Why I won't vote for Hillary Clinton, IF she gets the nomination

I should preface this by saying I’m voting for Kucinich in the primary.  But, if HIllary Clinton gets the nomination, it will be the first time in my life I’ve not voted for a Democrat for President.  I won’t vote for a Republican, but I cannot, in good concious, vote for Hillary Clinton.  She has her campaign staff to think for it.  After eight years of ugly UGLY behavior from the administration, the LAST thing I will do is vote for someone who - based on their behavior towards their fellow democrats - looks to be no better.

From Penn to Shahee her campaign is full of inept, incompetents - but more than anything else, I can’t imagine why anyone would want these people working for them.  Like the Bush administration, Clinton’s are ugly people who play on the worst fears of Americans.  Like the Bush administration, Clinton’s campaign hopes Americans are too stupid to look beyond their grenade throwing and petty manipulation.  

Every campaign hits a low-point.  Some campaigns hit lows in terms of support they can’t generate for their candidate.  The worst campaigns hit their low in terms of the negative behavior towards other candidates.  Clinton’s first low was regarding Obama’s kindegarten paper.  That was just laughable.  But the attacks on Obama regarding drug-dealing and drug use play on vicious stereotypes the campaign THINKS American’s have of Obama.  Worse, they remind me of the crap Bush pulled on McCain in 2000.

Now in pretending to distance the campaign from Shahee, Penn acts like the half-witted little brother of Karl Rove.  He’s obnoxious and sticks to the standard Clinton campaign supporter rhetorical strategy of “well they started it.”

Clinton knew about the attack. Clinton will re-employ Shahee.  But, if she gets the nomination, Clinton won’t get my vote.  It’s time Democrats started expecting ethical behavior of their candidates, not just their office holders.

•  Bully for you

  by bumblebums on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:17:13 PM PDT

  •  ...and I won't vote for Obama, so there.

    Obama has little substance, and is all style and ego.

    I'll support Edwards instead, and if he isn't nominated, then I'll support Clinton or will go 3rd party & support Bloomberg if Obama's the nominee.

    Of course, in my State, it doesn't matter, since the Dem will win here regardless.

    by nycvisionary on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:23:11 PM PDT

    •  Have you read his books?

      I fell in love with him after reading his first book. One of the most impressive politicians of my lifetime. The best I will ever vote for since I was only five for JFK.

      by Better Days on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:27:07 PM PDT

    •  I detect a hint of presumption

      You seem to have come to a conclusion about my candidate preference.

      Well. I'm glad someone has.

      by bumblebums on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:28:06 PM PDT

      •  Beats thinking for yourself, doesn't it? :)

        I'd make the same snide remark if he'd said Edwards or anyone else-except Kucinich, Gravel, or Paul, who have special snide remarks devoted to them.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:30:33 PM PDT

    •  Have you actually looked at his achievements?

      Legislative achievements, that is?

      by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:28:26 PM PDT

    •  he's okay.

      Unless McLukin was the deal breaker.

      by Salo on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:01:09 PM PDT

      •  McClurkin was the deal breaker for me

        And then the 'is Hillary a lesbian' thing, which is probably outside his campaign, but shows the level of homophobia he is willing to tolerate.

        by DaleA on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:43:12 PM PDT

        •  We still need to support the winner.

          Even if it is Obama.

          by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:20:49 PM PDT

          •  Hope, these nutjobs

            don't give a shit about long term consequences in politics. See my post above.
            I've been around long enough to see the pendulum swing a few times but I hate seeing it "pushed" like it was in 2000 by the worst vanity candidate of all time.

            by realalaskan on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:27:52 PM PDT

    •  nycv, I don't think the diarist will care. He is

      a Kucinich supporter as he/she stated in the first paragraph of the diary.

      by smartdemmg on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:24:32 PM PDT

•  Duck and Cover....

  by Mogolori on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:17:54 PM PDT

  •  Cover your platypuses.

    Paint the chickens.

