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

[sarah99]

I completely agree! At first I thought I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she won. I have changed my mind. George W. was the worst case scenario for me - and we've been there. I do not believe it helps the Democratic party or the country to have the Clintons in office (and I was hugely pro-Clinton in the 90s). We don't need sleeze, do-anything-to-win (regardless of who it harms), Rovian tactics, secrecy, take any politically useful position (Iraq, cluster bombs, flag burning amendments).

With her in the office for one term (in all likelihood) - we will lose the government for 20 years. She is divisive to the extreme.

I will vote for McCain before I vote for the Clinton's.

[stoprollingover]

Then you will be voting for a man that will appoint more right-wingers to the Supreme Court, and they will further destroy the Constitution.

It is rigidity like yours that gave us George W. Bush in the first place. There are a lot of self-satisfied Nader supporters out there who are having to watch $10,000,000,000.00 per month go down the drain for a phony war...not to mention the lives destroyed.

p.s. I love Ralph Nader for the service he has given to this country. Nevertheless, he was a spoiler whose ego helped put George W. Bush in the White House.

[Politihal]

If one believes in the unity message of Senator Obama, then how can any Democrat not vote for the Democratic Party's nominee, whomever that nominee will be? That is the same as admitting that Senator Obama's message is nothing more than a fairy tale.

It isn't Hillary Clinton that is the polarizing figure in American politics, or McCain as the conservative wing of the Republican party would have their party members believe. It is Americans who continue to see the bad in a politician when it isn't their politician, and can only see the good in the candidate they support.

The fact is that all candidates have their strengths; they all have their weaknesses, save for that rare time in American political history when America makes a huge mistake and votes in an unqualified, truly incompetent leader.

Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

[Jaxyl]

Because the democratic party is not united, it is divided because of Hilary. A vote for unity is a vote for Obama, a vote for disorder is a vote for Clinton.

[song]

The unity message of obama is just plain hot fuking air, even his wife doesn't beleive in it

Question: Will you support the democrat nominee, whoever he or she will be

Michelle Obama: I'll have to think about it ( ya right)

so much for unity... lol

go drink more kool-aid you hypocrits

personally i'd vote for obama if he wins, even thou i'm liking him less and less with his holier then thou attitude and the fanatism and hatred that his fans are spewing, its starting to creep me out more and more because it reminds me of a cult ~_~

[qwr]

You are quite wrong, and it is you who have been spewing hate all over this thread. All you have to do is look at the Huffington Post. Yes, there is a anti-Clinton strain on these pages. But it started to appear before Obama even entered into the picture. It intensified with every bad vote she made, every outrageous speech she made. My dislike for Hillary, and my vow to never again vote for a Clinton has nothing to do with Obama. I am more comfortable with my stance the more I learn about the 90s and the policies of the Clinton administration.

[CHGORUNR]

Why is it ok for women to be sexist?

I find it particularly repugnant when some women – like Hillary, Gloria Steinman (in her inane recent NyTimes Op-Ed piece), and Female 45 here– exploit their own gender, especially through blatant sexism against men (Note: sexism is ANY discrimination based on gender; it is not solely discrimination against women).

Over the course of my 20 years in the work force at law firms big and small, I have been the victim of women getting ahead (i.e., making more money than me) simply because of their gender and not their merits. So, Female45, get a grip on reality– unfair and bad things do not just happen to women; and being the first female presidential candidate does not entitle Hillary to be the Dem. nominee.

I am an over-educated (multiple degreed) 45 yr. old white male. I am also an Independent voter. If Hillary (and Bill) gets the Dem. nomination, I can guarantee you I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY (or Bill, again), and McCain’s uber-conservative Supreme Court nominees be damned.

My position has nothing to do with Hillary's gender. The FACT that Hillary cannot stand on her own and run her own campaign without Bill trash-talking Obama and Wolf Blitzer sucking-up (among other sycophantic surrogates) is yet one more reason – after all those enumerated by Ms. Kilkenney– why I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY (should she steal, via back-room Super Delegate deals, the Dem. Pres. Nomination).

