5 reasons why I do not want Hillary as a nominee

[Cascadian]

1. She is member of the DLC. A Hillary nomination would again put the DLC in the driver's seat of the Democratic Party and of course the Democrats would lose.

2. Her unwavering support for the war in Iraq. Her reponse to the surge to me was tacit at best.

3. I also have reason to believe she is a supporter of PNAC. Do people REALLY want a Democratic nominee supporting PNAC??? Mark my words, she will also be supportive of military action against the Iranians.

4. She comes across as cold and impersonal and definately lacks the passion of her hubby Bill. I hate to say it but she kind of reminds me the Mayor on South Park. She comes across as that vain and aloof to me.

5. I hate the idea of having two families, the Bush's and Clintons, having a dynastic run of the country. Think about it. You would have the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Could Chelsea or George P. Bush be next? Two families should not have this much power.


If Hillary wins the nomination, I don't think I could support her let alone vote for her. Have trouble with it? Too bad!

John

[Rosemary2205]

1. And she colors her hair.

sigh.

[Matariki]

3. LOL - good one!

To the OP, re #3 - what are your reasons to think she supports PNAC? I'd like to hear them...

[BuyingThyme]

8. Because she will never speak out against them?

[Captain Hilts]

19. She needs to forcefully condemn those that dye hair as compared to frosting it. nt

[BuyingThyme]

27. You're likening hair color to mass murder for oil?

[Rosemary2205]

35. it's hard to take the OP seriously

it's pretty full of "factiness".

[BuyingThyme]

38. Just facts.

1. DLC? yes
2. Support for war? yes
3. Support for PNAC war? still yes
4. SP mayor? exactly
5. Two families over 24 or 30 years? that's the objective

[Matariki]

53. Not speaking out against PNAC doesn't equate support

Which other candidates have specifically spoke out against PNAC - quotes please?

And again, apart from not 'speaking out against' PNAC how does Clinton support PNAC? I'd love to hear some backup on this one.

The OP said 'supports PNAC' , not 'support for PNAC war', btw.

[BuyingThyme]

55. I don't know who you're quoting, but it's not the OP.

The OP said s/he has reason to believe Hillary supports PNAC.

The objective of PNAC is to create war to colonize the Middle East

Hillary supports their war.

Pretty good reasoning, I'd say.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

44. Uh-oh, we need a "color" expose here?

color or no color ...

Nancy Pelosi?
Dennis Kucinich?
Bill Clinton?
John Kerry?

All of the above?

I'll look through my back issues of National Enquirer, see if the answer's there.

[Captain Hilts]

45. Hillary's two-tone hair clearly reveals a duplicity in her nature!! nt

[walldude]

47. That's the best you could do?

If you are trying to get people on Hillary's side you are going to need a better response to the OP's valid issues.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

2. LMAO...

[skipos]

4. Kerry and Gore were DLC, did you vote for them? mt

[Cascadian]

16. Yes I did. Albeit VERY reluctantly.

In 2000, I almost voted for Nader until I got to the voting booth then switched over to Gore.I saw how close the numbers were and pulled a 11th hour decision.

In 2004, I kept being told not to vote third party and all that and to just vote for Kerry. Like a goo little citizen, I did what I was told though Kerry was never my real first choice. Yes. It was Dean all along!


In 2008, it won't be a case of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!". I refuse to back Hillary and I cannot and will not vote for her if she gets the nomination! Tough crap if you do not like that! The idea of supporting somebody and voting for them all because they have a "D" at the end is just idiotic to me! Won't get fooled again!

I think Al Gore will be different this time around if he runs. He no longer has to answer to the DLC which is why he has been more vocal on issues. I think he is not even a part of the DLC anymore. This is why I am more apt to support a Gore campaign now than in 2000.



John

[sandnsea]

30. Times change, they changed, she hasn't n/t

[Swamp Rat]

5. 6. She's an alien lizard

:D

[CatWoman]

10. an alien lizard

who colors her hair??

