Question: What Do We Do If Hillary Wins?
I feel bad for Howard Dean. Really, I do. The man just has a politician's version of Tourette's syndrome. I'm sure when he said that he wanted to bring "the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement" in order to create unity at the DNC, he didn't mean for it to sound like some kind of crazy conspiratorial Bilderberg Group meeting between hooded members of the Skulls and Bones society, consisting of Kennedys, Bushes, and the remaining decedents of Vlad the Impaler.
Oh, but Howie, it did sound a little strange.
I get his anxiety, though. With all these statewide 50/50 splits between Hillary and Barack, the Democrats are already acting like it's a presidential election! Never before in the history of the country have we acted so indecisive, so early. All Howie meant by his cryptic remarks is that we need a front-runner because what happens if -yikes- Hillary Clinton gets the nomination?
Will Progressives sacrifice the pureness of their consciences for the sake of backing the only Democratic candidate left standing? Or let's say Barack takes the nomination: will Hillary's people rush to support him? Michael Moore says he is morally prohibited from voting for Hillary Clinton, and I agree with him.
I can't in good conscience vote for a woman who labeled the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization.
I can't vote for a woman who voted to give President Bush authorization to invade Iraq, regardless of what she claims about not thinking he would use the power she helped give him.
I can't vote for a woman who sat on the board of Wa-Mart, yet now pretends like she's not in the pocket of big business.
I can't vote for a woman who thinks working "35 years for change" means working 15 of those 35 years for a law firm that represented big businesses.
I won't vote for her even if Ralph Nader decides not to run.
I wouldn't vote for her if she was the last Democrat on Earth.
I'm sick of compromising my principles just so the Republicans won't win, as if Hillary Clinton is anything but a triangulating conservative in liberal's clothing.
There is a deep divide in the Democratic party between Progressives and the traditionalists, like Hillary Clinton, that helped sell the rest of us down the river. I've heard from many people that they would loathe seeing another Clinton in the White House, and so I wonder what will happen come election time if Hillary is indeed our presidential candidate. Perhaps this is all talk, and once the cold feet set in, liberals will sprint to the voting booth, and vote Hillary in, nonetheless.
The anxiety is palpable in the Democratic party, which is why Howard Dean, as usual, gave the game away with his complete ineptitude of maintaining a serious poker face. What was once considered an easy Democratic victory now seems up for grabs, so he's eager to work something out quickly. Maybe he plans to cajole one of the front-runners into taking a V.P. nomination, though I can't see Barack or Hillary taking second place at this point.
Mitt Romney's resignation from the campaign trail is indicative of the Republican strategy for victory: unite at any cost, even if you hate the bastard representing your party. Though everyone from Coulter to Limbaugh are busily chastising professional old bastard, McCain, they'll surely vote for him at election time. However, Democrats have a hard time voting against the consciences like that. If voters hate Hillary, they may simply stay home come November.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you are going to quote Michael Moore to support your Argument please use the entire sentence. Mr Moore stated quite clearly that he was speaking about the primary election and not the general.
http://www
As a Republicans who believes in very small goverment, I used to be very concerned about Obama. He seems to be the guy who could move country as much to the left as Regan moved it to the right. I reached out to my Democratic friends tying to figure out what is going on with the guy. I could not find any clear positions he took except being against the war and pro-change (whatever that means).
It got to the point that I was considering donating money to Hillary to make sure Obama does not win nomination. And I trully despise Hillary...
Howver, over the past 6 weeks I got more comfortable with Obama. He took the same money from big bussiness as others candidates. I spoke to some of his donors from NY, who already were promissed "direct access" if he wins. He already changed his position on some of the issues to make sure he is electable.
On one hand I am sad as I was hoping for true visionary. On another hand I am happy that Obama is not that, as I do not want the country to move to the left...
this is how i want you, your bible thumping hustlers, blue suit gays, and wizened beat up blondes to campaign: "barack is just as sleazy as a republican". that ought to get the fundie base grinding it's tooth. please try to lower obama to your level. and keep the old coot on his box so he can see over the podium. ought to be quite a debate, with mccain yelling, "get off my lawn" after he describes his he-man credentials.