[SShaw490]

Seriously, it's time for Obama to go independent. That's really the only solution. Hillary's people won't back Obama; Obama's people won't back Hillary. The only way to work this out is for Obama, Hillary and McCain to got at it in the general, eliminate one of them and have a run off, then wind up with a winner.

Obama has the organization, he has the money and he has the ability to beat any of the other two in the general election. And that would (hopefully) be the end of the strict two party system in America, for which America would be eternally in Barack's debt.

For Obama to have to stoop to bribing/threatening/begging superdelegates to support him is to sacrifice his own campaign that calls for a new kind of politics. Begging superdelegates for their support just takes Obama into the same political slime pit that Hillary swims in every day.

[sky2evan]

Sshaw:

I had this idea, too - "pull a Lieberman", which would be ironic since that's his Senate mentor (voluntarily or involuntarily, I don't know, but Lieberman is not my role model). However, I think he should wait until the Democratic nomination outcome is clear. If he loses the nomination because of superdelegates, or because of MI or FL delegates being seated unfairly without holding their primaries again, then he can consider going Independent... and there may be significant pressure for his supporters to do so. (I would help to apply pressure.) It would truly be a "movement".

He can be the first Independent president in about 200 years. Clinton, Obama, McCain is a pretty stark contrast, and I think many Republican voters who "hate" McCain & Clinton will vote for Obama. There is no need for a run-off.

[remc]

I've been thinking that's a good idea too, but who would run with him as VP? The only declared independents on the national level are Jeffords and Leiberman, and he's already endorsed McCain (not that we'd want him).

[SShaw490]

Whoever wants to. They'd just have to drop their party affiliation.

How about Bloomberg? He'd bring all the experience, economic and "what businesses have you run" boifides that you can stand.

[bookish]

Edwards?

[ALMAL]

there won't be cocuses on general election,obama will loose

[ESerafina42]

No offense but this is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard or read in a long time.

In case you haven't noticed, we have a Constitution (just barely, but we still have it), as well as some election laws. There won't be a runoff. If the Democrats in Congress managed to pass a law allowing one, the R's would laugh in their faces, and Dubya certainly wouldn't sign it, if it would even be allowed to change the rules this far into the game. Having the three of them "go at it" would mean either that McCain wins or it goes to the House, which, by the way, is not decided by a one-person one-vote thing, but by state. Whatever happened and whoever got in, including your precious Barack, they would be tainted (as Bill Clinton was), by the mantra "He/she didn't win 50% of the vote." Of course our present Dear Leader had the same problem and didn't let that stop him, but that's one way that he became the most reviled "President" in history, maybe even surpassing Nixon.

[SShaw490]

There has to be a runoff. If Obama, Clinton and McCain all run in the general, nobody will get the (as I recall) required 271 electoral votes on the first ballot. One would have to be eliminated and the other two would have to have a runoff.

There have been situations like this in the past and they figured it out. It's not complicated. Contrary to common belief, the idea of a two party system isn't in the Constitution.

[illinoisan]

Hillary voters will back Obama, just not the tiny minority of them who post comments here.

I braved absolutely foul weather and had to make all sorts of tedious arrangements in order to get to the polls to vote for Obama. I just can't see myself doing that for Hillary.

I doubt if Obama would run as an independent. In fact, I bet he would campaign for Hillary, trying to get people like me to the polls to vote against McCain. That would be a tough sell even for Obama if our candidate virtually guarantees a reign of bitterness, recrimination and unending scandal.