[Swamp Rat]

13. the bald lizard

:D

[tblue]

14. Can't we discuss what we don't like about her candidacy without acting juvenile?

with all due repect

[Jackpine Radical]

17. I'm with Swamp Rat.

If ya don't laugh around here once in a while, you're doomed.

[tblue]

21. I laugh plenty — at Republicans

[Radio_Lady]

68. I'm with you, TBlue. I will express my opinion in our primary election,

the I will get behind whomever the Democratic Party nominates, and proudly cast my vote. Hell, at this point, I'd even vote for a donkey, to tell the truth.

For the record, I think Hillary is a great choice, but I do believe that if Al Gore could be convinced to run, he would win.

Take it for what it's worth.

[Swamp Rat]

26. Go ahead...

and I will continue to do what I like to do. :hi:



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." - Mark Twain

[Kurovski]

60. Do not suppress the hard-working artists, is all I'm sayin'.

Oh, and Hillary ain't for me to vote for in the primaries.

Edit: Two "L" in "Hillary"

[BuyingThyme]

24. Hey, I didn't know she was in the gallery.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Swamp Rat]

28. You'd be surprised

;)

[BuyingThyme]

32. Not by that one. Not by a long shot.

[k_jerome]

40. ...

[Selatius]

6. Unfortunately, the two party system gives you no other choice

This isn't proportional representation. If you want that, then go to Europe.

The system we set up favors only two viable political parties emerging. That's a consequence of single-seat district representation where one person represents the whole district.

Voting for third party candidates causes unexpected results, often punishing people who vote ideals above pragmatism.

[Cascadian]

23. And that is why are political system is a joke!

I would move and heaven and earth if we had proportional representation. Even the Canadians have such a thing. When I had my own political party, I adovcated for propotional representation. The United States would greatly benefit from a multiparty system. I would even think more people would get more politically involved. No. We don't have a democracy. It is a DeMOCKracy. It is just wrong!


John

[rinsd]

7. 1 is legit. 2 is untrue. What is 3 based on. 4 & 5 are dubious

2 - to say her support has been unwavering is simply untrue.

3 - I don't believe that. I see no evidence that she holds PNAC in high regard.

4 - Its hard to be as charismatic as Bill Clinton but I think she is seen as "cold and impersonal" because of the natural comparison. I think Gore may have suffered from this as well.

5 - You would have railed against RFK or Ted taking their shots? Also fathers and sons are alot different than husbands and wives.

"Two families should not have this much power."

I certainly wish the Bush family had much less power but the notion that he Clinton family holds too much power? C'mon now.

[BuyingThyme]

12. Her support for the murder has been unwavering.

She only has a problem with tactics.

[WI_DEM]

9. I'd take Hillary over anybody the GOP puts up

but I agree she isn't my first choice, second, third or even fourth.

[tblue]

15. I second that.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. I third it.

[Cascadian]

34. To choose a candidate because they have a D seems ridiculous to me.

But I have been suckered before but I am less inclined to do that again and look at the politician's merits and where they stand. This is country is more serious trouble than I thought if we have been supporting a candidate all because they are a Democrat.


John

[walldude]

49. There you go.. thinking for yourself, using your brain...

What's next? Voting your conscience?

[Cascadian]

66. Oh no! Never!

It's all about the "D" at the end of the person's name. Politics means nothing about conscience or principles anymore! DAMN! I forgot all about that! :sarcasm:


The only way to change anything is to use your conscience and sticking to your principles. If we had real choices in American politics, we would be a better country.


John

[hashibabba]

42. Count me in!

[Laurab]

56. Ditto here - probably not even my fifth or sixth choice

but any "D" is better than an "R" - I don't really understand people who think we have the luxury to vote third party, essentially giving our vote to the repukes, when the country is in the shape it is in. All I can think of, is they really don't mind the way things are going. It boggles the mind.

[Cascadian]

70. There lies the problem with our so-called "Democracy"

It comes across as superficial and one-track minded to just vote for somebody all because they have a "D" at the end of the name. Given the track record of certain Democratic lawmakers, there is almost no difference between the parties anymore but I am hoping this is finally changing.

