Am I the only one going to have trouble voting for Hillary in a General Election?

[Meldread]

I'll admit right up front I don't like either of the Clinton's. I feel fundamentally that they are largely responsible for Al Gore losing in 2000, and that they will undermine the progressive movement that has been building up under the Bush years.

However, if she won the nomination I would have held my nose and voted for her. Even a Clinton is better than a Republican. Not much, mind you, but even a little bit is better than nothing.

Now we look at all the dirty tricks she played in New Hampshire to win the election. Now we see all the dirty tricks she's playing in Nevada to win there. Her campaign is proving that she is worse than even some of the most despicable Republican's when it comes to campaigning. If she wins the nomination because of these dirty tricks, I do not know if I can bring myself to vote for her in the general election. In fact, IF she wins because of these dirty tricks, I WILL NOT vote for her. I don't care if Huckabee, McCain or whomever wins the White House. I would rather a Republican win than a Democratic Candidate cheat and game the system, undermine the will of the Party, so they can re-enter the White House unjustly.

I know I can't be the only one who feels this way. I am writing a letter to the Clinton Campaign telling them to cut this shit out, because if they do I hope Democrats across this country rise up and throw the Clintons OUT of the party.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. I'm not feeling too warm and fuzzy

toward Clinton OR Obama. Edwards seems to be the one staying above the petty bickering going on between those two.

Edit to add that I WILL vote for the Democratic candidate, just to assure that there will be some Dems in the administration...assuming that Obama doesn't get too carried away with his bipartisan schtick.

[neutron]

6. Obama and Edwards are both smearing HRC

She is the only candidate who has not used dirty web tactics.
In Daily Kos there were at least two diaries a day full of bullshit about Clinton.
Now they're claiming she stole the New Hampshire election.

Why in hell would I vote for a Republican, yes REPUBLICAN like Obama?
Real liberals don't operate like this.

[Morereason]

142. Hillary is reminding me too much of the status quo. Her methods are depressing

[Perry Logan]

2. If you believe ANY of the accusations made by the Obamites, you are a fool.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

138. Since the Clintonites' BS has been flung at Edwards and Richardson also,

you're the fool here. And it's not merely accusations, it's documented voter suppression and racist tactics.

[neutron]

3. The Obama camp is spreading virilent lies about Clinton

Cut it out.

This kind of thing is EXACTLY why Obama lost my support in the first place.

[dkf]

12. Wow. Now I know how Clinton supporters can stomach her.

Willful blindness.

Very Bushie.

[ZinZen]

170. Yep, that blind faithful quality is very

similar to what I see from the Bushie's support.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Funny, I thought it was the WaPo that had the article about

hillary supporters screwing with the NH voting process, not Obamites.

Must have just been my poor eyes decieving me again.

[JAbuchan08]

149. yeah, virilent (sic.) lies like "Hillary voted for the IWR" and never apologized

[MADem]

4. What dirty tricks? nt

[Meldread]

17. These:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/politics/12nevada.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

In the second one, the lawsuit between the Unions. Basically the Teacher's Union (the one suing) is supporting Hillary and agreed to the terms before hand. However, after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama they brought up the suit. Additionally, the lawyers suing on behalf of the Union are also endorsers of Clinton.

Basically, no teachers are being disenfranchised and are free to go to the caucus and vote for Hillary. It's on a Saturday. But the Culinary Union represents people who have to work nights and Saturdays. They are trying to prevent them from Caucusing for Obama.

EDIT to add:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html

[thunder rising]

32. As you know the plot thickens .. the plaintiffs approved the sites in the first place

[MADem]

52. Everyone working the mid shift was disenfranchised in Iowa, and no one cried for them.

When I pointed that out here, and pointed out that the military people on duty around the world, the cops, firemen, people in hospitals and nursing homes--patients, doctors, nurses, orderlies--and people working in stores, cashiers, salesclerks, gas station attendants, and so on and so on, working that shift when the IA caucuses got underway got fucked, I was told to STFU and "That's the way Iowa does it, so WHAT?"

This is why caucuses SUCK. You can't vote absentee at a caucus.

This issue is a bit more complex, too. A ruling will determine if the point is valid, or not. It certainly isn't "fair" for some votes to count more than others, IMO...of course, in IA, it's totally 'legal' (but STUPID, IMO) for rural votes to count more than city votes, and for white votes to count more than minority votes.

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

The at-large precincts are being established because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave work to participate in the midday caucuses in their home precincts. The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

Nobody from the either union could be reached for comment late Friday. One plaintiff, Vicky Birkhead of North Las Vegas referred questions to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who also could not be reached.

“This could shut down those precincts in the casinos and keep culinary members from voting,” said Jon Ralston, a political pundit with The Las Vegas Sun, who broke the story on his blog. Mr. Ralston said it is unclear whether there are ties between the lawsuit and the Clinton campaign but, he predicted, “Even if they’re Hillary supporters, the campaign’s going to say they had nothing to do with it.It is unclear when the court will hear the matter.

[question everything]

55. So, it is "he says, she says" and you choose "his"

From your link:

Clemons, whose son Nick Clemons managed Clinton's campaign in the state, said she objected to the Obama observers because she said she had been told by the Nashua City Clerk the day before that such observers would not be allowed and that letting the Obama use them conferred an "unfair advantage." In an interview Friday, the city clerk, Paul Bergeron, said this was not the case, that the discussion before the election had regarded volunteers challenging voters, not those checking names off lists.

[lapfog_1]

20. For example...

The Nevada Democratic primary had planned for some time to set up polling places inside casinos, for the benefit of casino workers. When the Culinary Union endorsed Obama, all of a sudden the teachers union (which is leaning Clinton) is now objecting to these polling places.

And just before the primary.

One wonders if they would have objected if the Culinary Union had endorsed Hillary?