[johnnygoodwud]

'female 45' this comment is for you. in the beginning of your post you mention all the discrimination you suffered as a woman growning up, i.e. not being able to sit in the front seat, etc. but than you make an excuse for hillary voting for the war in iraq, because you have to go along with the group with what they are voting for. you must be kidding. are you one of those poor wounded souls whos mirroring her own life in hillarys? do you really want your daughter growing up looking at hillary at a role model. do you really want your daughter to be an enabler, to be treated the way bill clinton has treated her the past 20 yrs. do you really want your daughter to be a phoney and a liar? great role model female 45. let me ask you, would you vote for hillary is she were not a woman? i doubt it. do you think hillary inspires people, does she give people hope, does she make people want to be more? hardly. as one of your fellow feminists recently wrote on a great blog i read. GET SOME THERAPY, and get over yourself. being a woman today, allows you the freedom to stand up and vote for whoever you feel is best qualified, not as you say, 'go along with the crowd'. you know what, i've been dumped a brused by a couple females in my life, and it didn't feel very nice. but, i love women, admire strong, independent, self-thinking woman. if you're a true feminist, than take a stand, 'grow a set' and vote for the best candidate, not just because of someones gender.

[research]

The corporations have "allowed" Obama and Clinton to proceed because neither is threatening their profits. Since all Honest candidates have already been excluded, everything from now on will be game fluff to win the election.

Obama and Clinton, cannot propose eliminating the health insurance companies for fear of what all that health insurance money could do to them. That goes for any and all other, perceived anti-corporatist proposals.

For instance pot legalization. Or ending war as a continuing welfare system for the war profiteers.

Don't expect to get what you vote for.

STILL: I'm going to vote democratic and hope for the best. The Alternative is the Rethug Rapture.

[illinoisan]

There is an argument to be made, albeit a cynical one, for letting the rethugs inherit the Bush catastrophe if Hillary is the only alternative.

[female45]

okay so I don't think it's a mistake that we "older" females are Hillary supporters..you youngsters just really have not had to live the majority of your life with the realization that as a female you just are not going to have it fair. Being discounted has been a fact of life for most of us girls over 40. From not being allowed to play pinball when the boys had the machine, to giving up the front seat of the car to the brother (girls always get the hump seat in the back)...to not being allowed to wait tables on the more lucrative dinner shift..because it was only for the male waiters..do any of you twentysomethings remember those humiliations?
There are still country clubs that will not accept women..for those that do..many won't let the women into certain diningrooms even today. We "older women" have hundreds of these instances. It's time! Barrack is fine..but a black man in a suit..is still a suit. I want a person in office who has actually squatted a baby out of their rear. I have NO DOUBT that being a woman and mother gives her insight that NO man can have. Sorry guys. On the "going along" with the present admin on votes such as the war...I ask..have you ever been apart of a group that had to make decisions? A class project? The PTA? Jeez...many times one must "go along" in order to maintain a voice of any kind in the group. I remember the days when the war was "the big deal"..ANYONE that was against it was considered a heretic...think Hillary would be running for Pres now if she had chosen that time to raise a stink? "Going along" sometimes is necessary in order to get to a position of power.. especially as a female. I am a fan of Obama's too but it makes me sick to see young women overlook the potential of having a female/Mother's perspective on running this country.

[alkamm]

This essentialist argument is unfortunate. To pin the fate of our country on the desire to get a female perspective from Hillary Clinton is just sad. There are mothers and there are mothers, and this mother is not one that has much of a superior moral position.
Barack is simply the best chance we have of turning out the politics as usual, winning back international respect for this new politics, and (sad to say) winning the white house, congress and senate. Barack's coattails will be long and wide. Hillary's will get us a slim chance at victory in the Presidential election, but probably not even that. She will have no coat tails. As a feminist, I'm appalled at the depth of animosity toward men that allows women to lose sight of the massive dysfunction the Clintons cut loose on this country during their sordid, mostly failed administration.
This duo had their chance, and if my memory serves, most people realized they were so tragically underperforming that it was sad.
Why give their divisive, enemy laden politics a second chance just so a woman can get beaten.
Barrack is our best chance to get real, substantive change.

[tonyroma]

Your words are perfection in print. I hope others view them and recognize the truth when its presented to them.