The idea of democracy is to speak your mind and sticking to your beliefs. This also includes choice. If we are only given a choice between Republican and Republican Lite then we are a failure as a free society. This must change. It should start with the multinationals getting the hell out of our political process. They are the real root of the problem. I would also advocate a system where more political parties are more able to get their messages out. There is always a chance for a coalition if the threat of the right comes popping up. Whoring and compromising out a person's political beliefs does not make for an effective or desirable political system. This is what choosing a candidate all because they have a "D" at the end is all about. It's total whoring.


John

[Laurab]

75. Perhaps it is the problem, but it is also a fact of life

in this country, there are two viable parties. There may be little difference between the parties (I disagree with that, actually), but I do agree some candidates are not exactly what I'd like them to be. Nonetheless, a Dem President would surround themselves with Dem appointees to the most important offices.

If "total whoring" will help to get us out of the mess we're in - I'm happy to do it. I don't see it as "total whoring", I see it as choosing the best of the viable, realistic options.

I actually don't think Hillary will end up winning the nomination - but if she does, she does, and I'm a Democrat, so I'll vote for her. The republicans have to be stopped.

[tblue]

11. Regardless of what she does, however Republican she appears, Republican voters will NOT support her

today, next year, or ever! And you need at least a few of them to win a General Election.

J*b is in the pipeline for '12 if a Dem wins. If Hillary had Bill's personal talents, she'd be more palatable. But I don't know if I'm being sexist. Are we harder on her personality and her speaking voice because she's a woman?

[DaveJ]

18. Her right wing background bother me...

I cannot blame her for coming from a Right Wing family, since I did too, but the fact that she initially pursued politics as a Republican shows an almost certain conflict of interest. She's a right leaning Democrat, a counterpart to Left leaning Republicans from the northeast like Giuliani.

I have no problem with her personality though, and I respect the fact that she came from a normal family and not a dynasty. The fact that this may be a first generation Clinton dynasty is not a big concern to me. I have overwhelming respect for people who make it on their own, and that's what I think Bill and Hillary did.

Also, I would love to see a woman president. America really needs to show it's people that women are without a doubt equals.

So I'm not feelin' your last two points as much as the first three.

Overall, and unfortunately, I think you're right. I don't see any change of direction coming from her.

[Captain Hilts]

22. No, she is NOT a PNAC supporter. Take off the tinfoil hat.

And, no, she's not my favorite choice for nominee either.

[Breeze54]

25. I agree with all your reasons!!

:kick: and Recommended.

:applause: :applause:

[sandnsea]

29. Investor Class Politics

Maybe we should start using that phrase instead of DLC because I don't think some people understand all that DLC entails. Also, it isn't just DLC, it's also the Blue Dogs. If we don't move this country away from this global corporatist mindset right now, it's all over. The US will be one big gated community and the rest of the world will be slaves to it, along with those of us who will have to grovel to the investor class for a shipping container to live in.

[Hardrada]

36. This is most certainly true!

[DaveJ]

31. Well... Couldn't other Democrats "Show her the way"?

Here's a different take on it. It contradicts what I said in my last post.

In a sense, the President is just one person, almost like a figurehead? I would hope that good Democrats like Kerry, Boxer, and others, would have a strong advisory roles. If so, it may be better to finally have a first female president who isn't perfect than the alternatives.

[AndyA]

33. Hillary has never been my favorite, but given the options I would vote

for her over any Republican or third party. Why? Well, the Republican part should be obvious to everyone here at DU. And I don't think any third party candidate will ever do anything except steal votes from the other two main candidates.

If a really strong person was running for a third party, I would consider them, but I've yet to see one so far.

The problem is our system, as others have mentioned. Getting fair and even representation is just not possible with only two parties, but that is basically all we have at this point. :(

Hillary will get my vote if it comes to that, but a lot of things can happen between now and then.

[DaveJ]

37. We definitely need a 3rd party (g***n)

But definitely not if they steal votes.

[AndyA]

39. And they wouldn't be stealing votes with the right candidate.

But think of the ones they've trotted out, year after year. None of them are winners.

We need an Al Gore type candidate for a third party. Or a Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, or someone like that.

