Talk Me Off The Ledge, Here...

Here's the thing: Hillary seems to be trying to get the nomination by attempting, through scorched-earth tactics, to destroy the reputation of a fellow Democrat, or at least so severely damage his General Election chances that the super delegates overturn the pledged delegate results at the convention.

IF she succeeds in this (a big 'if' admittedly), I will be torn in November: Do I reward her Machiavellian destruction of Obama by voting for her, thus sending the message that it's OK to use Rovian tactics as long as you're a Democrat? Or, do I sit out the election (I won't vote for McCain) and risk 4 more years of disaster?

To think I once defended the Clintons. My Nose is getting really raw from holding it while I vote.

Hillary's campaign is running their candidate in such a way that, as much as I hate to admit it, I'd be happy to see her lose.

There's got to be a better way to run a railroad.

•  If you are a true Democrat

  You will sit out this GE in protest of her nomination by coup. And If you are a really loyal Democrat you will protest the convention. We should all take a trip to Denver and let our voices be heard.

  by psilocynic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:02:49 PM PDT

  •  Bullshit!

    True Democrats will not help a Republican get elected.

    I am an ardent Obama supporter, but I believe that Hillary Clinton is far preferable to John McCain.

    Total immersion in dKos can result in a very distorted view of Hillary Clinton. Everything unlikable about her campaign is magnified and repeated a thousandfold and attached to her personally until she is villified.

    by Mr X on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM PDT

    •  It's not about Clinton v McCain.

      It's about us, the people, losing control of our party. If she wins fair and square, something she might still be able to do, vote for her. I will. But if the nomination is given to her unswervingly, then for the sake of the party we need to take a stand. It happened in '68 and we gave up 4 years. And it was worth it. No one looks back to '68 and says 'I shouldn't have done that'. 4 years of McCain is not worse than the destruction of the party.  

      by psilocynic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM PDT

      •  I hate to tell you this,

        but we the people never had control of our Party. If we did we would be out of Iraq by now!

        by Owllwoman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM PDT

      •  Actually, if she wins by superdelegates,

        it will be according to the rules. That will be winning "fair and square". And after the radicals of 1968 protested the Democratic Party went on to lose the next five out of six elections. It's their fault that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan became president.

        by oceanstar17 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM PDT

    •  What bullshit?

      I was a naive Democrat all my life, voting my first time for Kennedy. It was not until after the Clinton eight years were over and the first four years of Bush(W) that I realized that the rhetoric is surely different but there ain't a dimes worth of difference between the way the two parties behave once in office.

      The elected politicians of both parties find it in their prime interest to keep the apparatchiks of the establishment secure in their dacha's.

      Barack is the first politician in my memory who convinces me both that he is different and that he can succeed. Edwards also seemed different but I doubt if he has the talent and the broad foresight necessary to succeed.

      Voting for Hillary would mean a few minor changes from what McCain would bring, but those changes would be just as ephemeral as those of her husband were. Bill's changes were gotten so piecemeal, so inarticulately and with such self-serving rhetoric that they were completely wiped out within the first two years of his successor. Nothing of import survived in the minds of the electorate, and so it followed another logic when the parties changed in the white house. It was as though nothing Bill said had registered in anyone's minds.

      It will be the same with Hillary, if elected, and I seriously doubt she would be re-electable in 2012. She and Bill both follow the polls. She showed us that when she voted for the war when the public was behind it and claimed to be against it, then and now, once the public realized they themselves were wrong. At least the public was honest with themselves.

      Now that the public is changing it's mind again about the surge I have doubts that Hillary, if nominated, would remain steadfast on this issue all the way from September to November. She can be as deceptively nuanced as Bill always was and nothing would be placed lastingly into the souls of the electorate. She may be planning her new beliefs for those months even now.

      Voting for her would only be voting for a slightly different kind of Republican than McCain. Except that if Hillary wins it means a Democrat like Obama who actually believes in the Democratic rhetoric, would have to wait another eight years to try again instead of just four.

      by sjbob on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:09:08 PM PDT

  •  If you're not insane...