    :)

    ::::::

    by nowheredesign on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:20:12 PM PDT

  •  Save My Elephant!

    :::::::

    by nowheredesign on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:22:33 PM PDT

•  Hillary Clinton kicked my dog.

  by Addison on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:18:25 PM PDT

  •  and then used sarcasm on him

    by bumblebums on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:19:01 PM PDT

  •  Mine first

    She walks down the street with rat poison!

    by andgarden on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:19:10 PM PDT

  •  And what's with that

    whole wanting to eat peoples' brains thing.

    by A Handsome Man on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:20:36 PM PDT

  •  She eats live babies.

    by homogenius on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:08:09 PM PDT

    •  Hahaha

      Those babies and my dog are having it rought lately.

      by Addison on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:16:22 PM PDT

•  I'm voting for Clinton IF...

  she gets the nomination.

  by A Handsome Man on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:18:35 PM PDT

  •  Oh. Me, too. (nt)

    by prodigal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:20:16 PM PDT

•  if that happens and you don't

  then yes you will be voting rethuglican. be happy you helped Newt and Rove and Cheany get what they want.

  by tony the American Mutt on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:18:53 PM PDT

  •  pfft

    Spoilsport. I voted for Nader in 2000! Boogaboogaboo!!!

    by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:51:26 PM PDT

    •  and boy that worked out real well

      heh, thanks Ralph

      by tony the American Mutt on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:05:54 PM PDT

      •  pfft, pt II

        Do I live in Florida? No.

        by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:08:35 PM PDT

        •  psssst

          got yer butterfly ballots right here, maybe you need a chad to hang?

          by tony the American Mutt on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:10:50 PM PDT

          •  Sigh

            Stick it in your lockbox.

            by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:14:31 PM PDT

            •  hey Dick, this box on my back is to heavy

              and you keep shouting out of the speaker in my ear!

              by tony the American Mutt on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:17:07 PM PDT

              •  It's the fuzzy math

                Just don't let it get to you.

                by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:18:39 PM PDT

•  So.. Giuliani for you? Huckabee? McCain?

  Which Republican will you help in the GE by keeping your Democratic vote at home?

  by BoringDem on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:18:54 PM PDT

  •  Let's roll over and vote for the Democrats.

    Really helped us in '06. They really hung tough, ended the war, ended the illegal wiretapping, ended torture. I'm so glad I voted for the Democrats in '06...

    by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:21:22 PM PDT

    •  SCOTUS Justice John Yoo thanks you n/t.

      by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:23:11 PM PDT

      •  Yoo thanks no one

        He's gonna do it all by himself. Just watch.

        by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:52:57 PM PDT

        •  He'll get appointed to the bench.

          Or someone like him.

          Don't you care that our civil liberties would be gutted if a Republican were to win?

          by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:13:35 PM PDT

          •  They're already gutted

            Or haven't you noticed?

            by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:15:26 PM PDT

            •  And:

              We would restore them if we had a more progressive majority with more and better Democrats on board. And we had a president who would sign progressive legislation like SCHIP, for instance.

              by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:24:20 PM PDT

              •  Like I said

                I'm not confident Thatcher 2.0 will do any of those things.

                Sorry.

                by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:41:16 PM PDT

                •  You're just making that up.

                  About Clinton being Thatcher. That is a faith-based comment. All we have is your word for it that she is the equavalent of Thatcher. I challenge you to name one issue, and I will explain how Hillary is better than any Republican.

                  by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:43:05 PM PDT

                  •  You don't have just my word

                    One of her campaign staffers- Penn or some other idiot- said they'd be proudly running on the model of the Iron Lady. And no, I don't have a link. Bummer.

                    Of course Hillary will be better than any Republican.

                    Just not by that much.

                    by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:45:42 PM PDT

                    •  So, are you voting for her in the generals?

                      Of course Hillary will be better than any Republican.

                      by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:46:54 PM PDT

                      •  No

                        I thought that was obvious. I. Don't. Have. To.

