I don't have a problem with that.

IF, and that's a big if since the general election is so far off, she were to get the nomination would you vote for her or the repub? That's my question. Are we so willing to hurt ourselves by working against her that it winds up helping the repukes get their choice in the WH?

What is a Hillarista, BTW?

[Cascadian]

206. My attitude is this...

ANY DEMOCRAT BUT HILLARY!

Hell! I would vote for Edwards if he gets the nomination.

So there you go!


John

[Marr]

146. Your devotion to democracy and dialogue is inspiring.

[LWolf]

167. That's your opinion.

An opinion that strays far from truth, in many cases.

I clicked "no." That would be consistent with my position all along. I am not a "narrow minded jackass." That would be a personal attack, by the way.

Our fundamental disagreement seems to be on "principle." I don't think standing on principle, or having principles, is ignorant. I don't think principles themselves are ignorant.

What you call ignorant, I call ingegrity. :shrug:

Before any politician announced intentions to run in '08, I stated plainly where I stand. I still stand there. Anyone is free to run, and all Democrats are free to vote their conscience. My conscience supports issues before party. If my conscience leads me to a different place than yours takes you, so be it. If Democrats nominate someone I can't, in good conscience, vote for, I won't be indulging in name-calling and personal attacks. I'll be sorry, but I'll respect the party's choice to leave my vote behind.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. Yes, without real hesitation, but...

Our votes here aren't really the issue. Our activist energy is a more relevent concern. When I support someone with my head but not my heart my energy is never quite the same. I'm sorry, that's just the way I am wired. I try to do a manual over ride and that helps some, but it still is never anywhere near the same. And if nothing else you have to admit that posing that question here is posing that question to a segment of the Democratic base. The Democratic base should be the least of Clinton's concerns. She can not win in 2008 by depending on the Democratic base, especially a less than totally enthusiastic Democratic base. Her support outside of the Democratic base is very much an open concern.

[B Calm]

119. Depends on what she does in office between now and Nov. 2008!

[InvisibleTouch]

124. Of course, and happily.

I'd also happily vote for any other Dem who's in the race so far, if they win the nom.

[Stuckinthebush]

127. To do differently would be foolish I do believe

She is certainly not my first choice. I don't believe that she would be great president...a good one perhaps, but not great.

If she does get the nomination (a big if in my opinion), then the options are clear: Vote Dem, Vote GOP, Vote third party/independent, or don't vote.

The consequences of each:

Vote GOP - bad choice...continued descent into hell

Vote third party/indy - a principled vote from the heart perhaps, but very well may result in another four years of GOP rule. See 2000 and Ralph Nader. Unacceptable result.

Don't vote - a radical option which removes one from the process. Unacceptable result.

Vote Clinton - Perhaps unacceptable to the heart, but out of all the options it is the right one from a logical point of view. She will work for many Dem principles which is much better than the alternative.

[lies and propaganda]

130. hell yes...

if se gets the nod for sure..

[Dark]

141. Depends on who's running against her. n/t

[Clintonista2]

144. After reading the responses...

I think I accidentally stumbled upon Freerepublic.com.

[stranger81]

165. no kidding . . . . .

I'm a commmitted Democrat, but the mindset displayed throughout this thread is much more authoritarian than I'm comfortable with.

And I voted NO.

[Cameron27]

151. Yes, of course I'll vote for her

if she gets the nom.

Were Greens & Indies allowed to post against Democrats here, (DU) during the last election?

[Vinca]

152. She's not my choice, but I'll vote to support the party.

If we don't keep a unified block and vote for whichever Democrat is nominated, we'll end up with a Republican in the White House again. We can't let that happen.

[MacGregor]

156. I'll be honest, I chose "I don't know."

I don't want to kidding myself into thinking that my state would necessarily be in play with, well, pretty much any of the prospective D candidates. If Hillary got the D nomination, I would say you can go ahead and paint Virginia red the instant she does. :(

[Zhade]

157. No. I will likely leave the presidential choice blank.

NT!

[generaldemocrat]

159. According to their philosophy, you're a traitor!!!!!!! n/t

[BenDavid]

161. Well I, like many

others in here have supported HRC. Now she has entered and as she said, "in to win". Very positive remarks from the git go. So lets have the campaign and let all that support other candidates keep the crude, lewd, and vulgar remarks out of the discussion, and we that support HRC will respond in like manner. I do thank you.
M.David Ben-B.