    ...you will recognize that McCain is unacceptable as long as there is any other living, breathing Democrat running for President this election cycle.  

    At least that's my take.

    by pakaal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM PDT

    •  Myopic.

      Try to think long term. Say McCain wins. He will be a lame duck POTUS for 4 years and then he will be replaced by a Dem. If McCain wins, we work down ticket and take a strong majority in the house and senate. McCain will not get any right wing justices on the bench and will have a hard time prolonging the war. If the party is kept strong, McCain is less than a footnote in history. If she usurps the nomination she will also lose to McCain and the party will be divided and we will lose down ticket and McCain and the rethugs get the keys to the house and senate. Protesting her nomination and working harder down ticket is the best solution if she is handed the nomination.

      by psilocynic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:21:24 PM PDT

      •  How old are you?

        I'm not trying to be nasty, but I am 49 today.  If we lose the next election, we lose the Supreme Court for the rest of my professional life.  We already have a Supreme Court that is as potentially devastating as the antebellum court that gave us the Dred Scott decision.  Imagine two more Alitos, Roberts, Scalias or Thomases on the court.  

        This election is deadly serious.  We cannot sustain a defeat at a time when the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, when we are close to a major economic crash, and when we face the prospect of an unwinnable, disasterous war with Iran.  

        There is an advantage to being young, to having 50 years ahead of you to change the system.  There is also perspective to be gained from being middle aged and having a sense of how quickly negative change can happen and how slowly positive change sometimes occurs.  We need to approach the next election with extreme pragmatism.

        by ivorybill on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM PDT

        •  Did you not read what I wrote?

          I'm in my thirties. I've worked in politics for a large portion of my life. I am now a small business owner but I stay active in local campaigns. I'm not young, or young enough to have 50 years ahead of me. But I'm young enough to work on down ticket races to ensure that there will not be any devastating changes to the supreme court. Just because you are president, doesn't mean you get your way. But if we let the party decide against us, we will never get our way again. This is more than a fight for the nomination. It's a fight for our party. I'm willing to sacrifice 4 years.

          by psilocynic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM PDT

          •  I did

            but I think it is naive to expect that we would be able to prevent bad SCOTUS nominations for a full four years.  We didn't do so well with Roberts or Alito.

            And although I am a strong Obama supporter (I'm in Illinois and have supported him since state senate days), I would mention that if HRC gets the nomination, it would not necessarily be a clear-cut a coup. Obama is likely to be ahead by about 160 pledged delegates, and perhaps 500,000 votes.  The truth is, the race is close.  If the Democratic Party ended up picking John Edwards as a dark horse candidate, when he has so few electoral votes, then that would be much more of a coup.  Objectively, Obama and Clinton are close to being tied.  

            Again, I am a strong Obama supporter and really don't want HRC to get the nomination.  All I'm saying is that if she does, it's not worth splitting the party over.

            by ivorybill on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:09:39 PM PDT

            •  We didn't have a majority

              when Roberts and Alito were appointed. Like I said before. If she fairly wins the nomination, vote for her. If she is behind in delegates, popular vote and states won and she wins you must abstain from voting to send a message to the DNC leaders. Nothing else will work. She can't beat McCain anyway. If you vote she will lose. If you don't vote she will lose and the DNC will get the message that we are not going to be pushed around. We are the party. The DNC party leaders work for us.

              by psilocynic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:44 PM PDT

          •  Some great points....

            I try to avoid age in general, though I'll go there if there's an obvious argument to be made (rare enough). I disagree with your argument, but not for the same reason as ivorybill, I think most people - using a Bush term - misunderestimate what will happen in a McCain presidency. Here's what I firmly believe will happen. The real power in the next Republican presidency will (once again) not actually lie with the President but the VP.  Whoever is McCain's VP will be running the country while McCain sticks out front being Mr Straight Talk. It's the same frickin' pattern. We will go to war with Iran under a McCain administration. Most likely Syriah too.  Then get ready to go back to Africa.  The Pax Americana dream is alive and well, do not think for a second if they keep power they will not continue to do exactly what they want to do, for as long as they can do it. By the next midterm we might be able to get enough of a majority to get impeachment, but that would be its own nightmare to achieve.