[ljsfolly]

Alkamm You are saying what I have been for months but when I do most of the time my posting isn't posted especially on the mens articles/postings. I am so sickened by those women who will vote for Hillary without even thinking of her real bio and record. That Bill was president when the .coms came to be and the explosion of the economy when they did he was the one who benefited. Now all those who do not know enough about economics to see this fact are pinning hopes that she will bring back THAT economy. Cannot happen. The piece I go back to always is that Hillary knowing her future included a run for the white house, did not even open up the NIE report to read what was really going on in Iraq. All she saw was she wanted to show she was like the big boys and could warmonger with the best hawk. When people compare her to Barack with his vote to fund the troops they don't see that he recognized what they do not, the troop never have had the important needed equipment to fight the war bush made. The body armor was horrid, the bullets had to be taken away from cops here in the US. The trash heap that was the real clinton years with bill actually lying to all of us and Hillary knowing what a horndog he has always been went on tv and lied too. They are so in the pockets of big business and lobbyists that there will be little changes inder her than now with bush. How can there be? Bill was some Hick gov'nor from Ark and had no experience with anything diplomatic and now she claims she does. She went on a few overseas trips with the kid not as a diplomat. The kid would qualify under those terms. We need fresh air and a new direction. I only hope the people will see this when they vote.

[illinoisan]

Hillary has *reverse* coat tails, doing positive damage all the way down the ticket. Otherwise, your comments are spot on.

[partyofone]

Yes, by all means. Women who feel victimized by men should elect Hillary to lead the nation and the world as their ulimate vindication. Put all of their political strength behind a woman's whose only experience, whose only qualification comes from her HUSBAND. A woman who enabled his blatant, infidelity for decades for sheer personal opportunism until it emerged and triggered a national crisis. A woman who went on television, looked the nation in the eye, and declared her husband's innosence, the victim of vast right wing conspiracy. And then claimed, when irrefutable evidence proved her wrong that she had no idea her husband was lying. Either she was lying or is far to gulible to be president And on Iraq, another president lied to her, and inspite of much evidence to contridict him, she believed him and enabled the worst foreign policy disaster in American history.

Hillary is such a victim. She is a great representative of every woman who feels victimized by men. And the best revenge, it seems is to elect her president and victimize the nation and the world in these times so desperate for leadership with integrity.

[oceankat]

"A woman who enabled his blatant, infidelity for decades for sheer personal opportunism until it emerged and triggered a national crisis."

A manufactured national crisis. I know both men and women whose spouses have committed adultery. Believe it or not its not just men who cheat on their wives. Some are still together, some got divorced. Infidelity is more common than you seem to realize. Most people deal with it in private as the Clinton's should have been allowed to. How old are you?

[DavidWilson]

Oh, the hue and cry of the "victim." Hillary just loves you to believe that. That's like saying Nancy Pelosi just can't followw through on her prmimses. If SHE, and Hillary, demontrate anything its that female politicians can be as slimy as men.

Ooh, and a MOTHER would not vote on agenda's that lead us to war, then lie to us about NOT being misled, being misled, being wrong, or really ust being "political" animals of any gender.

IF Hillary wins the nomination, we lose. We do so because she wil need superdelegates to sawy the election. AND, she is the biggest unifying force for the right wing since such hot button issues as gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and flag burning, ALL rolled up into one.

[sky2evan]

female45:

I agree that having a female/Mother perspective would probably be, on average, more helpful in running this country. Statistically speaking, women commit less murders and less violent crimes than men.

Unfortunately, you just happen to support a warmongering female/Mother who is unapologetic about killing off 50,000+ other females/Mothers because they are Iraqis. This is not to mention her continued pro-AIPAC support of Israel's 25-year war in Palestine that kills at least a thousand females/Mothers per year. That's why she voted against the Cluster Munitions Amendment in '06 which would have prohibited the export of cluster munitions - because Israel uses them. (Mr. Obama voted for it, BTW.)

And don't give me that crap about everybody having to go along with supporting the war (or Clinton spinning her vote as diplomacy or accusing Bush of lying)...

... because 4 women Senators were wise and insightful enough and not gullible enough to believe Bush, that they all voted AGAINST the war. They are: Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Debbie Stabenow, Patty Murray. (Along with 19 other male senators.) And simply because they voted against the war in a time of extreme political pressure to do so, they displayed true leadership.