Voter suppression is right out of the KKKarl's playbook... and not something Democrats should do. If anything, the more polling places the better. If your candidate has the majority, great. But to make it harder (and yes, getting from the strip to a school will be hard for some) is just anti-Democratic (in every sense of the word).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4047700

(edit to include link to a thread on this very subject, where it is explained better than I can do)

[MADem]

44. Well, we'll never know if they would have objected. And 'leaning Clinton' isn't the same as

endorsing. What if they go for BO? That'll screw your theory. Unless you can pin the strategy to her campaign it's a dirty trick to accuse her of it.

The culinary workers can move for polling places in nearby restaurants instead.

I know there are people who object to polling places in churches. I personally think that using a casino as a polling place is not a sharp idea, because you do have some people who get all batshit crazy about the whole gambling idea.

Maybe they could compromise by putting the polling places in the HOTEL section of the complex--like say, in a function room or something.

Heck, they could even set up a huge tent in front of one of those establishments and use that.

There are a shitload of REPUBLICANS in NV as well, so they'd be getting disenfranchised as well.

I think the best bet is to put the polling places near where people LIVE, and have the longest possible voting hours they can manage, so that shift workers get a chance to vote either on their way in to work or their way home from work.

[creeksneakers2]

50. It does sound like an unfair advantage for the union

Shouldn't caucuses be held at a neutral place and not at the place of employment of a union supporting one side?

I agree if Hillary had the endorsement she probably wouldn't be complaining. But if Hillary had the endorsement Obama probably would be.

[lapfog_1]

64. You have no idea how big these properties are, do you?

Each casino is the size of a small town. Going from one end to the other is a long hike.

Casinos are "neutral". This plan was put in place long (many many months) before the Culinary Union made an endorsement.

And no, you have absolutely no grounds (other than cynical) for saying that if the shoe was on the other foot, Obama would be doing the same thing.

By the way, do WE DEMOCRATS engage in voter suppression because the Repukes do it?

Oh yeah, there was a whole scandal about that... something about US Attorneys making false prosecutions of Democrats... and the AG (what was his name again, Gonzo, Ganza... something) removing USAs that WOULDN'T accuse Democrats of what the Repukes were guilty of!!

Geez, people around here make me sick. We were all calling for Gonzales to serve time for his crimes, but when one of OUR candidates actually engages in this tactic, because she is YOUR favorite, its all OK with you then. I suppose if Hillary was the AG and fired people for not engaging in political based prosecutions, that would be OK too...

Pardon me while I (re)PUKE.

[lapfog_1]

60. "Nearby restaurants instead"

You obviously have never been to Las Vegas.

Getting from casino to casino is a long walk, longer cab ride, and much longer bus ride.

Resturants... ha.

And it's not a theory about the teachers union, it's a fact. Your attempt to deflect is silly.

"Maybe they could compromise by putting the polling places in the HOTEL section of the complex--like say, in a function room or something."

Where do you THINK the polling place is going to be? On the casino floor? You think the casino would allow that? Again, you don't know casinos very well. I'm sure that the casino management has planned to put them in unused meeting rooms.

Casinos are the major industry for Vegas, Casino hotels line the strip (and spill over to downtown and off strip locations). Almost every bar and restaurant in town has slot machines or video gaming... even the fricken AIRPORT has slot machines, and a *lot* of them.

If you (the generic you) have a problem with , gasp, gambling, then Vegas is NOT the place for you to live. Everything in that town relates to casinos and gambling.

Casino workers put in LOONG ass hours, often 12 or more when you take commute time into account. Even the unionized workers. So taking time to get to a polling place (if you are the kitchen help or server at a casino) is going to be dicey (ah, a gambling term) if it's where you live and you work on Saturday (the busiest day in Vegas!).

Oh well, I'm sure that you will continue to delude yourself that Hillary would NEVER do this, and if she did, well, it must be OK then.

Look, I can't prove it, but I'd be just as angry if Obama or Edwards pulled this crap.

[MADem]

79. Yes I have. It's been awhile, but I've stayed at the Hilton and the MGM Grand.

I actually read the cites provided upthread. Turns out the teachers are NOT endorsing a candidate. It also turns out that allowing the desired arrangement would give those workers an unfair influence, according to the lawsuit.

A judge is going to sort this out. It's not a done deal either way.

Go back and read the provided cites. You'd be hollering bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot. The 'crap' that's being pulled here is that the culinary workers get an unfair advantage if the situation remains as they wish it, per the cites provided. But I guess that's OK, so long as it isn't Clinton or Edwards benefitting, is that it?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. I may be way off base here, but I'm thinking no. There could be one or even two other people here

who feel that way.

:shrug:

MKJ

[jezebel]

7. Nope, I just posted on another thread that I will NEVER vote for her now. And it really does hurt to

say that. I have supported both Clintons for years in a family that has always been firmly anti-Clinton. But the underhanded oh so subtle smears toward Obama are DISGUSTING me. I want to be able to support any Democratic nominee, but I will not support someone who is getting that nomination by being and doing everything I have hated the Republican's for the last 7 years.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jezebel]

14. A freeper I am not, trust me on that. nt

nt

[gaiilonfong]

34. they call anyone a freeper

that has not jumped on the Clinton or NO ONE band wagon....
Sorry this progressive is NOT going with the Clintons as they drag the Democratic Party over the cliffwith them....

[annie1]

11. i think it's sad that a site about democrats is making us...

(many of us) really dislike the candidates. this is how i was (and many of us) were feeling about obama when his supporters were going off on hillary. and i think it's the same thing here. no one has proof of NV, and they're spouting it as fact.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Is there, or is there not a lawsuit to prevent caucusing stations

inside the casinos?

It's not about personalities. It's about tactics which are unworthy of Democrats.

If a republican had used these tactics our outrage would shake the heavens. But it's OK if it's a Dem?

[Bluenorthwest]

180. Tactics unworthy

I feel the exact same way about the use of Evangelical preachers to hold up a minority as a wedge issue to attract a few votes. And if a Republican had defended that tactic by saying the preacher was a good, decent moral person, out outrage would shake the heavens. But if it is a Democrat, it's ok?
I always felt that courting the religious right at the expense of the minority du jour was for Republicans only. But if you are Obama, and the minority in gay people, it is glossed over, defended, pretended, spun, and called the politics of Hope.
I have supported Kucinich from day one, and would vote for Edwards. The Twin Baiters of the Senate are running the two most divisive and revolting campaigns I have ever seen run within this Party. The Fundi hate preacher thing is especially irksome to me.