            Sorry, I'm sticking with swallowing an incredibly bitter pill, as opposed to a Neocon/Republican third term. We simply can't afford it.

            by pakaal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:18:17 PM PDT

        •  Happy B'day n/t

          by LaEscapee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:58:47 PM PDT

  •  Disagree vigorously

    See my other comment. Can we really take four more years of shrubbiness? I know I can't. As much as I am dispirited by the current campaign, we just can't allow another rethug administration.

    by marketgeek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:37:06 PM PDT

•  Vote for the nominee

  Politics is an ugly business.  But 4 more years of Republican rule is beyond ugly.

  If somehow HRC is the nominee, close ranks and think about the Supreme Court, and back the Democrat.

  by ivorybill on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM PDT

  •  Explain to me, then...

    ... what's the disincentive for Clinton-- or any candidate for that matter-- not to smear, destroy, wedge and triangulate? Do we really want to be the party of last-scumbag-standing?

    by kingubu on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM PDT

    •  Building the party

      involves more than the presidential race.  There is effectively very little we can do in any one race, but cummulatively and over time we can influence the direction of the party.  Recruit good candidates, organize locally, educate...

      If we lose the nomination battle, then we simply have to do a cost-benefit calculation with respect to the general election.  I'm worried about endless war - with Iran next - and a collapse of the US economy.  Four more years of Bush policies will bring us there, and while I totally understand the need to offer a disincentive to dishonest, divisive politics, the terror I feel at continued Republican rule is a much stronger incentive to coalesce behind the nominee.  I respect contrary opinions, it's just that we cannot lose this election.

      by ivorybill on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:29:01 PM PDT

      •  I know, ivory, I know

        I'm just disgusted (again) right now. I just watched as Senator Entitlement just said that if she doesn't get her do-overs in MI and FL then the Dem candidate isn't legitimate. Just when I think she can't do any lower she breaks out the steam shovel. Its a shame, I started out this season respecting her but that ship has totally sailed.

        by kingubu on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM PDT

  •  You can if you want

    I certainly won't because there is no Democrat on the ballot.  There is someone from the Rethug Party and someone from the Clinton Party.

    by IhateBush on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:10:29 PM PDT

•  You vote for the democrat

  Unfortunately, sometimes you have to choose the candidate you dislike the least.  At the very least, a democratic president would appoint democrats to SCOTUS appointments came up.  And a Clinton foreign policy would be much better then McCains 100 Years War.

  by Nameless Soldier on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:03:54 PM PDT

  •  I'll vote for the Democrat.

    Which will mean writing in Obama if Hillary somehow stages a coup and steals the nomination by doing whatever machiavellian things she has in mind to do to bully the superdelegates. I will not support her at this point: I was looking forward to actually voting for someone for the the first time in decades, instead of voting against the greater evil yet again. And I mean to do exactly that, since my party-blessed D vote would be pretty much wasted in any case in my somewhat red state if she's the name on the D side of the ballot: the local wingnut gentry will most assuredly turn out in droves to bury her.

    Her political machinations represent all I despise in the process, and I will not hold my nose and reward it with my vote: she lost me when she decided to go scorched-earth. And frankly, in the case of a SCOTUS opening, I suspect that she'd name whoever Rupert Murdoch or some of her other corporate owners would tell her to- rather than doing anything that looked like something an actual Democrat or progressive would do. At this point, she's indistinguishable to me from any generic corporate-owned Republican, and I simply cannot and will not vote for one of those- now or at any time in the future. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I've checked the box by the candidate I despise the least too many times. That stops now, for me. Your mileage may vary.

    by skod on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:26:41 PM PDT

  •  This is not true IMO

    And a Clinton foreign policy would be much better then McCains 100 Years War.