One issue that has to be considered is the environment. Who is more likely to take some action to improve the degradation of our environment - Who is more likely to respond to pressure from constituents on this issue - republiscum or dimocract? Dimocrat is our best bet - it is a lottery folks, unfortunately. So, I will vote dimocrat because I have to vote my child's interests (the viability of a future) over my own. Do I still hope for a hail mary at the convention with a Gore/Edwards ticket? Yes. Will I vote for whoever is nominated? Yes - I won't like it but I have no choice.
I don’t know if the media is giving candidates like Clinton & Huckabee a fair game. They are pushing Obama no matter what and assuming McCain is the sole republican running. Overall I do enjoy the WP editorials.
Also, check out the articles “Red States’ and ‘Latino States” http://sav
Let's look at all the ways Hillary could win the nomination. 1) She wins the required number of delegates without needing the superdelegates or the delegates from Florida and Michigan. The problem is that a lot of Obama supporters won't rally behind her. Many of his supporters are independents and moderate Republicans. Those people are more likely to choose McCain over Hillary. 2) She wins but only because the superdelegates choose her. That'll just make it look like party insiders picked her. It's bad enough when people feel like she got to be a senator because of who she was married to, but when your husband's political friends pick you, that's even worse. Many Democrats will be so outraged they won't vote for her, even if it means McCain becomes President. 3) She manages to get the delegates from Florida and Michigan seated. This'll just look like she cheated to win the nomination and many Democrats will refuse to vote for her.
Now let's say she wins the nomination and wins the general election. Who actually thinks she'll get anything accomplished as President? The Republicans hate her with a passion and even if they can't stop her from being elected, they'll do everything to make her fail as a President. They will never support any legislation she tries to push through. Any Republican supporting her will be branded as a traitor. In the end, she won't be an effective President. Obama has much more crossover appeal and will have an easier time working with Republicans.
I'm guessing that this Anti-Hillary fervor is coming from primarily younger voters who came into the body politic within the last 10 years. It smacks of the exact attitude toward her that Rush and all the pundits of the last decade have perpetrated in the press. The kids have been influenced in their childhood.
You're making a lot of assumptions. I know Hillary's voting record inside and out, and it isn't rosy. I also know just what happened in the 90s.
"Humans kill each other."? Nice one. Talk about facile thinking.
Typical troll-speak, "If you won't vote for so-and-so, you MUST be a nazi..."
Only with Hillary's trolls, it's always, 'you MUST hate women', or 'you MUST be a republiscum". This new 'MUST be programmed juveniles' is so ridiculous though, that it's laughable. In all fairness, the 'MUST be a limpballs republiscum' was ALSO used here.
I'm SURE that the troll attacks at HuffingtonPost will win their candidate many votes, just like it did for rovian trolls in '06.
You are so right! Hillary worse than McCain? NO! Get a grip. Obama didn't vote for the war because he was not in the Senate, then. It's easy to now say that you wouldn't have voted for the war when you know the outcome. I think that Hillary has repudiated her vote. Hillary and Obama, whomever wins, will bring new people into a new administration. That is what is needed.
Whether Hillary or Obama win, vote for the Democrat.
I was reminded by this being the 40th anniversary of a major speech by RFK that this time 40 years ago, I thought he would be the next president, not Humphrey losing to Nixon.
John Kerry won in 2004. Gore won in 2000. Do we see a trend here? Only with overwhelming numbers of Democratic votes will things change.
VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT.
What a bunch of bullroar - really, it is.
So, don't vote for her - 84% equally said they WOULD vote for either candidate if they won the nomination.
If you prefer McCain's no policy/plan and continuation of same - then pull you stunt and hurt the party.
Shame on you.
Vote for the Nazi party? The communist party? The war party? The traitor party? The party that will not obey the law and force the President to do the same? shame you say? I say the same! oh I get it.. you mean vote for the party! The big party of perverts and war profiteers that taze, torture, imprison and kill, innocent people at home and abroad and when their supporters rig elections and change our votes the wonderous self righteous candidates remain silent repressing their inner glee at undermining America in a way that makes the "attack" on 911 look like a picnic.