[lapfog_1]

89. Read the lawsuit... all of it.

http://vegaspundit.typepad.com/vegas_pundit/files/filed_complaint.pdf

It has most of the "as fact" plus a few newspaper articles that reveal who is behind it (or you can research the names in the lawsuit as plaintiff).

And if you THEN think "no one has proof"... continue to stick your head in the sand.

Fact: The Plaintiffs are Hillary supporters.

Fact: The final plan was published Sept 24, 2007.

Fact: The lawsuit was filed two days after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama.

Fact: If there is a substantial issue of law or fact to be determined, it will be very likely that some 15,000 Culinary workers who work in the largest casinos in Las Vegas and another 20,000 other workers will NOT be able to caucus, unless they can take a day off work... one of the busiest days in what is the busiest months in Vegas.

Fact: The number "disenfranchised" by having to work (the teachers) at locations where they will be unable to caucus is in the low hundreds (i.e. those who can't caucus because they work the caucus locations other than what they live). This is what happens if the lawsuit is tossed out.

Fact: If the Culinary and other casino workers DO caucus in their workplace (the at-large precinct) they will receive the 50 to 1 ratio of voters to state convention representatives. This is the SAME RATIO as any caucus goer in large cities in NV and is a higher ratio (more caucus voters per representative) than those who live in rural areas... so some "at-large" caucus goers (those that live in a rural area and commute to work) will actually have LESS of a say than if they could caucus at their homes.

These are all facts from either the lawsuit itself or from more than one newspaper analysis of the lawsuit and the plaintiffs.

OK... now YOU can "spout" some facts. Go.

[Evergreen Emerald]

156. oh brother...sure misread the politics, and let the repugs stack

the supreme court...who needs civil rights anyway.

[annie1]

8. Do not believe everything you read, we have no prove anything regarding NV.

really, don't do it. i know reading DU makes everything seem like they are just evil bastards, but the NV thing is a big stretch. really.

[dkf]

19. Four of the plaintiffs were at the meetings when they agreed to the plan.

Once Obama gets the endorsement then they sue saying that the plan they unanimously agreed to should be scratched.

Big stretch?

I guess if you really don't want to see whats going on, you can certainly deny it.

[annie1]

23. they're preserving their own interests. doesn't mean hrc camp is behind this.

[Meldread]

33. The stuff regarding Nevada would have to be one hellva coincidence.

Of course, when you place it on the backdrop of what is being reported out of New Hampshire, it seems to be slightly more than just "coincidence". Really, what are the chances (no Pun intended since we're talking about Vegas.)

[annie1]

40. The teachers union has their own politics and their own agenda...

it does not mean HRC camp is behind it.

[DJ13]

9. You're not alone

Im tired of the two dynastic families (Bush, Clinton) being in charge since 1988.

It seems to me that our country has gone down the tubes for the average American since 1988, so Im not looking to reelect another family member.

[mtnsnake]

13. Do us all a favor, all you Clinton haters who threaten to hold your noses. Hold it and don't let go!

[Mojorabbit]

16. That was uncalled for n/t

[MADem]

56. Actually, it was totally called for--look at the OP.

I don't give a shit if Bozo the Fucking Clown gets the nom, I will vote for him if there's a D after his name.

The worst Democrat is better than a Republican. People are, of course, free to take their little ball and flounce off home if they want, and others are free to sound the raspberry and point and jeer as they prance off in a mighty huff.

[Meldread]

59. So you'll vote for Fred Phelps?

Fred Phelps claims to be a Democrat, and if he were running for President and got the nomination would you vote for him just because he had a "D" next to his name? What if Joe Lieberman rejoined the party and won the nomination, would you vote for him?

In case you don't know, Fred Phelps is the anti-gay preacher who runs the www.godhatesfags.com website. He protests gay funerals and more recently began protesting funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq.

If you would vote for Phelps just because he has a D next to his name, you should seriously begin reconsidering your "values" and what it means to be a Democrat.

[MADem]

80. Oh please. He claims to be a Democrat to get a rise out of people like you.

And that fucker wouldn't run unopposed for dogcatcher. He wouldn't make it past a primary.

But way to take an impossible scenario and twist it round to try to make a point. You didn't succeed in making the point, but game effort, anyway.

[Meldread]

109. So I take that as a... yes?

There have been plenty of Democratic Candidates (especially in the South) who are sometimes even more conservative than the Republican they are running against. Fred Phelps is an extreme example, but he isn't the only one by far.

Would you vote for Joe Lieberman if he rejoined the party? Would you vote for Zell Miller if he won our nomination?

[MADem]

126. Yeah, Phelps embraces the pro-choice, equal rights, GLBT rights platforms of the party.

You can call yourself a ballerina, but if you weigh three hundred pounds and your gut hits your knees, I can pretty much assume you aren't gonna be headlining at the Bolshoi Ballet. Anyone can call themselves a Democrat, but if their views aren't in concordance with most of the planks in the party platform, they're dancing Swan Lake with that fat guy.

Why do you keep tossing out bullshit examples like they MEAN anything? Your two latest examples are as far out as your first. Holy Joe left because he lost, got pissy, and thought that seat was HIS, not the people's, and Zell wrote a book telling us all how much he hates us. They'll come back when that fat ballerina flies.

You know, there's ALWAYS an exception that proves the rule--that's when the clever voter applies a little something called judgment to the decision making process. However, absent that rare exception, the Democrat who adheres, by and large, to the party platform is a far better pick.

It's only here, at DU, that I find so many people who are always over-anxious to point out that rare oddball example and pretend that it has significant meaning, when it doesn't. Fascinating dynamic, that.

[Bluenorthwest]

166. Vote for Phelps?

Who'd be his running mate? Donnnie McClurkin?

I don't want to vote Clinton or Obama, and those who want me to are driving me batsy!

[lapfog_1]

71. Nope.

Not when they lie, cheat or steal their way to the nomination.