                        Here's that link. I was wrong, it wasn't Penn, it was that shining example of spinal tissue that is Terry McAuliffe:

                        HILLARY CLINTON is to be presented as America’s Margaret Thatcher as she tries to become the first woman to win the White House. As she entered the 2008 presidential race yesterday, a senior adviser said that her campaign would emphasise security, defence and personal strengths reminiscent of the Iron Lady.

                        "Their policies are totally different but they are both perceived as very tough," said Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman. "She is strong on foreign policy. People have got to know you are going to keep them safe."

                        Policies, schmolicies. She's Maggie.

                        by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:51:03 PM PDT

                        •  So:

                          You would sentence thousands of women to die in the streets from illegal abortions, thousands more in hospital beds from complications from their pregnancies, and condemn millions of unwanted children to be born into homes where they are unloved and uncared for. All because you don't like one assholish person who is working for her. That simply boggles the mind.

                          by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:16:41 PM PDT

                          •  No, I wouldn't

                            Stop extrapolating like that. You look as silly as I do.

                            by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:30:16 PM PDT

                            •  You miss the point.

                              You act as though your actions do not have consequences. You are buying into the Republican frame that you are somehow a helpless person and that nothing you do can make a difference. Bullshit -- everything you do alters the world around you, whether you realize it or not. That means that you have a responsibility to do what is best for the world.

                              You know how you are coming across to me? And to most of the rest of the community? You are coming across like a baby -- you act like we need some big daddy figure to come rescue us. That's what the Republicans want you to believe. We're the people who have to change things. It's not going to do any good if all we do is wait for the Second Coming of King or whatever else has to happen for you to get off your duff and care.

                              by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:12:31 PM PDT

                              •  No

                                I got the point a long time ago. You can trust me on that, and I don't care how I come across. I know what my real responsibilities, are, thanks very much, and I don't need to have them validated by your hectoring condescension.

                                But yes, I agree that this community is full of big, blubbering babies, and that I am one of the biggest. Boo frickety hoo for all of us.

                                by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:47:57 PM PDT

                                •  No, you haven't.

                                  You don't get the point that if you don't vote for the winner of the Democratic primary, then we will get right-wing judges who will take away all our civil liberties and reverse Hamdan. You would rather scream and pout like a spoiled brat who doesn't get their candy in the store.

                                  Don't you care that if Roe were eliminated (as it surely would under Huck or Romney), that thousands of women would be killed from illegal abortions or from pregnancy complications and millions of unwanted children will grow up unloved and abused?

                                  by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:05:53 PM PDT

                                  •  Yes, I have

                                    Believe it or not. Doesn't matter.

                                    by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:44:26 PM PDT

                                    •  So, you think this is a purity test.

                                      I'm sorry, but you are not going to find the Perfect Candidate. Obama let McClurkin represent his campaign. Edwards voted for the war and a host of other non-progressive legislation. Kucinich was anti-abortion until a miraculous conversion, and he would consider Ron Paul as a VP. Even Feingold voted for Roberts.

                                      We're not going to win any more elections until we stop turning these elections into purity tests. That is why the Republican Party is imploding.

                                      by Eternal Hope on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 06:16:45 AM PDT

      •  You've said that before.

        Meanwhile you just keep voting for anybody with a D after their name.  JusticeS (plural) Alito and Roberts both thank you for your support.

        by Corwin Weber on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:05:53 PM PDT

    •  No regrets here. n/t

      by A Handsome Man on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:28:01 PM PDT

    •  OK...

      ...so maybe you don't know how the government works.  I can let that pass.  You see, the President has something called "veto power."  Basically, he can use it to override any bill passed by Congress.  

      Kucinich is famous for carrying around a copy of the Constitution in his pocket...you might want to try the same.  

      by CrazyHorse on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:32:03 PM PDT

      •  Yes, and no force on earth can force

        Congress to pass a bill if they refuse to do so. They could refuse to end the war. They could refuse the renew the "Patriot Act."

        These Democrats refuse to use the power they have...because they don't care about the Constitution and our unalienable rights.