I do hope it happens, it will make it more difficult for the two big parties to have their way, and I definitely think that would be a good thing. :thumbsup:

[DaveJ]

41. If it doesn't happen this time around...

I hope we at least get someone open to the idea of 3rd parties, someone who realizes that the R's should in fact be considered a 4th, or 5th, or extinct party.

[AndyA]

43. I like that idea.

I hope we at least get someone open to the idea of 3rd parties, someone who realizes that the R's should in fact be considered a 4th, or 5th, or extinct party.

The Republican Party can be split up into several parties, each descriptive of what they represent:

-The Me-Evangelical, You-Sinner Party
-The Hypocrit Party
-The Corrupt Party
-The Big Business Party
-The Tax Cuts for Millionaires Party
-The Even An Idiot Can Be President Party
-The Election Theft Party
-The Supreme Court is Our Friend Party
-The Let New Orleans Die Party
-The Let Them Eat Cake Party
-The Let's Sell America To Our Enemies Party

Just try to find a winner in one of those! :rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

46. 3rd parties kept conservatives in power in Canada for quite a long time. And right now. nt

[Cascadian]

67. You think Canada should just have a 2 party system like us???

That's crazy! America can benefit from having a multiparty system as opposed to a duopoly. If people support a Green-leaning agenda, they can vote Green. If they support a Democratic Socialist agenda, they can support the Democraic Socialists, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, and so on and so forth. It's all about Freedom of Choice, people! Let's be a Democracy not a DeMOCKracy!

I frankly think the Republicans and Democrats could use a little competition just give both parties a kick in the butt.

John

[Lord Byron]

48. ABH. No2DLC

[cynatnite]

50. PNAC? WTF?

How in the blue blazes did you pull that one out of your ass? And where is her 'unwavering support' of the war?

:eyes: Good thing opinions are like assholes.

on edit: If she is the nominee DU probably won't be a good place for you to be.

[Cascadian]

71. If Hillary does get nominated I think this is what will happen.

If she does get the nod, I think I will be going away from DU for a while. I do not want to get flamed everytime I point out where Hillary is wrong. In fact, I would strongly advise anybody who thinks like me to take a break from DU for the sake of sanity should Hillary go to the Big Dance. I would not come back until the day after the Election. If she wins (which is highly unlikely.), I will congratulate her but warn her that just because she won the election does not mean I will treat her with kid gloves. She'll get raked over the same coals as Bush has been. If she loses then I will chastise and lament over what might have been for the Democrats and then seriously consider revisiting my separatist politics (Think Cascadia!). Because America and the Democratic Party will be wrecked!

This is what will likely happen with me and the DU in 2008. I like it here and I enjoy the wonderful expression of debate and I would hate for the Democratic Party to make a huge mistake. I probably would have to leave DU because of it.


John

[wellst0nev0ter]

51. 7. She Supports Torture

She was asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which you've captured the terrorist and don't have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called "severity," in a conversation that included mentioning waterboarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.

"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "Again, I think the President has to take responsibilty. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it’s reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn’t be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."

Asked again about these methods, she said:

"In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we’ve got to have a check and balance."

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/10/clinton_on_tort.php

Even those who support torture in so-called "extreme situations" are not worthy of my or anybody's vote.

[crickets]

65. Thanks for the link, wellst0nev0ter. I had no idea. That's it for me.

I *hate* the concept of holding my nose to vote for the candidate with a D regardless. When Majette showed up on the ballot running for Georgia School Superintendent in 2006, I skipped voting for that office. I refused to vote for a Repub under any circumstances in the last election but I was NOT going to cast a vote for her.

Still, I thought I'd do it for the sake of the party when it comes to the Presidency. There's now an exception.

Hillary will get no vote from me after reading that article. I can't stand her DLC ties and her cosy corporate funded war chest, and the more I find out about her politics from her Senatorial record and her public statements, the less I am impressed. Equivocating on torture? Really, sticking a finger in the wind on torture?