If we have to employ the tactics of those we loath to defeat them, we haven't won anything. All that happened is that they have turned us into the same as them. We might as well be green team and yellow team picked at random. Ethics and principles are what make us Democrats (with the big D), and without them, we are just the "opposition" being played by the same masters. Used.

And yes, I was one of the ones that railed against the Green Party (I was a member) in 2000 when I thought Nader cost Gore the election. The difference is that Al Gore is and was a good person, a true Democrat, and there WAS a difference between him and Bush. But I would have happily voted Nader if Gore had pulled stunts like this...

We can't tolerate moral bankruptcy within our leadership.

To even allow this to continue (even if Hillary didn't order it, she could stop it) is a sign of "win at all costs" attitude, an attitude that I believe is without moral value.

[MADem]

82. You mean like giving a group of union workers an unfair percentage advantage,

which is what this lawsuit by the teachers is all about? Those teachers don't want the culinary workers to have influence that is GREATER THAN their actual numbers.

Oh, but if the advantage goes to Obama, that's OK...is that it?

Apparently, that IS it.

[lapfog_1]

87. Please read the lawsuit

and not what your fellow Hillery supporters are saying.

And read it all the way through.

Hint... by using the at-large precinct and getting the 50-1 representation, many union workers are actually giving UP representation... if they live in a rural area (less than 4000 voters) they get MORE representation at the state convention then if they live in a large county precinct (like Clark county) OR if they participate in the "at-large" (4000 workers or more). The wording in the lawsuit is about the few hundred teachers that are "working" the caucus at their local schools (not clear if this is voluntary or required as part of their teachers job) and therefore NOT participating in the caucus where the teacher lives, thus giving an "unfair" advantage to Culinary workers who are afforded the "at-large" precinct.

The estimate is about 10 percent or 722 more representatives at the convention (out of a total for clark county of 7200+). But don't take my word for it, go read it yourself.


And, yeah, if Obama did this, I would vote for Edwards, and if Edwards did this too, I'd vote for Kucinich.

And if they all did this crap. So much for the Democratic party. Why be a member if we are going to just act like the worst Republicans.

And no, don't bother telling me how "this is completely independent of her campaign" because it just stinks. The lawsuit is filed by people who are her supporters and 2 days (just long enough for a good law firm to write this sucker) after the Culinary Union endorses Obama. And they had (by the lawsuits OWN ADMISSION) since Sept 24, 2007 to read the final plan and file a lawsuit... and they waited until now.

It stinks. Smells like KKKarl Rove or Lee Atwater or Donald Segretti.

It's a RatFuck. (you have to be older than 40 to know what that is)

[MADem]

125. I did read it. Every word. You might try taking your own advice.

It doesn't smell like any of the operatives you name. But heckuva smear, there, Brownie!! Keep doing your earnest little job!

Oh, and fuck those voters--let the politicians decide whose vote is worth more, and who will have a caucus delivered to them on a plate!

[lapfog_1]

184. You aren't making any sense here

"fuck the voters"... really?

Nobody decided whose vote was "worth more" only how to get more people voting (and, by the way, it's NOT a vote, it's a caucus... and that's a BIG difference). And campHillary decided to oppose the idea of getting more people voting ONLY after a big union endorsed her opponent. Sounds so damn democratic and all.

Yup. Fuck the voters. That's the attitude I expect from a ShrillHillShill.

And I did read the entire lawsuit. And the applicable state laws.

[MADem]

185. Oh yes I am. That little ditty doesn't cut it. This is an equal protection issue.

If you read the suit, and you couldn't have read it carefully based on the arguments you're postulating, that's the way it is framed. The plaintiffs are saying that one group, by virtue of solely their employment category and no other determining factor, are getting favored treatment and as a consequence their votes are worth more than the rest of the NV voters.

Caucuses ARE voting exercises--you vote with your BODY. And if your body can get to the location easier, because the caucus venue is, in effect, brought to you, you are accruing a benefit that other people, employed in other industries, do not receive.

That's the crux of the suit, which I did read, and you apparently did not.

The plaintiffs who are bringing this suit believe that all voters should be treated equally, and no one group of voters should accrue a benefit not made available to all. Anyone opposed to the suit, as you are, is on the "Fuck the Voters" team--and only wants a benefit to accrue to the voters who are members of that union that Obama got the endorsement from (even though Clinton is polling way ahead in the hispanic polling, and that union is forty percent hispanic).

But again, had you bothered to read the suit, you would see what the ACTUAL arguments being made are, instead of parroting bullshit passed on from operatives, and busily making an ass of yourself by tossing those sexist 'Shrill' bullshit insults.

This is a decision for the courts, not for you or me. A judge will rule, and that will be that.

[dkf]

24. I'm not even going to try to hold my nose.

She lost me.

[Blue-Jay]

31. CLASSY!

You should be proud of yourself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. They are proud of themselves, and why shouldn't they be

They're winning.

The most despicable lies and fascist tactics win.

[Blue-Jay]

67. I wasn't talking about any "they".

There are supporters of each of the Democratic nominees who regularly post stupid crap.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. True

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

154. Here's an idea, why don't you try your idea while turning on the gas and lighting a match and then

get back to us with the results. We always like to hear about your experiments. How's that sound to ya?

[elizm]

15. I will never vote for her. nt

[rwheeler31]

18. Lets get te facts on NH. It looks fishy but maybe not.

[TexasProgresive]

21. So if she is the Dem nominee you are not going to vote

or wait! You're gonna vote for Fred! WOW! that's just super.:sarcasm:

[lapfog_1]

94. Nope.

I hope President McCain doesn't screw up too much. Obama and Edwards can both run again in 2012. Hell, who knows, even Al Gore might decide to get back in.

If McCain wins, I'm pretty sure he will be a one term. His age will make it hard for him to serve two terms... and the war with Iran will be bad. Not to mention that our economy will have tanked and remain tanked for the entire term. And Greenland will be somewhat ice free in the summertime at least around the edges. And then there will be that late July to October Northwest passage thingy. That will be cool (unfortunate phrase).