        Incidentally, I am voting for Kucinich and I am very, very familiar with the Constitution.

        And, the idea that I'm FOR the Republicans if I refuse to support these Democrats is nonsense. I'm against anyone who fails to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...and who either facilitates or fails to oppose the destruction of our unalienable rights.

        by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:42:02 PM PDT

        •  You're against the Constitution.

          So, by your actions, you would let the Republicans gut the Constitution by appointing 2-3 more radical right-wing judges to the SCOTUS, along with many more right-wing judges to the lower benches who would gut all the safeguards of the New Deal.

          Vote for Kucinich -- I could care less; I did so last election. But please stop hurting America by enabling the Republicans to win by your refusal to vote.

          by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:45:00 PM PDT

          •  I don't care which party

            guts the Constitution.

            We're empowering the bluedogs by giving Quisling Democrats our vote.

            by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:46:46 PM PDT

            •  And:

              You're empowering the Republicans to overturn Roe with your inaction. By your silence, you give your consent for the Republicans to overturn Roe and make forced pregnancy the law of the land.

              by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:47:50 PM PDT

              •  Actually, good point.

                But how can I vote for, say, Hillary without giving encouragement to all the "triangulation" of our unalienable rights?

                You know, I'm convinced. If Hillary wins the nomination, I'll vote for her. And be rather disgusted with myself...

                by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:50:59 PM PDT

                •  I wouldn't ask you this if it was merely negative

                  But I personally think that a Hillary victory would be transformative beyond the mere issues. I think that she would empower and inspire millions of young women to get into public service knowing that they have the potential to get elected President and thus transform the world for the better.

                  And that does not mean that we should blindly support what the Hillary WH does -- the goal is to elect more and BETTER Democrats -- that means primarying out DINOS and replacing them with more progressive Democrats. For instance, we should draft Barbara Lee to replace DiFi in 2012.

                  by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:29:36 PM PDT

                  •  I've got nothing against Hillary.

                    It's not her, but the fact that Democrats as a group have betrayed our trust. Hillary, and others, talk a good game but most of their voting records are underwhelming.

                    But, yeah, Hillary and Dems will definitely do a better job with the Supreme Court than any Republican. That's the best case for voting for the Dems, even those who may disappoint us on everything else.

                    And, who knows? Maybe these unproven Democrats will give us a pleasant surprise...and do better than I currently expect...

                    by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:04:25 PM PDT

                    •  Well, it's only a matter of time.

                      For one thing, Whitehouse has been a pleasant surprise since winning in RI. Most of the Class of 2006 has done well. But what I am thinking of doing is -- if the Senate makes it official -- and caves into Bush on the Iraq funding request, then I will start a series on deposing Reid as majority leader. I considered Schumer, but at least the House and Senate have put forth a bill that would help end it.

                      I know that you are thinking in terms of the Democrats as a group, but what we have to do is to name names. I've already done a whole series on DiFi, and I still will do some on Barbara Lee, the person whom we agreed should primary her in 2012. And then, we have to go through and pick progressive candidates in the congressional races this year.

                      by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:11:59 PM PDT

              •  Not to even mention

                more tax cuts for the rich, less environmental protections, more deregulation, more preemptive war, more torture, more signing statements, more of the same energy policy, more cuts to essential government agencies, more of the same "best in the world" health care. I can't wait.

                by denise b on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:49:29 PM PDT

    •  Let's at least wait

      until they have a veto-proof majority before we give up on them.

      by denise b on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:44:58 PM PDT

      •  Or:

        A Filibuster-proof majority and a Democratic president.

        by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:46:03 PM PDT

        •  Actually, that's what I meant to say

          by denise b on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:04:47 PM PDT

      •  It'll be a LONG time.

        How many of the Dems are bluedogs...who are already voting with the Republicans? Do we need 70 Democratic Senators? When will that happen? A hundred years from now? A thousand?

        by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:17:26 PM PDT

        •  Hopefully, in 6-10.