Your support of women in general is valid, but you're supporting the wrong woman. But Ms. Clinton is just counting on voters like you to not care about which woman is better or right - she's just counting on you to project your own subconscious desires onto her, so that you'll believe she's fighting for you and all women.... when of course, she's only fighting for herself. That's why she doesn't give a damn if non-American women die, as long as she's got power & money.

[Rachiavelli]

Man, I MUST be naive...I had no idea babies came out of one's rear. Hoo boy. You can bet your own sweet rear that your passionate argument falls upon my deaf nostrils.

[Producer1]

I appreciate your fervor, Allison, but let's not lose sight of what will happen if a Republican takes hold of an already unitary presidency. The Supreme Court will be further altered to the right plus the DOJ will remain in the hands of people who don't care about justice. No regulatory agencies will be worth anything, and foreign policy will not exist in any recognizable fashion.

Any Democrat who doesn't vote (out of spite) hurts the chances of all congressional candidates as well as the governor and local official races.

I was for Kucinich. When he dropped out I was for Edwards. I have no dog in this particular fight, and since I live in Florida my vote doesn't count anyway. My point is this: either of the two Democrats is head and shoulders above any of the Republicans and needs to be supported by all Democrats, even if you have to hold your nose to do it. We do not have the luxury of having to wait any longer to get a Democrat in The White House.

FYI- Michael Moore's comment only applied to the primary elections-let's not be misleading in order to prove your point.

[alkamm]

The Democrats that will not vote are all the new faces that will see that their political will is thwarted by a narrow, highly partisan group of insiders.
Barack's appeal lies in his ability to get all these new voters, first time voters many of them. Hillary's annointment will turn them off in sufficient numbers to throw the election to McCain.
Don't kid yourself. These new voters will not hold their noses. They'll simply shake their heads and become resigned to the old school winning at all costs.

[OSUMercutio]

This is not a Democrat blog. She can say whatever she wants to.

[inthenitemare]

5 reasons I will not vote for Hillery.

1) Her vote for the war in Iraq.
2) Her refusal to admit she was wrong to vote for the war in Iraq.
3) Her vote for the Kyle/Leiberman amendment.
4) Her disingenuous attacks on Obama using Bill, so as not to dirty her own hands when she could see that she was losing.
5) Her constant shifting of position to suit the current political movement (like trying to sound like Obama and taking his words as her own).

I can't think of any reason not to vote for Obama.

[OSUMercutio]

"I can't think of any reason not to vote for Obama"

It might make Hillary cry again

[chendri887]

Let's face it. When it comes to social, economic, and political change, our government system is set up to deal with all problems moderately and slowly. Frankly, it's beyond frustrating. But I think it's a mistake to pretend like it has ever been any different. The system itself is conservative. It leans to the Anglo-Saxon Judeo-Christian right. It always has. The faux progressivism that the Democrats embrace is about as "radical" as its going to get at the national level in this country at this time. I don't know if the response of "I'm not voting until secular humanist socialist style progressive emerges onto the scene with a chance of being elected" is the best response at this point.

[TommyMcCarthy]

"chedri887" can always be counted on to make sense. A ravishing comment!...agree w/ every word.......................................tm

[partyofone]

Chendri887.... You obviously has a strong vested interes in maitaining the status quo. The vast majority of this nation has nothing to gain from keeping things the same, a more and more to lose each passing year.

You said: "When it comes to social, economic, and political change, our government system is set up to deal with all problems moderately and slowly."

I think the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King might take exception. For each of them decades or centuries old status quo became unbearable, change became essential and they emerged as leaders with the vision and a capacity to unite individuals to accomplish change.

We are living in an age where corporate greed and profiteering has become so great and costly to the environment, the fabric of the nation, our economy, the cause of peace in the world that bold decisive action must be taken. It will not happen with the Bushes, or the Clintons or current Congressional "leadership." We need new leaders committed to change with the capacity to unite the nation behind a vision and work to accomplish it. Can We the People restore democracy and move the nation forward? Yes We Can.