So, other than I would have had mandated health care from Hillary that I can't afford, what else would be different? Oh, yeah, no more Roe V. Wade... hmmm... well it may have been time to get beyond that as well. I mean if we vaccinate against HPV, why not "vaccinate" (boys and girls) against teenage pregnancy. In Police State America, all problems can be solved (or problem makers made to go away).

[divineorder]

172. I Agree

Hillary would be a one termer anyway. Republicans and Independents (a growing group by the way) hate her, she would trash the 50 state strategy to corral all the money, and in four years remind everyone why George Bush got close enough to steal the 2000 election on a platform of "restoring dignity" to the White House.

I've decided that if she's the top of the ticket, I'll just concentrate on getting a big enough Congress to hold the Republican to the fire for four years. I won't be blackmailed again into holding my nose out of fear.

[avrdream]

22. I'll happily vote for her, thank you very much.

How many threads are we allowed to hide?

[Bread and Circus]

25. No, I absolutely will not vote for her. And no money for dems if she's the nominee either.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

162. Likewise

It's taken us here quite a long time to reach this point, but the Clinton campaign is out-Roving Karl Rove himself. Plus, the Clinton campaign's "supporters" are her worst enemies-- the last straw has come with them regularly insulting our intelligence here. We're finished with them.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

26. I'm a former Clinton supporter, now with Edwards, and I'm having the same sentiment

There are just too many straws weighing on this camel's back. The crypto-racist accusations and the attempt to disenfranchise the voters in Nevada, this is just the sort of strategy that Karl Rove would employ.

[creeksneakers2]

53. No attempt to disenfrachise

Just a dispute about where the caucuses will be held. And we don't even know if that is coming from Hillary or the teachers' union.

[lapfog_1]

96. Spin Spin Spin.

I guess we are on the rinse cycle....

"just a dispute about location"... come on, do you even THINK that this is what it's about? Really? A plan developed by the State Democratic committee to allow casino workers (a HUGE number of workers in Vegas and Reno work for casinos!) a chance to caucus. Given that they really CAN'T unless they take the day off. And you know that this is true. Anyway, Dems planned for it in March, published the plan in Sept, and two DAYS after a major casino workers union endorses Obama, a lawsuit is filed by Hillary supporters to disenfranchise these workers... Give me a fucking break.

It's coming from Hillary supporters IN the teachers union (nice try with that little misdirection), prepared by a law firm with ties to the Clintons.

And it is so Rovian.

Why can't we let these people caucus for whoever they want (after all, just because the Union endorsed Obama does not mean that the members will caucus for him). Let everyone caucus. Hell, figure out a way for the 300 teachers that have to work to let THEM caucus. It's a democracy, not a fucking game to see who can manipulate the rules to win at any cost!

Just admit that your candidate either made this happen (MIHOP) or let it happen (LIHOP).

Quit spinning.

[SnoopDog]

27. With H.Clinton, you either vote Republican or republican...

I really do not know what I will do...

I am hoping Kucinich then Edwards then Obama prevails.

If H.Clinton is the Democratic candidate - there is no difference in voting for her or the Republican... And I may see fit to vote Green.

[gaiilonfong]

28. You are forgetting DOMA

She is the ONLY Democratic candidate, that doesn't want to get rid of DOMA...
As a gay man that makes a vote for her IMPOSSIBLE!

[PDittie]

29. No.

[fenriswolf]

30. i just think its kinda funny

all the crap i hear from both the obama camp and hill camp are using up all this time name calling, slinging med, defending their candidates from "racist" remarks or "sexist" remarks (who here new that this primary was gonna be interesting to watch with the new found diversity of the candidates running?)
anyways im gonna vote for the person who has been staying on point, I'm gonna vote for the person that the corporations definatly does not want to win and I'm gonna vote for the person who is actually talking about points that will help reinforce the middle and poor class economically.

thats right I'm voting for kucinich in the primaries (if he is still around by the time cali primary gets here) and if not I'm rooting for edwards.

and as per the OP's question if hill is the candidate I will have to see who is running third party before i decide. I will vote, I will not vote republican. and I would say more if i didn't think i would "violate" the forum rules.

[Meldread]

43. I agree, and I have great respect for Kucinich and Edwards.

I would have happily voted for any Democratic Candidate who won the Nomination, even though I am supporting Obama. I would have had to hold my nose, but I would have even voted for Hillary. I am going to refuse to do that. If no suitable third party is running, then I'll just write in "N/A" for my vote like I always do in an uncontested Republican race.

[lapfog_1]

100. My candidate was Biden...

now... I don't know. All of the crap from the Hillary camp has been pushing me to Obama... and he gave a great speech after the Iowa caucus. But I like Edwards a lot, and I know that he is right about the war on the middle class. And every online quiz I take on my positions always puts me in the Kucinich camp. But Kucinich physically reminds me of a Ross Perot (like a sane Ross Perot). That's shallow, but there it is. And Edwards, bless his heart, not only voted for the IWR, he sponsored it (though, unlike Hillary, he has completely apologized and admitted it was a huge mistake). But I'm a hard person, I think there are consequences for your actions... and voting for what is going to be the largest foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States, well, there should be consequences, like NOT getting to be President no matter how much you apologize. But that's just me.

So, well... who to support? Clinton... hell no. Obama... uh, maybe. Edwards... yeah, if I could just get over that Iraq war thing. Kucinich... uh, sure. I'll close my eyes and pretend that looking at Bobby Kennedy. Can he get to at least double digits somewhere? Someone else? Who? Al Gore in a heartbeat... but I really think he needed to jump in right after his Nobel.

Sigh.

But not every person here ranting about this Ratfucking in Nevada is an Obamabot. I just don't like this tactic and I don't think well of the candidate that either directs it or allows it. It's just soooo republican. And we are (or should be) better than that.

[Yael]

145. Team Edwards would love to have your support

It wasn't just our congress that was lied to about Iraq -- it was the entire f'in world. I am one of the idiots that bought it hook, line and sinker.