[lpbk2713]

162. I can say without any hesitation that I will vote for the Dem nominee.

We have seen what six (eventually eight) years of tyranny can do.





And we have seen how the rethugs can steal elections, so every
one of our votes really does count.

[BlooInBloo]

163. That's right Connecticuit voters! NEVER learn from experience! Keep making the same mistake!

[Crunchy Frog]

168. Probably.

Mostly just because the FReepers hate her so much. Not with a great deal of enthusiasm though, and not with much expectation that she would actually win the election.

[mmonk]

170. ?

Who will her opponent be? I would say yes if her republican opponent is any of the ones I've heard mentioned. I won't vote republican unless the candidate is maybe Lincoln Chafee going against say a Joe Lieberman.

[BlooInBloo]

171. In the *actual* world, upon the determination of the Democratic Nominee for President...

... the electorate is conceptually divided into two classes: Democratic voters, and jackasses.


The (modal) average Connecticut voter is the picture to have in mind, when thinking of the "jackass" side.

[Bobbie Jo]

172. Of course I will support the Dem nominee

Just like I would support Edwards if he got the nom...even though I don't like him. I will support the Dem nominee, period.

[MODemocrat]

178. I will gladly vote for Hillary if she's nominated

in the primaries as well. I'm a Democratic voter, so my vote will go to the Democratic Candidate. :bounce: :bounce: :thumbsup: :dem:

[smoogatz]

179. Yes, but I'll be holding my nose as I connect the little arrow.

Too corporate, too DLC, too calculating, too wrong about Iraq.

[cwydro]

180. Yes. eom

[saintsteven7]

188. I would vote for her...

...only if she gets the nomination. Otherwise, I'd prefer Edwards or Obama or Gore if he was willing.

[Bluebear]

189. Of course. I am a Democrat. nt

[TahitiNut]

190. Gee... so many would vote for a Hillary Clinton / Joe Lieberman ticket?

Who would've guessed? :dunce:

(You want hypotheticals? How's that for a hypothetical? Crystal ball shit.) :puke:

[CoffeeCat]

191. No Hillary, if we want our party to survive...

Republicans are salivating at a Hillary run.

They've got Monica, Whitewater, Travelgate and Vince Foster's death--incubating
in a PR cocoon that will burst into a nightmare--if she runs. People voted against
Bill Clinton's "lack of moral values"--and that's how we ended up with W. Republicans
will work feverishly to rekindle those feelings and it won't be too difficult a task.

She's a marketing nightmare for us, with more baggage than a packed 747.

Hillary has stood for next to nothing. She's been silent on these Nazi thugs who
are destroying our democracy and ignoring the Constitution. What has she done about
illegal wiretapping? Torture? Guantanamo? Abu Graib? Besides making a few toothless
speeches--she's stood for nothing--when we're drowning in King George.

Recently, she refused to recant her Iraq war vote and admit that she made a mistake. She's
been silent on the critical issues--during a horrendous time in our nation's history. That's
called compliance.

Furthermore, Hillary is part of the corporate-owned, corrupt, political-power machine.
She's not a progressive. She's part of an elite power structure--made up of Dems and Reps.
They pretend to volley power--back and forth between all of them--while feigning a two-party
system. These people, including Hillary, are a threat to our Constitution, or democracy and
our freedom.

Hillary? No frickin way in hell.

[OhioChick]

200. Agreed

And BTW....Good post, TwoSparkles.

[Hippo_Tron]

195. The Supreme Court Justices alone make it a no-brainer

Supreme Court Justices last far longer than the President that appoints them. Also, despite the fact that Hillary in my view has been completely spineless about opposing the Iraq War, it gives me no evidence to suggest that she will start more wars once she is in power. I think that foreign policy was, in fact, the best part of her husband's presidency and I would certainly like to see Madeleine Albright back in power.

[Cascadian]

197. NO!

And I will not vote for the Republican either!


John

[LoZoccolo]

199. ALRIGHTY THEN!

:hi: :nuke:

[Cascadian]

202. This is a DeMOCKracy! You have no real choices!

:sarcasm:

It's either REPUBLICAN or REPUBLICAN LITE (DLC). This is what would happen if Hillary got the nomination.

[Jack Rabbit]

205. I voted yes

I should add that I will be holding my nose.

I reserve the right to review the situation at a later date.

[Fenris]

207. Locking.

This is a flamefest.