    I believe that their foreign policies would roughly be the same, a more intelligent neocon policy.

    by IhateBush on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:11:18 PM PDT

    •  You might be right

      But then again, you might not be.  Once when I had just joined the army, a leader asked for some volunteers for some work detail and no one raised their hands, then he said that he would just pick people unless someone volunteered.  I still didn't raise my hand.  Fact is, I knew that my chance of being on a detail if I volunteered was 100%, my chance if I didn't volunteer was substantially less.

      Clinton's rhetoric is, for the moment, acceptable on Iraq.  There's no telling whether or not that would hold; that's one of the reasons I'm caucusing for Obama.  But, if she could somehow avoid a downticket slaughter, and was sufficiently backed up by a democratic majority in Congress there might be real promise.

      On the other hand, McCain has made it clear that all he wants to do is fuck us over.

      by Nameless Soldier on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:23:28 AM PDT

•  You will do this...as fast as you can:

  http://www.cic.gc.ca/...

  by Izaak Walton on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM PDT

•  Thirst for revenge against Hillary will cost

  far more lives in the world and U.S. than sucking it up and voting to defeat McCain.

  by Los Diablo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:04:58 PM PDT

•  You vote for her in spite of her

  means of getting the nomination.  This is all about the general election.

  Personally, though, I won't vote for her.  Aside from all of her bs during the primary, I'm sexist, I admit it; cannot see having a woman for president.  There, I said it.

  by Shesk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM PDT

  •  Wow...

    just wow...

    by Mr X on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM PDT

    •  My response, too...

      ...simply unbelievable.

      by SLKRR on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:29:38 PM PDT

  •  Um you're on Kos

    Little Green Sexist Footballs is over there.

    by exiledfromTN on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:17 PM PDT

    •  What, is Kos now an anti-honesty site?

      Surely there are other democratic Obama-supporting men here who recognize their sexism (whatever its roots) and aren't emabarrassed to admit it?

      by Shesk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:18:09 PM PDT

      •  I don't believe you

        you are trying to smear male Obama supporters.

        by virtualobserver on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:39:36 PM PDT

      •  not embarrassed to admit bigotry?

        But of course, your statements are anti-rational and absurd, and you should be embarrassed to admit them.

        I am a Obama-supporting man, and I'm embarrassed for you.

        by jakester on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:58:46 PM PDT

  •  Can you explain a little more?

    Why is it that you feel that a woman cannot be President?  Or is this some sort of snark?

    by ivorybill on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:10:59 PM PDT

    •  It's hard to say why, but

      I'm sure some of it has to do with my traditional upbringing of a strong father and a passive mother.  Some of it has to do with bad experiences with working with women over the years, I guess, though it's difficult to determine whether the problem was the women or my preconceptions.  I've found women to act more emotional than men and there always seems to be an irrationality associated with that, that adversely affects decision-making or negotiating.

      Anyway, I'm no psychologist, I can only say what I feel.

       

      by Shesk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:49:04 PM PDT

•  Come in off the ledge.

  Obama leads in all the key metrics.  Delegates, states won, primaries won, caucuses won, popular vote.

  Short of being caught in bed with a live boy or a dead hooker, the Wright thing is about as damaging as it gets.  And the signs from the daily tracking polls don't show implosion.  We'll have a better sense in a week.

  Unless Obama is massively imploding, the Superdelegates are not going to buck the leads in his favor to select Hillary as the nominee.  Not when doing so (1) would, according to polling, be seen as unfair by a vast majority of Democrats, (2) would risk alienating a number of new Democrats, and (3) would risk rejection of a candidate who has brought in gobs and gobs of cash to the race.  

  Superdelegates are not stupid.  They will not allow this to go to Hillary, barring unquestionable doom for Obama from some scandal.  

  She will win Pennsylvania, probably by a lot.  He will likely win North Carolina, and probably Indiana.  They will split the remaining races.  Indeed, Obama's campaign predicted as much months ago (see "The Spreadsheet").  