[sky2evan]

Chendri:

You're right that the way our government system is set up, problems are dealt with moderately and slowly, and change is slow.

However, obediently supporting the mediocre candidates that the establishment spews out isn't going to make the system change any faster.

There's no time to waste, given the direction the world is headed.

Clinton is not a revolutionary step in the right direction... there's simply no way you can get the world to work together on global warming while you're bombing countries in the Middle East.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Sorry, my English is not so good....I didn't read Sen. Clinton's name in Chendri's excellent comment did you?........................................tm

[CanSoc]

Here's a question for the Obamaniacs like Ms Kilkenny: if you were voting in 1964 and knew about LBJ what we know now, would you have said better to let the presidency go to Goldwater than let a man with such a record of ruthlessness and compromise retain it?

[PhyloSeFiser]

False analogy. Hillary has similarities with LBJ, but Obama is nowhere near Goldwater. Nice try.

I'm a left leaning independent. I contributed money to a presidential campaign for the first time in my life. (I'm 43.) I gave about $200 dollars to the Obama campaign. I've attended two Obama rallies. I'm doing this because he inspires me to want to a better person myself and because I believe he has a chance to get this country off the disastrous course it's currently on. For me, the big issues are honesty, integrity, transparency, competency and temperament. I'm afraid that our government is reaching a tipping point of corruption and cronyism that could destroy it. Look at South America. The reason those countries are basket cases can be summed up in one word: corruption.

If Hillary is the nominee, I'm sitting this one out because I think she's just as corrupt and dishonest as Bush and Cheney. I think she would run over her mother to get the nomination. Obama wants to win just as badly, but he knows where to draw the line. He's not willing to sacrifice his integrity to get what he wants. I've been extremely impressed with how well he's run his campaign. He hasn't once twisted Hillary's words or positions to try and make her look worse than she is. He's kept it clean, and that's what I think he would do as president.

Sure I hate this war. But I actually think McCain would be better against corruption and the influence of lobbyists and special interests than Hillary would. Hillary seems to believe that that's just the way the game is played.

Sorry, that's how I feel.

[ESerafina42]

False analogy. Hillary has similarities with LBJ, but Obama is nowhere near Goldwater. Nice try.

Obama is not Goldwater in this analogy, McCain (presumably) is.

[sky2evan]

CanSoc:

Terrible analogy, because Ms Clinton will perpetuate the war as long as McCain will (both can only do it for at least 4 years)... only Clinton will lie about it. If you listen closely to her HISTORICAL statements (not the ones she's making during campaigning), she is open to leaving combat troops there, having permanent bases, and basically maintaining strong American presence in the Middle East.

Your analogy is even worse because Ms. Hillary Clinton actually supported Goldwater while she was in Wellesley College.

[darker]

APPLAUD!

[MPeter]

Kiss the WH good bye. Most of us volunteering for Obama will stay home. HRC does not have a clue as to what sorts of changes the Obama movement is talking about. We just don't need a change from Dems to Repugs or from a man to a woman. Hillary seems to think that this is enough.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Then kiss your country goodbye "MPeter".......
Excellent analogy by "CanSoc", (above), agree completely.............................................................tm

[Herrington]

There may be some plausible argument for letting the Republicans continue to ruin the country. If the country is ruined, the Republicans will leave.

Similarities aside, Clinton is not a Republican. Clinton is Obama without the ingredient of being authentic. Authenticity will drive the issues forward. Lack of it will quit when minimum commitments are reached.

Still, minimums are better than nothing and a whole lot better than more Republican utter and complete mudsucking insanity.

[FJRinLA]

"Still, minimums are better..."???

[westview]

Obama is all things to all people. He is totally phony, my mom thinks of him as what her generation called "a flim-flam man". Genuine is not a word that those of us who have seen politicians who are all things to all people before would ever use for him. He is now deeply in debt to a lot of old line liberals in Washington for their support which has never been given to anyone freely. His supporters should be alarmed.