          We can hypothetically get rid of all of them within 6 years; others, it might take more than one try.

          by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:19:00 PM PDT

        •  It'll be a real long time

          if so called Democrats vote third party on "principal", whatever in the fuck that is.

          by realalaskan on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:29:54 PM PDT

    •  It's a good thing for conservatism

      that the guys on the other side don't give up if they don't get immediate results, or their movement would have died in 1964. Short of revolution, for which you'd rightfully be hanged, building a movement takes time, and certainly more than one election...probably a generation, but then again, it's easier to let your child starve to death than it is to teach him to feed himself, after all, I've been at it for almost a year and a half now, and the little shit still hasn't gotten any better at it.

      It's hard to read this thread, and then argue that overall progressives are the more intelligent, more mature, or more effective brand of activist...I'm getting to the point where I'd settle for one out of three -- or even a tie in one category...

      by PBJ Diddy on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:18:52 PM PDT

  •  I'll vote Green if Clinton is nominated

    I won't vote for a Republican.  And I reject the "logic" that by not voting for a particular candidate (republican) I'm actually voting for them.

    That's basicaly saying if A happened (I voted for a Green), and if B happened (a republican wins), then A caused B.

    Pedal that crap somewhere else.

    by gossamer on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:24:02 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I get that you reject logic.

      by BoringDem on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:25:00 PM PDT

    •  You're enabling them.

      So, peddle that purity troll BS somewhere else.

      by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:27:12 PM PDT

    •  I'll vote "No"

      ...and sneer at the guilt-trippers.

      by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:55:08 PM PDT

    •  Tired of hearing this

      So go sammer else.

      by NegSpin on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:15:48 PM PDT

•  I would vote for Kucinich.

  I would probably vote for Dodd. I might vote for Edwards. I could conceivably vote for Obama.

  But I'm not convinced that Hillary would end the occupation of Iraq. I'm not convinced she would restore the 4th amendment. I'm not even convinced she would end the use of torture. She might. She might be very good. But she hasn't convinced me...And she'll need to do that to get my vote.

  by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:19:47 PM PDT

  •  Bloomberg's licking his chops

    HRC-32, Bloomberg-29, Huckabee-34

    Does anyone think this Democratic Congress can manage to broker electoral votes its way?  I think the jury's out.

    by Mogolori on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:23:58 PM PDT

  •  I am equally convinced...

    ...that only Ron Paul on the GOP side would end it.  So let's play the percentages game.  Hillary might not (though Congress certainly will under her admin) but none of the GOP would.

    I don't understand this purity troll stuff, man...

    by CrazyHorse on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:33:39 PM PDT

    •  I'm no troll.

      But I remember '06. We voted the Dems in, and now they have a track record. It's very unimpressive. I can't be fooled again only 2 years later...

      by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:45:13 PM PDT

      •  You're letting the Republicans fool you.

        By letting them think that they are too strong for you and that you are just powerless. I understand your concerns, but the way to solve this is to elect better Democrats. Not petulantly stamping feet like a spoiled brat who doesn't get their way.

        by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:01:46 PM PDT

        •  Actually what I'm doing is

          not being fooled by Democrats who say one thing and do another.

          Thinking about it, I'm going to vote for any Democrat for president -- but only because I want to avoid another really awful Supreme Court justice.

          As for whatever else these people do, my position is: do the right thing and then (ONLY then) will I be a believer.

          by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:13:49 PM PDT

          •  I hear you.

            You're in the same boat as Markos and all the rest of the FP posters on this. See my further comments below.

            by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:17:47 PM PDT

      •  it took thirty years and millions of dollars

        for the hard right to cultivate the religious wingnuts, set up the powerful right-wing smear machine, to slowly gut protective legislation, to organize and coordinate large grass-roots groups that pushed the issues they wanted pushed.

        But you come along and want thirty years of work to be undone in two. Alas, the laws of inertia stand in your way.