A few thousand lives are nothing to compare with a few million votes!
That is the best way to terrorize the American people.
After all when you blow up a building and kill some people you can push your agenda on some to trusting or simple minded people.
But when you rig the elections you destroy America all of it. All at once.
84% of democrats, maybe, but not 84% of Obama voters, when a good portion of those votes are coming from independents and republicans.
Barack's cross-over appeal is as much the main point of this blog as is Hillary's resounding negatives with true progressives, who tend to trend independent or Green party.
The concisely stated thoughts of MANY progressives here, Allison, and expressed in an eloquent simplicity for the densest of kool-aid saturated 'party' noggins.
Let's hope those 'traditionalists' hold their collective breath too long(uh, I really mean don't) waiting for progressives to 'get their votes out' for status quo, corporate approved, aristocracy candidates like 'the Clintons'.
I wonder if this economic stimulus package wasn't ALWAYS really intended TO BUY VOTES of tranquility from the masses this fall, so that the number of rebeling voters won't get out of hand, and we can be force fed candidates ....once again. How will the illogic of borrowing even more money OUR country doesn't have, to help people pay their bills for a week or two but creating interest to be paid back for years, possibly in ANY REAL WAY HELP the economy for the long term, or fix any of the problems caused by the corporate favoritism in the first place?
End the INSANE OCCUPATION, and the economy would likely explode with the NEW SPENDING AT HOME. Energy and defense industries might suffer, however, and so we instead colonize another people's country on the other side of the planet for THEIR natural resources.
The Iraq Authorization/Levin Amendment AND the Kyle-LIEberman votes DO, as you imply, force my conscience.
I think that this is one of the most foolish stances to have. "I'm sick of compromising my principles just so the Republicans won't win." -- well sorry for you. Ours isn't a perfect world, and I would commend this statement if our Republicans hadn't gone off the deep end in these last seven years. I do think the party at large continues to head in that direction -- though maybe not as largely so.
When voting (in the general election) you have to think beyond yourself and exactly what will please you. Compromise is simply a reality. Deal with it. To chance another Republican in power will not bring about very many progressive causes or Supreme Court justices.
There ARE progressives that believe 'the pendulum MUST swing' and that, IF the collective 'corporate party' is able to AGAIN force compromised candidates on OUR country - ones that could not possibly understand REAL change, that the 'lesson' of THIS preznutz, and the last 7 years, ...HAS NOT been learned.
What do you gain by "compromising" when that actually means surrender, when "your" candidate supports exactly the same stuff as that other party's?
The truth is that both parties haave been run by the same lobbies. Enough! But note: while Murdock raises funds for Hillary (following that nice breakfast they had together) and lobbyists fill her coffers, Obama has taken NOT ONE DIME from them. Your guess is probably as good as mine which of the two is committed to their service! Isn't it?
And as for the race card being used, note who said "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" and figure out for yourself what was meant by that and why it was uttered.
It was NOT Black votes that won for Obama in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, North Dakota and Alaska. But we still hear some harping on his winning Louisiana because he got the Black vote there. Why?
Obama has made it clear that he is seeking to be the American president, not the Black president or the Male president.
I do not think Washington went for Obama because he is a man; they have TWO women Senators and a woman governor, so there is little reason tgo believe there is much anti-woman vote there. And Obama won two to one. Must be they see something right about him -- or something wrong about Hillary -- or both.
We need to overcome the silliness of division. I believe Obama can help us do that. I like very much the way he has conducted his caampaign. Consider the way he defended the Clinton assertionn on Johnson. When some were upset by it, he stepped in and said that there was nothing racist in it but merely a perception of how things were accomplished. Would Hillary have donne the same if by some chance some had latched onto something to stir up sexist charges against his camp? I think not. But it is my perception that he is already trying hard to move us away from such behavior.
As for potential Supreme Court Justices, I think we need to see that there are bad choices with both labels. I probably wouldn't like HRC's choice any better bthan McCain's. What I want is a GOOD American choice for a change! I think we have a better channce of that with Obama.