  As for the general election, I have no faith in polls, taken 8 months before the election, at a time when the brickbats have been out between Obama and Clinton, and McCain has been getting a free ride.  

  Relax.  

  by LarsThorwald on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:35 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Lars...

    ...and everyone else. That's a very reassuring take.

    by mftalbot on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:41:20 PM PDT

•  Sorry - Hillary may be worse than McCain

  10-12 of Hillary's richest donors just offered Michigan $12 Million to run a do-over primary. Our state senate said "no thanks". Our governor, who is a good buddy of Hillary, says there may still be some other alternatives.  As a Michigan resident and Obama supporter, I say NO WAY. This whole game stinks of graft and corruption and trying to buy an election.

  by moose67 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:09:38 PM PDT

  •  corruption vs death?

    Sorry, it's not surprising Clinton is doing everything she can to win, but even so I'll take her corruption over McBush and a potential third war in Iran....

    Not that I think for a second Obama won't win!

    by pakaal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:20:23 PM PDT

  •  Moose67

    Why not take the money and then work for Big O and defeat her with her own money? I'm not from where you are so I doubt I understand, but could you explain? I mean, over 40 percent of the voters rejected her once already I thought.

    Serious question, just wanting to understand.

    by marketgeek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:20:41 PM PDT

  •  Nothing can be worse

    than a wasteful, doomed war against Iran. As bad as HRC may be on some issues, she is less likely to get us into another even worse war than McCain.

    There are no guarantees that we won't end up at war with Iran if McCain is elected.  We cannot let that happen.

    by ivorybill on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:43 PM PDT

•  Vote Against the Republican

  Vote Democratic.

  by The Baculum King on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM PDT

•  Vote for the nominee

  by jandress on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM PDT

•  if you are smart

  You look beyond the 4 year Presidential cycle, and you look at the long-term health of this country.

  And then you realize nothing from the GOP will fix America.  

  And then you realize that enabling the DLC to retain control of the Democratic Party ensures for another 20 years that the Democratic Party will never be able to fix America.

  When you are struggling over the Supreme Court issue, you remind yourself of how little you can trust Sen. Clinton, how she has vacillated and changed her tune on everything from Iraq to NAFTA and everything in between, and often made the wrong decision when it really counted, and that you can't really trust her to appoint a strong liberal to the Supreme Court either.

  And then you do everything you can to help make sure she loses, so that the Democratic Party may become the voice of progressive change in this country and begin the hard work of healing America.

  by RidleyGriff on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:11:23 PM PDT

•  Let's keep this issue moot, please.

  In the event, if Clinton is the nominee, I hope you will show up, hold yor nose, think of the Supreme Court, and vote for her. And bring a bucket to catch your vomit, if you must.
  But save your enthusiasm, your money, and your time for the downticket issues. If Clinton thinks she can get into office the same way that The Other Clinton ran his Presidency - i.e., a "Triangulation" strategy that had nothing but contempt for the party base and took them for granted - well, we've got to vote against McCain no matter what; but we don't have to actively reward her.
  But, in the meantime: work like heck to make sure the party - by which I mean the superdelegates - also don't reward her. Let's keep this issue moot, please.

  by Warren Terra on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:13:03 PM PDT

•  Vote for the Democrat in the fall

  You'll be voting for Obama.  It is decided in every state except Hillaryland, and the Hillaryland delegates aren't going to be seated.

  by nwgates on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM PDT

•  i was on that same ledge a couple days ago

  Listen to Lars above. He speaks the truth. It will be ok. The only way she can win the nomination is through superdelegates going against all other election factors.

  As for my vote, if for some magical steal she wins the nomination: it would take a lot for me to get off that ledge with you.

  In the words of Mika: Relax, take it easy....

  by itsolivia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:14:41 PM PDT

•  Long term...

  Sitting out the election could be disastrous, especially since there will be Supreme Court justice appointments that will indeed need to be made somewhere down the line.  We certainly don't want McCain to make those nominations, no matter how much some of us dislike Hillary.