[lapfog_1]

183. I bought it too, for about one day

it was the day Colin Powell (who I used to have some respect for) went to the UN. And he kept showing pictures and playing tapes of conversations and stuff. And my heart sank... because I believed that Saddam didn't have WMDs anymore, that he only pretended to have them to scare the Iranians and the Kurds and the Shia in the south. But when Colin spoke, I was "damn, they must really have this stuff... and I'm wrong and BushCo is right" and the other thought was "well, we're invading... shit". Lasted for maybe a day. Then the transcript of the phone calls was published and some others came forward and said "hey, those don't look like mobile biological weapons labs" and so on... and my faith in my own judgment was restored and I *knew* that we were being led down the garden path by some very evil bastards.

But I'm just a citizen, Senators and Representatives have a duty to look into the the details and ask for opposing views and make sound judgments... not rush into a "blank check" mode.

So, again, I have to say that those that enabled Bush to take us into what is shaping up to be the largest foreign policy and possibly second largest economic disaster in our nations history should pay a price... even if they come to admit that they were wrong and apologize.

[MasonJar]

35. Please do NOT let the years of GOPer brainwashing deter any of you from

voting for Clinton or any of our dems. We have an outstanding group of candidates. I will happily support whoever wins the namination; however, I expect the same loyalty from all DU participants. DEMS must rule in '08 or it may be the end of our country and our way of life and, most significantly, the planet Earth. TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!!!!!!!!!

[Skidmore]

113. So be it. We have some good candidates and then we have

those among us who want to use the Republican playbook to gain the nomination. I have put my two cents worth in during our caucus, but am currently withholding judgment on the GE. I hate feeling this way, endorsing more of the same gets you more of the same. If Dems go down now it will be because we have contributed to our own demise.

[thunder rising]

36. YES IF SHE WINS THE PRIMARY I WILL VOTE FOR HER

but that's a big if right now.

[ursi]

37. after this stunt from her campaign in Nevada against low income casino workers

she showing us we have to take a Clinton enema one way or the other.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

72. Great term

Clinton enema. Something at least the party definitely needs.

[Yael]

39. No, you are not the only one. It is time for a fresh face and fresh ideas.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

91. The dynasty thing alone is turning many people away, but these recent

corrupt tactics, vote suppression in NH and attempted vote suppression in NV are managing to turn even longtime Democrats away from her, committed to never vote for her in any election. The Clintons have done a great job of fraying our coalition worse than perhaps at any time since the Civil War itself.

[lapfog_1]

101. Please Al Gore... save us!

There is still time. Do it. Name Obama as your running mate. Name Edwards as your Sec State.
Name Clark as your Sec Def, name Barbara Boxer to the supreme court. Or switch her with Obama . (Justice Obama and VP Boxer).

Please!

Love your avatar.

[sandnsea]

41. The NV Voter Disenfranchisement is the last straw n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

160. Seems to have become the last straw

for quite a few people.

[TwilightGardener]

42. No. If she's the nominee, I hope Bloomberg runs and gives me

another option. Not saying I'd vote for him, but it sure would be nice to have another choice.

[peoli]

46. I will have no trouble NOT voting for a Clinton EVER

I've lost any respect I ever had for them through this campaign

[mtnsnake]

49. Yeah no shit. Neither will the other hundreds of freepers who frequent this place. lol

[martymar64]

74. Then don't nominate Clinton!!!

It's really simple. But if you'd rather try to shove her down our throats, don't be surprised when we spit her right back out. Her Rovian tricks and unsavory cronies have left a bad taste in too many mouths. Obama and Edwards aren't nearly as divisive as Hillary is, but if you want to keep pushing her like some telemarketer selling long distance plans, expect to alienate more than you convince.

[Yael]

133. Well said

[JAbuchan08]

155. If she gets the nomination and loses the GE,

no amount of whining about "Dem traitors" is going to reverse her fortunes. So why not take a deep breath and vote for someone who is mostly acceptable to the Democratic party. No matter what the other Dems flaws are NONE of them are as divisive among DEMOCRATS as Hillary - and shouldn't that be what matters most, or is the 50% + 1 strategy really the way Clinton fans want to go. I would prefer a candidate that is at least popular among Democrats.

[NoPasaran]

68. Odd

Your post indicates you're named after the wrong part of the horse.

[martymar64]

75. Nice Insult, Trail of Tears Cherokee killer

Why you would use a genocidal fuckhead for an avatar is beyond me. Do you hate Indians?

[lapfog_1]

102. We name him Wakarusa

in the old Kansa tongue.

You'll have to look it up. Here is a hint, Lawrence, Kansas was originally named the same thing.

[Anouka]

73. I agree. People may not want to hear it....

but there it is. You're not alone.

[Recursion]

47. From Iran to AIPAC to the NV dirty tricks to insurance-company-coddling

It's a lot of straws, and my camel is almost dead...

[lapfog_1]

103. Yup, mine started out with only one hump...

but with so many straws....

it looks like this

[Meldread]

110. LOL.

I am shocked it isn't dead. Mine is dead. With the whole thing going on in NV... that was the straw that killed it.

[unkachuck]

48. no......

....you are not the only one who is going to have trouble voting for hillary....and most of my geezer friends won't the clinton-crap either....

....we are old, near our graves, with little to lose....doing what's New-Deal correct is our strongest incentive to be involved....

.....how the hell people think they are going to benefit from these 100 million dollar corporate showcase candidates, is beyond me....

[question everything]

51. How do you know she "played dirty tricks" in NH? Becuaes Obama

says so? DUers say so?

No, you don't have to vote for the nominee. I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, even though I don't think that the White House is like training bike for someone to learn how to ride. Even though, if there is a turmoil someplace in the world - not necessarily a terrorist attack - McCain will beat him handily.

In the next few years, there will be two, perhaps three vacancies in the Supreme Court.

If Clinton is the nominee and you, and others, will stay home and McCain will win, you can say good bye to Roe v. Wade; you can say good bye to civil rights as we know them; you can say good bye to DU, Daily Kos, Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert. But you can welcome Bush's "legacy" of a Supreme Court full of Thomases and Scalias.