[eddiestardust]

I will vote for Hillary in the Pennsy primary.

I don't really consider myself a "Traditionalist"...whatever that is?

I do consider voting for Hillary a way to get back at the Republicans for Bush AND the way they treated ALL OF US when they Impeached Clinton.

Obama MIGHT be ok...and I stress MIGHT...but what I really wonder about is this...

GWB was for all intents and purposes, someone who had NO IDEA WHAT HE WAS DOING.

I have to wonder if Senator OBAMA has the same problem.

After all is said and done...He is a MAN and so what if he is Black?

We have NEVER HAD FEMALE PRESIDENT!

Maybe it's time for one?

[FJRinLA]

"Still, minimums are better than nothing..."???

What kind of minimums are you talking about, I wonder?

Maybe you should ask the Gay & Lesbian activists if "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" met their minimum policy requirements against the goal of full and fair integration of the Armed Forces.

Or ask the candidate herself why Marian Wright Edelman of The Children's Defense Fund she quotes so often is not endorsing her and hasn't since she left The White House. Maybe after not being able to persuade The Clintons that their Welfare Reform Act would force countless American children into hunger and homelessness, she didn't feel that the legislation met the "minimum" safety net required of a just society.

Then again you could just ask me or any other young Black or Latino male in America if The Clinton's crime bill, in their pantheon of legislative accomplishments with its mandatory sentences and disparate sentences for crack and cocaine offenses met my "minimum".

No, in this case it accelerated the growth of the Prison Industrial Complex which funds REP candidates and causes.

In each case, and unfortunately for AMERICA, that is just the short list of "progressive" gifts we received from The Clintons; our country and this world would have been much better off without this specific policy contribution.

Only a Trojan Horse with a big "D" behind their name like The Clintons could get away with permanently rolling back safety net social programs put in place by FDR & LBJ. So it is better to have the REPS.

I hope you can appreciate my policy argument; so now I can come out the closet and identify myself as an African-American, male no less. I went to Harvard like Barack and his wife. But unlike Michelle Obama, I wouldn't even have to think about it. I hope you see my opposition to Mrs. Clinton is not because she is a woman, nor because she is not black; but rather because she governs for the benefit of neither.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Welfare reform has forced exactly zero children into poverty and homelessness

[bluesjones63]

Like you, I have WONDERED about Marian Wright Edelman's silence. Seems strange.

[alkamm]

Gee, not to put too fine a point on it, but these arguments are ridiculous, but nonetheless widely accepted.
The difference between GWB and BHO is that BHO is an articulate, dynamic, clear thinking, highly educated individual and GWB is inarticulate, lazy, fuzzy thinking and the recipient of gentleman's C's. Proud of it too.
Voting for Hillary, if you don't know, will turn off a complete generation of youth. They want to see a superior person who just happens to be a person of color get a chance, not a white woman who proved herself party to a largely failed administration. Her negatives are not so wide and deep as can be possible to be ignored. She'll lose California because of them!
Sure, GWB was worse, but since when should America settle for someone who can't win out of some array of spite (feminist, leftist absolutism, traditionalist).

[moda31]

you invalidated any point you might have had when you included that fact that obama doesn't have a vagina, as part of the problem with electing him.

[remc]

Can I ask where in "Pennsy" you are from eddie? I was born and raised in western PA, attended college for a while in Philly, and lived for a time in central state. I swear I've never heard anyone from the state call it "Pennsy" - just P A.

[stoprollingover]

What does being female have to do with anything? Would you support a Dick Cheney-type if he were a female? Isn't it about what the candidates STAND FOR? Use your head.