        It will take quite a while to restore this country to anything resembling a reasonable state. We will just be beginning even ten years down the road from now.

        by limpidglass on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:58:10 PM PDT

  •  Don't expect any Democrat to end the occupation

    The Democratic policy on Iraq is to pacify the country first. None of the candidates will pull out immediately unless Petraeus's strategy works and conditions on the ground are favorable to the new Iraqi government maintaining control. Read the Democratic platform on "Winning the peace in Iraq".
    

    by Cecrops Tangaroa on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:33:35 PM PDT

    •  That was four years ago.

      We will run in 2008 with a platform that is totally different. And we ran on a different platform even in the 2006 elections.

      by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:05:50 PM PDT

      •  Could you post a link to it?

        I went looking for a 2006 platform the other day and couldn't find one. The 2004 platform was the most recent I could find.

        by Cecrops Tangaroa on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:51:57 PM PDT

        •  Actually:

          The party develops platforms every four years. But most of the candidates in 2006 ran on ending Iraq.

          by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:35:07 PM PDT

•  Uh....

  Clinton will re-employ Sheehan.

  RE-employ?
  When did Cindy work for Hillary?

  by kestrel9000 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:20:25 PM PDT

  •  They're both full of bogus remarks.

    "Income tax is unconstitutional" Cindy is hard to distinguish from "Obama's a drug dealer" Bill.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:33:11 PM PDT

    •  Shaheen? or Sheehan?

      I'm confused now.

      by prodigal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:50:52 PM PDT

      •  Sh---

        or Shinola?

        by NegSpin on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:18:16 PM PDT

        •  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          

          by kestrel9000 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:32:03 PM PDT

    •  uh.....

      "Income tax is unconstitutional"

      You know...I've noticed that if somebody says that around here, they get the beat shit out of them like they would if they said, "George W. Bush is the second coming of Christ."

      I never did get that...

      by kestrel9000 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:34:41 PM PDT

  •  Let's not mince matters.

    Clinton will re-employ Satan.

    by revbludge on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:34:53 PM PDT

•  She's lost my vote (so far) in the primary

  but, without hesitation, I'll vote for her in the general.

  I will not spite my face by cutting off my nose - which is what you are proposing.

  As for this:

  Clinton knew about the attack. Clinton will re-employ Sheehan.

  do you have anything to back that up, or are you just blovating?

  by jay w on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:21:50 PM PDT

  •  Wait, she lost your primary vote?

    by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:27:37 PM PDT

    •  Uh yeah

      That crap the other day with Shaheen was thelast straw.

      by jay w on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:30:01 PM PDT

    •  Hillary lost your vote too?

      Tch tch. Losing the diarist's vote could have been an accident, but losing two votes? This looks like carelessness to me.

      by revbludge on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:30:05 PM PDT

      •  She never had my vote.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:31:11 PM PDT

        •  Well, she'd have lost it if she did.

          She's mislaid TWO votes to my knowledge, just today. What a scatterbrain.

          by revbludge on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:33:31 PM PDT

•  wrong

  I won't vote for a Republican. I'll vote for a third party, probably Green.  I don't buy the flabby logic that by not voting for someone (a republican) you're actually voting for them.  

  And if the republican's win because of my 3rd party vote, TOUGH SH*T.  

  Elections aren't the only things that have consequences, so do campaigns.

  by gossamer on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:21:56 PM PDT

  •  OK.

    So, you would get rid of Roe, Griswold, and Brown. Just because you don't respect the will of the people in the primary.

    by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:25:43 PM PDT

    •  We already halfway lost Brown with this new

      court's ruling, I seem to remember ...

      by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:27:11 PM PDT

    •  That is such strawman crap

      Seriously, EH. That's always been bullshit. We don't have to "respect" the will of people in the primary, it's our fucking vote.

      by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:57:17 PM PDT

      •  So:

        Are you going to admit you are wrong when Rudy wins and Roe and Griswold and Brown are all gutted?