And I hope you will sleep soundly because even though you've helped ushered us into dark days, you "stood on principles."

Many anti-war voters did the same in 1968 and you know how that ended.

[martymar64]

76. If you don't want a repeat of 68 then don't nominate a warmonger

Not so difficult to grasp is it?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

54. Al Gore won in 2000 eom

eom

[Meldread]

61. Yes, but check this out.

Gore's chances of winning were horribly diminished by the Clinton's. We would have never had to put up with Bush if not for them and their egos. Check out this article - it explains everything:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711

It shows how they completely fucked over Al Gore and Tipper.

[Hello_Kitty]

115. Thanks for the link, I'd been meaning to read that for some time

This removes all doubt for me that the Clintons are nothing but self-absorbed power hungry assholes. They did shit to help Kerry in '04 as well. I suspected back then they wanted him to lose so that she would take the White House this time. It's pretty much ABC at this point for me. Anyone But Clinton(s).

[dionysus]

57. i won't be too enthused bt damn straight i'll do it!

even if i have to get high first!

[Tropics_Dude83]

58. Would vote for her but without passion

I would vote for her but just because I know that Mccain et al are even more far right wing than she.

[lapfog_1]

106. Yeah, that's where I was until tonight.

Maybe I'll calm down a bit. But this Culinary Union thing in Nevada just pissed me off. To the point where I was imagining the difference between a likely one term McCain Presidency and a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. And I was talking myself into a truth... other than abortion and Supreme Court things... plus an attempt at mandatory health care versus status quo... what would be the other major differences between a McCain Presidency and a Hillary Presidency. Serious. I think the chances of staying the occupation in Iraq are about the same, the chances of starting a war with Iran are only slightly higher for McCain. I don't think EITHER would role back the powers ceded to the Presidency under Bush... Patriot Act, check, Military Commissions Act, check, FISA, check, Habeas Corpus (none), check... The economy will be in the crapper pretty much no matter who is elected, so that really isn't a selector for either. Global Warming... lip service from both.

Seriously. I know I have a dim view of Hillery, but someone tell me what she is really going to do that is so much different than McCain?

OTOH, should Jeebus really be influencing the primaries and Huckabee wins... or St. Rudy of the 9/11, I guess I'll be pulling the old Hillary lever. McCain? I might not vote. Romney, ditto.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. After the antics of some of her irresponsible followers on this board

I'll have to do it with a clothespin.

Correction: gas mask.

These people are disgusting.

[laureloak]

65. I won't vote for her because she's just another game player. n/t

[dailykoff]

66. I'd say the great majority of the country feels the same way.

Which means Hillary can only win with a replay of 2004, complete with permanent servitude to all the neocon "friends" who made that one happen.

[rufus dog]

70. I would vote for McCain or no one!

She is divisive, (intentionally) and will do nothing to help the progressive movement. It would be 4 more years of gridlock. Unity means Barrack, divided means Hillary has a chance to knock off McCain an realize her goal.

[LostinVA]

146. Saying you'll vote for a Republican in the GE is against DU rules

[DFLforever]

77. She'll be hard to vote for if she's the nominee

I used to think she could win like any other Dem candidate... now I'm not so sure.

[AX10]

78. I am going to have hard time voting for Obama.

Obama is very deceptive. He started this whole thing last August.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. Yes

I think you're the first person I've seen here express anything other than undiluted love and affection for Mrs. Clinton.

[bvar22]

84. My vote will go to whomever:

*Pledges to END THE FUCKING WAR.
ALL troops OUT within 1 year.

*Pledges to investigate WAR CRIMES committed in the previous administration.

*Pledges to end the Corporate Stranglehold on our government.

If that person is not a Democrat, so be it.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Hardrada]

85. This is why a lot of kids troop over to Ron Paul who

at least is unequivocal about ending the war. On our side, DK says this too.

[bvar22]

121. If more voters had a conscience,

and stood on principle, America would not be governed by corruption today,
AND we would have a Dmocratic Party that represented Americans who Work for a Living.

[LostinVA]

148. Ron Paul is racist, sexist, homophobic, undemocratic-- shame on saying he's "on our side"

[Hardrada]

173. I meant DK was on our side. Kucinich.

Obviously the Paulbots are on the other team!

[BringBigDogBack]

86. You're not alone.

[Big Blue Marble]

88. No, I made my decision two days ago.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. This is just the beginning, if this is how she campaigns, how do you think she will
govern? It will like this for four years. And if we are fortunate to keep Congress this year, we most probably
will lose it again in two years. If this is the best candidate the Democrats can offer, I am not interested.

[loveangelc]

90. I cannot bring myself to vote for her if she is the nominee.

[sellitman]

124. Republicans everwhere love your decision.

I think its retarded.

[loveangelc]

163. and you can think that. i'm still not going to vote for her.

[sellitman]

164. Very smart move!

I guess these past 7 years were ok for you.

I guess I should be glad for you.

[loveangelc]

174. you can be happy or you can be sad. it doesn't really matter to me what you think :-)

[michaz]

92. Sure, it makes sense to act like the Republicans! That is just what is being done.

Let's make it so that we can find some dirt on every Democratic candidate and smear them good so that we don't want to vote for one. Maybe, just maybe, we can become responsible for no Democratic candidate to win this election and we can help a Republican get into the White House. Some of the comments on these boards are as bad or worse then what the Repugs are saying. I am not a Hillary fan but you can be sure that I will be voting for her if she is our candidate. I don't even question whether or not I will, it is a fact!

[OneBlueSky]

93. personally, I'd have trouble voting for Clinton OR Obama . . .

not saying I won't, mind you . . . I've voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since 1964 . . .

but I'm not promising I will, either . . .

[fightindonkey]

95. And The Proof That Obama Supporters Do Not Support The Party, Just Their Candidate

Thanks for proving me right yet again.