[NYDamien]

Just when all the forces were lined up to give us our best shot at a future without republican domination and corruption along comes an arrogant opportunist who sees America as a "mark." And there's not a whole lot one can do about it. Just listen to his mindless followers. Don't they sound like Tom Cruise swooning about scientology? Star struck teenagers.... you'd think they were talking about the Beetles or Bon Jovi. There's no sense in even trying to reason....facts mean nothing, as the author of this column proves. Does she know, or care, that Obama is practically a paid lobbyist for the coal industry and has voted against every effort to clean up their emmisions? Of course not, and she shouldn't. Why? Because she's star struck, that's why. Now why is Obama in the pocket of the coal industry? Because he's a politician, and politicians do what their constituants want them to do, or they don't get elected.
Hillary was on the board at Wall Mart....so? If our author had bothered to check, she would have discovered that Hillary used her position to fight for women's rights, employee benefits, more female and minority management opportunities, etc, etc, etc. And I guess we'll wait for the next article, where Ms Kilkenny will explain Obama's 20 year close personal friendship, with the reverend Rezco, the biggest political corrupter and slum lord in Chicago. (would the fact that Obama and Hillary vote the same 97% of the time matter?....of course not)
aw, what's the use....the guy gives a pretty speech and steals the minds of gullible potentially productive young people. And nobody notices how vulgar, rage filled, and obscene they are when anyone comes near their new God? Nobody cares that Michelle Obama tells these immature followers they have to vote for him this time because there won't be a next time. No, no, no kiddies. The great one has given you this one chance to kiss his robe. There WON'T be a next time. Got it?
What arrogance!.... What fools!

[DemandTruth]

Wow, you sure are one to talk. You exhibit the exact same blind allegiance to Hillary that you excoriate the poster for showing to Obama. She stated her reasons for not wanting Hillary. It's the WAR, stupid. Yes, GW is a serious problem and EVERYONE needs to get on board w/ renewable resources that produce no waste, nuclear or otherwise (a main beef I have w/ Obama). HOWEVER, this war is still killing Americans EVERY DAY we live and breathe, and to me that slightly edges out pollution on the priority scale. I forgave Edwards his misinformed, cowardly vote for the war, because he acknowledged the mistake, and has been trying to make up for it. I would forgive Clinton if she would only acknowledge the DAMAGE that vote did to us and the world. But Kyl-Lieberman?!? EVERYONE knew that one was a sham. And yet she voted for it anyway. That is a LEGITIMATE reason to question allegiance to Clinton. And she takes as much or more money from lobbyists and special interests and big business and "homeland security" and energy as Obama.

So you show your blind allegiance to Hillary while denouncing the poster for her same allegiance to Obama. I've seen enough projection and hypocrisy from the Republicans to last a lifetime. So save it.

That said, I would prefer an Obama/Edwards ticket, but I will NOT sit this one out if it comes down to Clinton vs. Republican. I WILL vote Dem and hope that once in office, either Dem candidate will do the right thing for this country.

[inthenitemare]

I don't think it's blind allegiance for Hillery so much, but more of a hatred of Obama that NYDamien has.

[alkamm]

You know, there's no fool like an old fool is inaccurate. Young fools are the same as old ones. What we have, kiddies and oldsters, is a chance to elect someone not based on simply voting records and adequacy like Hillary, but someone who might give hope to people of color here and all over the world.
By the way, "all the forces" were not lined up to give us our best shot at the future anymore than they were behind that great symbol of adequacy John Kerry. He lost because of his clear negatives in judgment and so will Hillary.
Oscar Wilde said that we should learn wisdom from the young, and the young can often tell the old when they are in error. Listen carefully. The answer is blowin in the wind. The times they are a changin. Get out of the doorway, don't block up the hall.
Vote for Obama and watch a real intellect change things. Listen to the youth instead of calling them fools.
What arrogance! Ha.

[Ides]

Kerry lost with 1% less than Bill Clinton's best performance ever during a WAR. No President has ever lost reelection during a war. Don't be so hard on the guy.

[LAJonathan]

NYDamien - You speak of facts, but you don't appear to have any. If you would like to learn more about Hillary Clinton on video, go to youtube and type in "Hillary Clinton Walmart" and have at it. Also, "Hillary Clinton Exposed" may get you some more facts as well. Give it a shot, you might learn something. Video is much more difficult to refute than a stump speech full of BS.