For the first time in my voting life, if she gets the nom, I'll leave the Presidential slot blank. It'll just about kill me to do it, but I can't vote for this:

But at yesterday's Daily News editorial board meeting, it emerged that she's not actually against torture in all instances, and that her dispute with McCain and Bush is largely procedural.

Forget it, Hillary. Before, you were like annoying gum on the bottom of my shoe, occasionally like smelly dog poop that could be rinsed off the tennies. Congratulations, you've sunk to pond scum.

"Oh, but if we don't vote for her, the Republicans will win!"

People, wake up. There are *Republicans* willing to publicly take a stand against torture, much less the war.

I've kept my mouth shut on the Hillary threads up to now, but here's the public declaration: Hillary will never get my vote. NO WAY.


ETA: and an unappealing, corporate hugging, polarizing candidate like Hillary is exactly what Republicans want, so the sooner she's ditched from the race, the better. Let's recognize that fact for the good of the party.

[Cascadian]

73. Congratulations. You are free!

You are able to think for yourself and therefore you have my congratulations. It is time people realize that there are some bad apples in this party and they must be purged from this party in order for us to take control of the government. The corporate money should be taken away from the politicians so they can actually for the people again and listen to them. I do not think Hillary has been listening.


Once again, I applaud you!



John

[grace0418]

52. I'd be much more interested in having Chelsea run in the future than Hillary now.

I will vote against the Republicans no matter what but I am NOT at ALL interested in Hillary being the nominee.

[bonito]

54. I see it also

If she is nominated the Republican party will win in 08 in my view.

[RiverStone]

57. #1 and #2 are reasons enough not to vote for HRC...

Don't even need reasons 3-5.

Wishlist: GORE/CLARK 08

[PhilipShore]

64. Peace and Prosperity -- Gore/Clark 2008

[roguevalley]

58. 5 is my biggest objection. it feels like imperial rome. i also resent

how she's mowing down all the money and cutting other candidates out.

[Nikki Stone1]

59. Then are you also against Barak Obama, based on your first reason?

Just curious.

[gristy]

61. She seems like a lightweight to me

I was not impressed when KO interviewed her the other day.

[Ignacio Upton]

62. Reason #6: She will DRAG DOWN our Congressional candidates

Instead of spending time expanding our majorities, our candidates will be working on distancing themselves from Hillary!

[Cascadian]

69. It would be 1 step forward then 2 steps back.

If people really cared about the political system and the Democratic Party in general, they will push against a Hillary nomination in Denver.



John

[PhilipShore]

63. 5 reasons not to support Clinton

1) She will not win in 2008 -- or ever, because we have not had liberal Democrats in office in the last 40 years -- whom have the philosophy of JFK.

2) Karl Rove and the DLC lawyers picked her to run -- for the Democrats -- because they know she will not win.

3) She is a republican Democrat, not a liberal Democrat; republican Democrats historically hate liberals, and therefore liberal Democrats.

4) Clinton like Nader will have support of Republicans -- not because of her "liberal" values but only because she -- just like Nader -- will divide.

5) I live in New York, and all the time she has been in office -- she accomplished nothing.

Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

The DLC was founded in 1985 by Al From and other Democrats after Ronald Reagan's re-election. The DLC interpreted the election of Reagan as a signal that progressive politics needed to be 'modernized' to remain viable. They felt the Great Society philosophy that had dominated the Democratic party since the Johnson administration had run its course and advocated "new thinking" incorporating free-market principles. The group advocated economic policies, such as decreased government regulation of big business and trade agreements that often conflicted with the views of traditional Democratic constituencies, especially labor unions. The organization started as a group of forty-three elected officials, and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall. Their original focus was on influencing internal Democratic politics so as to secure the 1988 presidential nomination for a Southern conservative such as Sam Nunn or Chuck Robb, both of whom were early DLC supporters. However, when the DLC's pet project, the Super Tuesday primary, turned out to be a boon for Reverend Jesse Jackson, a vocal critic of the DLC, the group began to shift toward attempting to influence the public debate.

[Cruzan]

72. You forgot too lezzy

[Cascadian]

74. I could care less if she is really lesbian.

That part does not bother me. It is what she supports and her polarization that bothers me.


John