  This is why I'm torn.  I believe Obama will be elected.  But if he's not, we have to look beyond Nov. 2008 and try to get a Democrat in for our nation's sake.

  by KWiz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:17:58 PM PDT

•  I will vote for Obama this November,

  whether he's on the ballot or not.

  I don't care anymore.

  I will not reward Rovian fear and smear campaigning.  Obama's big draw (among other big draws) is that he shows it's possible to win elections and change the system without being Machiavellian.

  As far as I'm concerned, Clinton is a sociopath and a liar.  She lied about Obama, she lied about her position on NAFTA, and she lied about her position on environmental issues (specifically, mountaintop-removal coal mining).

  I don't trust anything that comes out of her mouth anymore.  How can I tell if she's really going to be progressive, or if she's blowing smoke up our asses, and plans to betray us to the corporations and right wingers.

  So go ahead and tell me she'll be better than McCain.  The truth is I don't think that's actually true, so what do I have to lose by voting for Obama, even if it's a protest vote?

  by meldroc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:20:37 PM PDT

  •  I will join you.

    I will not vote for Clinton. I will not support someone who lies that unabashedly.

    Her entire campaign is built on false premises.

    by ProfessorX on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:29:50 PM PDT

•  Vote your conscience and you can't lose. n/t

  by philimus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:24:50 PM PDT

•  I understand your frustration...

  But a good citizen votes for the best candidate out of the choices available.

  In a contest between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Hillary CLinton would make the best president. It's not even close.

  by copithorne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM PDT

  •  Maybe so...

    ...but I still want to sleep at night.

    If Clinton gets the nomination, she's going to get slaughtered in the general.

    Only 55% of African Americans would vote for Hillary, so her nomination is a lost cause.

    I would seriously consider leaving the party altogether if the supers overturn the will of the people.

    by ProfessorX on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM PDT

    •  Maybe...

      You do happen to be borrowing trouble using borrowed trouble as collateral.

      If Hillary is nominated Barack Obama will be the VP. He will buck us all up and get us on board.

      by copithorne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM PDT

•  Winning and Power

  Me, I'm just guy in Austin doing well enough to buy a house and cover most of my wife's and my expenses. I'm a pacifist at heart, and I feel pretty sickened by the campaign that Hillary is running.

  It's easy for me to imagine that it wasn't Republicans that unearthed the videos of Obama's former minister.

  Having said all that, my boss said to me some time ago that one reason he'd prefer Hillary (which was insufficient to overcome the five reasons he went for Obama) is that the Clintons are ruthless, and when it comes to the general election, they will to anything to defeat McCain. A-ny-thing.

  I hate that.

  I hate that it requires that.

  But the fight she's showing now, all the things we hate now, would get turned on McCain should she win the nomination. And she would not walk away from a Florida 2000 kind of situation.

  I'd much prefer Obama. He speaks to my spirit and my preferred way of living in the world. I'd much prefer not having another Clinton. It would feel like looking backward rather than forward. It would feel like, once again, the wealthy have won. And in some ways they would have.

  But there are dozens of other small things, as others have pointed out. The judicial openings. All the different levels of the civil service that Bush decimated.

  For all those reasons, I would gladly vote Hillary over McCain in November.

  Even though, living in Texas, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

  by reklemrov on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:26:42 PM PDT

  •  I respectfully disagree with your choice ...

    ... but honor your decision-making process and your values. As a fellow Obama supporter, I must say you are a better man than I am.

    Thanks for the dose of much-needed perspective.

    by philimus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM PDT

  •  Too bad

    I can only rec this comment once. Very nicely put.

    by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:16 PM PDT

•  we are better than Hillary's angry supporters, so

  vote for the Democrat

  protect SCOTUS, its too important to hold a grudge over.

  by MasterSitsu on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:14 PM PDT

•  Years ago, Walter Lippman

  A really old style liberal said that the election of Nixon would strengthen the democratic party for the next election. And it did, but at a cost that we are still paying for today.