        You're not going to get anywhere if you insult the voters like you are doing. This is a Democratic blog, and what that means is that if the majority of rank and file voters think differently than you, then we have to respect their wishes. The people are the boss here.

        by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:00:08 PM PDT

        •  No

          There's nothing wrong with what I said, no matter who the next president is.

          And oh yes, of course it's a "Democratic blog." We are  told and re-told ad nauseum. I am a registered Democrat, so I diary and comment here. Does that mean I have to vote for Thatcher 2.0 if she's the nominee? Of course not. The people may be your boss, but they're not my boss. I am.

          Stop the blame game guilt tripping bullshit about Roe and Griswold. You ooze hyperbole.

          by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:07:38 PM PDT

          •  No, I am stating fact.

            You know what Huckabee would do -- create a new theocracy in which his version of fundamentalism would be the law of the land. So, is it OK if he appoints 2-3 more SCOTUS judges and gets rid of Roe?

            On the other hand, you name any issue, and I will tell you how Hillary is better than any Republican. The problem is with you -- you think that this is all about you. It is not. The future of the whole world is at stake in this election.

            by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:11:00 PM PDT

            •  No, it's not a problem

              It really is all about me. You have no idea. Please, for the love of Elvis, cultivate your sense of the absurd.

              Besides, it's tough to not make it about me when Justice Yoo keeps thanking me, me, me for his appointment.

              The only way Huck would create a theocracy is if there was no real opposition party with a functioning spine.

              Oh wait...

              by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:14:00 PM PDT

              •  So, you just made my point for me.

                If we have a leadership that will not show a spine, then the best way to change that is to elect a Democratic president, and then work on primarying the worst offenders. Starting with drafting Barbara Lee to primary DiFi. The goal is no longer just to elect Democrats; the goal is to elect better Democrats as well.

                by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:16:58 PM PDT

                •  Well, then you're welcome

                  I have no shame, I'll take credit for making your point. I still stipulate that a President Clinton would not fall under the "better Democrats" phrase we all know and love these days. Ten to one she'll cave on all kinds of shit. She doesn't care about us.

                  by keirdubois on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:21:20 PM PDT

                  •  That's why I won't vote for her in the primary.

                    I'll even support a primary on her in 2012 if she caves in like you fear she will, and the winner will beat the Republican nominee.

                    by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:00:52 PM PDT

                    •  Voting for the Democrat

                      is a strategy to cut our losses. But it will also make the emergence of a progressive democratic party even more unlikely.

                      If Democrats win even after capitulating on the war, on the Patriot Act, etc...why would they end the war? Why would they restore our unalienable rights?

                      I'm voting for the Democrat...but I'm not entirely happy about it. If the next Dem president got to nominate 3 good young Supreme Court judges, I'd probably NOT vote for the next lame presidential nominee.

                      by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:33:28 PM PDT

                      •  It's not a matter of cutting our losses.

                        It's a matter of remaking the party in our own image, through primary challenges. They would restore our rights because they believe in the rule of law and the New Deal. They voted tonight to end torture -- it was Republicans who voted to support it. And if there are a substantial minority who supported torture, well, then, we show them the door. We are the party now. We get to call the shots and remake it in our own image.

                        by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:17:21 PM PDT

                        •  um

                          We are the party now. We get to call the shots and remake it in our own image.

                          How's that working out so far?

                          by gossamer on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:50:27 AM PDT

    •  I'm going to vote for the Democrat

      but Gossamer has a respectable case. If we keep voting for lame Democrats, they will never change.

      If we sit out an election, we'll suffer more under the next Republican president...and then the Democrats can decide whether they want to EARN our votes an lead...or remain out of power.

      I respect that position. Even though I'm going to support the Democrat solely over the issue of the Supreme Court.

      by Rayk on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:27:51 PM PDT

      •  the problem with the Naderites

        is that they go to a few rallies, cast their third party vote, then go home thinking they've accomplished something.

        Relatively few of them actually try to learn how the system works and how it can be changed through constructive action.