And those who sit out an election that doesn't offer us a meaningful choice are merely voting against our corrupted system. Look at the openning we have to lure those back and win by giving them something to be FOR -- for a change!
Compromise is not full surrender. If we had a larger democratic majority in both houses of Congress, we would not have to "surrender". Clinton does not support the "exact same stuff" as the Republicans.
If you think Obama hasn't taken money from lobbyists, then you're a fool. He's taken money from lobbyists spouses, children, friends just as Clinton has. He even has lobbyists working in his campaign. He has in fact led a great grassroots effort in funding. Both our candidates have, but to think that just because your preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination -- you won't vote at all in the general is surrender itself. Clinton and Obama want the same things, they just seek it in different ways. They're both politicians through and through.
You know it is interesting that you think this election is only about you. Every time you hear an easy throw away statement that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans you are so wrong. Ralph Nadar started this and now I see others continuing. Just to name a few, the democrats support Kyoto on global warming and the republicans promptly buried it. Gas prices under the last democrat administration were almost half of what it is now. We had many fiends around the world and eight years ago and now we are a falling power. Don’t forget that Hillary has been working for the people longer than Obama.
So please, this is not about only you. I will vote for whoever the democratic candidate is. I also know that Hillary can actually win in the Electoral College hands down while due to the brilliant decision from “other side” of the democratic intelligentsia to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan that Obama will now likely lose those two states, along with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and New Jersey. I would be happy to discuss this calculus with anyone.
The people running his campaign have lost with Gore (yeah get away from Bill Clinton – sounds familiar?) and Kerry when they let Kerry get pummeled over the entire summer after a 15 point lead without fighting back and then Lost.
So please, don’t vote for Hillary and risk losing for the third time in a row because you are idealistic which is great but know that if the Democrats lose you will wish you did vote for whoever was on that ticket.
Every president since Reagan have kept gasoline prices artificially low. Just because Bush II took the gloves off, doesn't mean Clinton was great progressive president.
Bill Clinton was single-handedly responsible for destroying our manufacturing base and for imprisoning an entire generation of young white, black and Latino inner city and poor youth. Ne also gutted our regulatory agencies well before Bush II performed the coup de grace.
There is a reason why Alan Greenspan called him the best republican president in a generation.
Time to get rid of the Clinton myth.
Obama '08!
The only person who could have gotten me to vote for HRC has already left the race, and that is Giuliani. Refusing to vote is one option that is open to us. The idea that somehow we are abdicating our responsibility as citizens if we don't vote is ridiculous. Sometimes your conscience dictates a third option. If HRC gets the nomination, I will vote for Nader if he runs. That way, I will participate and not feel sullied.
If you go barking up a tree like this you only prove the historical tendencies of the Democratic party. Republicans love this.
Did someone dial in "progressive" and give you the pirated DVD, so you own it? Come up with some new words - "neo-progressive" or to be apt for today's hipness - "the LOST".
What has not changed for 219 years will not change this November - US politics. As long as you keep to yourself you are safe, but once you take a stand in public, you are subject to scrutiny and either must offend, defend, retreat or confront. In politics the only way to survive is by principled compromise.
We really are not recovering from the effects of Clintonian Triangulation - whatever the fuck that means- we were attacked by, yes, " The Right Wing Conspiracy" whose prayers were answered by Monica Lewinsky and Osama Bin Laden. The fear of a blow-job and a small band of hijackers got us where we are, negating any gains the Clintons, in their progressive way, sought.
Bad trust by Clinton for what Bush was up to is equal to Obamas continuence votes. Leadership and inspiration are a mythological lie as soon as they leave the lips of the speaker, because they get interpreted separately by each of us. Give me the actual plan, don't say a fucking thing to me via persuasion and let me build the future with or without the help of my brothers and sisters.
If Hillary is the nominee I vote Nader or stay home.
The Democratic Party has a serious problem. The core of the Party is working men and women. The leadership of the party has tried to foist this Obama fraud on us. What will the rank and file do if they succeed? No one knows the answer. McCain can easily push to the center if he captures the nomination. Bloomberg is cooking up something. And there is always Newt Gingrich ready to pick up the pieces.