  The costs: complete public distrust of government--the beginning of the drown it in the bathtub set; many of the major players (except for mini-me shrub) were part of that administration and salivated for the opportunity to regain power and re-establish the royal presidency--which they have done; the birth of the right wing noise machine in an effort to regain credibility and votes; the development and refinement of the southern strategy, the politics of fear etc.; the belief that civil liberties are a minor concern in comparison to the possibility that  "those people" (aka anyone who isn't republican) might come to power. And the precedent established, by not following through with impeachment, that the imperial presidency was okay except for a minor campaign gaffe.

  We really can't afford more of this destruction, so, sadly, if it should come to that, I recommend getting a grip on those nasal passages.

  by marketgeek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:33:36 PM PDT

•  Here's my very heavily considered view of this...

  I used to support Clinton until I researched her voting record and position on issues.  I decided "anybody but Clinton" early in the race.  There were two reasons:

  1. She is as hawkish as a Democrat can get.  Hawkish to the point of scaring the hell out of me.

  2. She is a habitual liar.

  Now, that said, I would have had few problems supporting any Democrat except her.

  John McCain scares me.  He scares me a lot.  He's a hawk, but at least he had reasonable positions on torture to the left (read: humane) side of things back before Hillary changed her mind.

  I have seen what a fearful Democratic minority will do for political convenience.  It is not pretty.

  If it's a choice between Hillary and McCain it will be a choice between Democrats who won't put up a fight when McCain starts picking Supreme Court justices (even though John McCain has previously held reasonable positions on Supreme Court justices) but WILL put up a fight when John McCain starts declaring wars on everybody and Democrats who won't put up a fight when Hillary Clinton decides to do ANYTHING.

  So, it's a tough choice between a combative, conflicted, split legislature and executive with McCain or a complicit, brain-dead, soulless Democratic legislature and executive under Clinton.

  by NotablyZen on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM PDT

  •  Well, exactly.

    So, it's a tough choice between a combative, conflicted, split legislature and executive with McCain or a complicit, brain-dead, soulless Democratic legislature and executive under Clinton.

    That's a pretty good summary of the problem if my fears are realized at the convention.

    To think I was so looking forward to this year...

    by mftalbot on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM PDT

•  If Obama doesn't win the nom, it will be...

  ...because of the Jeremiah Wright fiasco.  How would that be Senator Clinton's doing?

  by Larry Bailey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:42:50 PM PDT

  •  she above all people should stand up

    She knows what a right-wing smear looks like.  Rev. Wright's comments, while incendiary, should absolutely NOT be what this election is won or lost on.  She as a fellow Democrat and wanna-be leader of this country should stand with Obama to denounce the smear campaign directed at Rev. Wright (and the entire Trinity United Church of Christ congregation).

    She chooses to sit this one out, however, letting the smears work their magic on the polls and the electorate.  Shame on you, Senator Clinton.  You know better than this.

    by jakester on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM PDT

    •  Even John McCain

      said to Hannity's face that he knows Obama, and that Obama does not share those views.  In the clip, you could see his irritation with his sigh about being asked about the association.

      by IhateBush on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:09:14 PM PDT

    •  So that's how you work your way to assigning...

      ...blame for that fiasco to Senator Clinton.  Have you checked to see how many of Senator Obama's high-level supporters (Kennedy, Kerry, et al) have rushed to his side to denounce as a smear the disgust most people are feeling at the words of Jeremiah Wright?  

      by Larry Bailey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:28:39 PM PDT

•  Vote your heart

  and for me, that is John McCain, if Clinton is the nominee.

  by IhateBush on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:06:53 PM PDT

•  McCain thanks you for your

  support. And you forfeit every right to complain about whatever he does if you choose to be the martyrdom liberal.

  by oceanstar17 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:49:02 PM PDT

•  Mnemonic device: HINTS.

  H - Healthcare.

  I -- Iraq.

  N -- National debt.

  T -- Torture.

  S -- Supreme Court.

  On all 5, either Dem is better than McCain.

  Don't pull a Nader!

  by HeyMikey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM PDT