        The Republicans are amazing. They buckle down and do their homework and learn about the political process and how they can participate in it. They never give up, no matter how dire their situation looks. That is one lesson (probably the only one) we could stand to learn from them.

        by limpidglass on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:40:10 PM PDT

  •  when Rudy's boys are hauling you off to Gitmo

    and beating your friends and family in the streets, will you perhaps consider that you might have been wrong?

    There is a world of difference even between a waffling, visionless corporate bureaucrat like Hillary Clinton, and an intemperate, megalomaniacal sociopath like Rudy Giuliani.

    You think you have the luxury of a protest vote? You think this is the worst things can get? We are not anywhere close to the worst, believe you me.

    You and yours will not be spared if Giuliani comes anywhere near the White House. That much should be obvious even to the purest of the purity wing.

    But you'll vote for a third party candidate this time, as you did for Nader in 2000 and 2004, thinking that you've kept your precious moral superiority intact by voting for someone who has absolutely no chance of changing anything.

    We've paid a high price for that kind of self-indulgence before, but this time the price is the end of the American republic.

    by limpidglass on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:54:07 PM PDT

    •  Yeah but...

      Hillary was so MEAN way back in 2007! I can't remember now what she did, exactly, but it was something very very bad.

      by NegSpin on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:22:48 PM PDT

    •  And when I'm hungry and cold....

      ...because Clinton pushed for yet another glut of low-wage Indian tech workers to work in this country, will you admit that we have a point?  How about when even more people are hungry and cold because their former jobs are all being done in South America?  How about when they're dying because national health care is something she can't be bothered with until she gets re-elected?  Will that satisfy you?  Will we have waited long enough then?

      by Corwin Weber on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:16:24 PM PDT

      •  everything you fear

        would happen far more quickly under a Giuliani administration.

        If Hillary Clinton is president, she can be worked with. Despite what some people here say, it is possible to reason with her. Change will be slow, but some of what is needed will come about, if people fight hard enough for it.

        If Rudy Giuliani is president, anyone who dares to speak up will get a billy club in the teeth. None of what you want will happen. And unimaginably worse shit will happen--like World War III and a police state here at home. Is that enough of a difference for you?

        If you do like the Naderites and cast your meaningless protest vote every four years and pat yourself on the back for keeping your conscience clear, you are doing worse than nothing to change the system.

        With the rise of the netroots there is now a chance to start getting more progressive politicians elected to the local level. It will take many years to accomplish what needs to be done. But none of that will matter if another Republican is elected president, since we won't be having elections after that.

        You ask whether I understand your point. Your point is that you'd rather be proud and have less than nothing, than be sensible and have half of what you want.

        by limpidglass on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:07:31 PM PDT

        •  And when you lose because the base....

          ...has finally become tired enough of being kicked and expected to vote for the Democrats anyway, you can be all warm and fuzzy inside by blaming the Evil Naderites.

          Meanwhile the Republicans will cozy up to their base, and they'll win.  Again.  But at least you won't have given in.

          We're tired of holding our noses.  We're tired of making excuses for these people.  We're done with it.  Y'all have had over two decades and what do we have to show for it?  'They'd be worse.'

          It's not enough.  It never was enough.  It's just that now we're tired enough of it to not be intimidated anymore.

          by Corwin Weber on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:11:07 PM PDT

          •  who is "we"?

            it's just you here talking, friend. No one else.

            by limpidglass on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:23:48 PM PDT

            •  Clearly it isn't just me.

              And that's what terrifies Clinton's supporters.  It's giving Obama's some pause as well.

              by Corwin Weber on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:27:58 PM PDT

•  Neither will I

  I'm a Canadian. What's your excuse?

  Seriously. I defended you guys for months. I tried to explain that it was a valuable way to put pressure on the candidates. But you're all so bloody repetitive! It's a month away from the primary, if they gave a damn they would've paid attention to you months ago. Vote for whoever you want, just fricking shut up about it already. Please. Let's talk issues.

  by kyril on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:22:03 PM PDT

  •  you should be running this site

    most sense I've heard here in many a moon.

    by