Ted Kennedy already did us in once with Jimmy Carter. The people of Massachusetts showed they are not buying his baloney. Kennedy took his roadshow to California with lovely Caroline (I mean I really do like the Kennedy's, always have, but Teddy has taken a dive on this one), and Arnold's wife and Oprah. CA didn't buy it either.
There's a crisis for sure. I don't even blame Obama. He reminds me of Eddie Murphy in Trading Places.
However, when the dust settles, if Hillary is not the nominee, then the average working man can kiss the middle class goodby. He/she is headed for impoverishment. Of course the so-called upper-middle will hang on by a thread. Think I'm kidding? Check your oil bill and batten down for the recession.
If Ralph Nader runs?? He is currently running for a chance at the presidential spot on the Green Party ticket as are Cynthia McKinney and two other candidates. I don't know anyone in any party that thinks the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the group that took Americans hostage when Carter was Pres, are a bunch of sweethearts doing international good works. They are terrorists. As to board positions at Wal-Mart, Mrs. Obama sat on the board at Treehouse foods a supplier and division of Wal-Mart and the board of a large HMO. Mr. Obama's five hours of legal work for chairity was for a lawfirm that did corporate work and work that let a future contributer get deals to make housing for the poor that never got refurbished and then his BFF lawfirm client walked with the money that was supposed to save the poor. He knew and did nothing. He also did nothing, thats right nothing, to stop the war in Iraq when he got to federal office and he voted continously to fund it.
A lot of people need to examine their values in this race all right. The same values that made them label Al Gore a corporate lacky and vote Nader giving the election to Bush. That means those voters voted for Bush even if it was through the back door. There are no "pure" politicians. Get over you personal egos and vote for the general party that at least has a chance of achieving some of the goals you share. Finally quit using the progressive title to cover not voting for any type of achievements but as an excuse to stay "ideologically pure". Constantly running down the best candidates for not agreeing with everything you believe and or for being hard working and boring just elects republicans and trendy weak candidates. It means nothing will ever change.
It is true that Iran has been involved in terrorist activities. It is also true that the US has been covertly aiding the MEK, a group that has assassinated high-level figures in the Iranian govt. If the Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, so is the state department. If Iran were to support any group that has done what the MEK has done, we have nuked them. Would you vote for anything sponsored by Joe Lieberman?
I am morally opposed to voting for another not qualified candidate for president - so no I will not vote for Obama should he get the nomination
I think his supporters are cult like and have the blindness of insanity. You have given the man a hell of alot of milage on one speech and forgot the fact that his and Hills voting record on the war is exactly the same - the exception being one that the author of this post points out - your boy didn't even bother to vote present on that one - he just did show up
Yes there is a split and as you keep threatening that Barry's supporters may not support HRC, I am here to tell you the feeling goes both ways. I will not support this flim flam scam of a man.
happy to vote for McCain
If you are a democrat and won't for Obama then you re not a true democrat. It is true that many of Barack's support comes from independents and republicans, but none of Hillary's does. So, since her supporters are all "real democrats" they should be happy to vote for Barack.
As for the experience canard, that has been answered so many times on his site that if you still try and trot this one out, you are obviously a paid troll of some sort. This kind of willful ignorance just isn't normal.
However, if you actually are a democrat and have somehow bought into the talking points about Barack, I suggest you do a little homework of your own vice letting the Clinton campaign or the corporate media paint the picture for you.
He has a long legislative record that you can look up that has informed his answers in this 52-minute uncut interview with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle that was very illuminating, even for an Obama supporter: http://www
Or you can look here for some more answers: http://www
It is so much more than one speech that I am actually done trying to explain it to you. I am afraid that a small percentage of this country won't get it no matter what we say. Some people are so afraid of change that they will never see what is right in front of their face.
Thank god most of us actually can see and will ensure that Barack gets elected. You're welcome.
Loading comments…
Posted February 8, 2008 | 09:24 PM (EST)