[Perry Logan]

97. Oh well. They'll be leaving the party soon.

[indimuse]

104. Very revealing...and very selfish!

you do the democratic party no service ..so really we won't miss you.I'm sure you know this ...cuz you really are a RW-er!
:grr:
When I first came to site I was so excited about ALL our candidtes, But It didn't take long to realize...SOMETHING is wrong here.:freak: This doesn't really represent what TRUE Dem's and Progressives ! I find hate..crudeness..and a HUB of hate for Hillary very reminiscent of Huffinngton..and RW SMEAR MACHINE at work!!!!!!!:wtf: I am so disappointed in the people who are Obama supporters that would rather NOT vote for our nominee if Hillary is chosen:wtf:......I will vote for Obama if he is the nom...he is not my candidate...and quite frankly..I have huge reservations about doing so, but I want our party to take back the WH and America! WE have to over come this divisiveness for ONE DAY and do our duty for our country and the world! YOu Know what I mean!:patriot:
Hillary IS NOT A RACIST! Hillary is one soul who has dedicated her entire life to the good,,,no matter what you've heard or no matter how the MSM want to portrait her. The TRUTH is on her side and so am I. I know a victim when I see one.:cry:..this shit has gone on for over 25 years.So if you wanna participate in tearing down of a GREAT woman and a Great country that is your prerogative...I hope you CAN NOT sleep at night.:dunce: Furthermore..After being initially intrigued by Obama and his charisma, he has shown me little in substance. When it comes to politicians, I get out my phony-o-meter, and this guy's getting OVER THE TOP readings. Seemed to be a man of the people, but then he's involved in shady real estate deals. Who knows. But then I learn his wife is a director in the Chicago CFR, or whatever they call themselves these days. The CFR is one of the most anti-American groups that exist(Dick Cheney is also a member :wow:, as most of them are. Them being crooked politicians who stop at nothing to sell us out).
Then, the kicker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is one of Barack Obama’s national security advisers! This guy is practically the architect of our middle east mess. Read his book "The Grand Chessboard", he lays out the whole plan right there, AND he wrote it in 1998.
So Obama, who is supposedly anti-war, is aligned with one of the most hawkish guys out there. How does this benefit blacks or whites or anyone who isn't an elite.:grr: :nuke:
grr: :nuke:grr: :nuke:
grr: :nuke:
grr: :nuke:



I could go on and on...will save for a later post.

[mtnsnake]

107. Best post of the thread, although I'm sure you meant to post it to the OPer & not to Perry

You should post it as an OP sometime. Please.

:thumbsup:

[Bonobo]

112. why is always the conservative ones that do the odd "capitalize every word thing"?

[BootinUp]

98. Don't worry, maybe Nader or Bloomberg will run

you could vote third party and we wind up with a repuke for 8 more years.


:puke:

[sellitman]

165. I agree Jim

These deluded folks who won't vote for the final candidate have no excuses when the Supreme Court outlaws Abortion for the poor. With the age of the incoming court it could be 30 years before it would be overturned again.

They can't see the forest through the trees or the past 7 years have been just fine with them I guess?

[wiley]

99. We all have issues, but Clinton is not a bad option - at all.

[dailykoff]

105. The problem is that she's beholden to everybody who helped her win

and if they use illegal means like vote rigging, they essentially blackmail her into doing whatever horrible shit is on their little PNAC planner. So yes, Clinton is a terrible option.

[wiley]

186. Vote rigging? You're promoting insanity

The Democrat who wins gets my support. I voted for Kerry and was not really into it, but I'm an adult and like all the crap that is being said about Clinton I ignored about Kerry as well.

[boston bean]

108. no you will find many friends here.

:eyes:

[goldcanyonaz]

111. And, possibly a life partner as well.

[Nimrod2005]

114. I will not vote for her....nt

[ToeBot]

116. I'm sure if she's the nominee I'll have a wide selection of candidates from which to choose

It will be no trouble at all NOT voting for her.

[fightindonkey]

117. I Said That After The Race Issue, Voting 3rd Party Would Be Next For Obamanuts, I Was Called Insane

and a troll. Now look what I find. I'm telling you, I can read these people like a book. They just don't listen.

[OzarkDem]

118. You're in a small but vocal group

primarily made up of people who have an aversion to discussing the issues honestly.


To each his own.

[MissDeeds]

119. No, you're not the only one n/t

[freefall]

120. No. I will not vote for her.

I will not cast a vote for a war-mongering, corporatist.

Peace,

freefall

[Miss Chybil]

122. I won't have any trouble. I just mailed in my vote for her in our primary.

If she wins, I'll vote for her again. If she doesn't, I'll vote for someone else.

[ProudDad]

123. Nope

I will NEVER vote for another corporate tool again!

[Mme. Defarge]

127. If I have to vote for a Republican

it will be for one who is at least honest enough to be open about it.

[Yael]

134. Nice! Mind if I borrow that?

:D

[Mme. Defarge]

139. Pass it on!

[Avalux]

128. No. I will have a very hard time. My issues with Hillary:

1. Her inability to admit her IWR vote was a mistake

2. Her lack of judgement in that vote after "carefully considering the intelligence information and speaking to those I trust"

3. The continuation of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton monarchy further fueling divisiveness in this country

4. Her entrenchment with Big Pharma

5. Her campaign's adaptation of GOP tactics to make the primaries about race and then accuse Obama of doing it

[TankLV]

129. Probably not by a long shot...

for a direct answer to a direct question...

I have problems voting FOR her, too...

But I have MORE "problems" voting FOR obama and a lot more reasons for vote AGAINST him...

[oasis]

130. Better yet: loyal Democrats should throw the whiners out of the party.

That's the ticket.

[Meldread]

131. No need. I'll happily leave if Hillary is the nominee.

If she becomes our nominee then it just proves that Nader was right all along: There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. She is nothing more than a Republican in Democratic Clothing, and I refuse to support Republicans.

[martymar64]

135. That's fine, and the Democrat Party will never win another election

Who you going to get to take our place, Republicans? :rofl:

[oasis]

161. Loyal democrats will vote the Dem ticket. Others are of no use to the party anyway.(eom)

[martymar64]

175. Loyal Democrats = Good Germans

If Hitler called himself a Democrat would you vote for him too?

[JAbuchan08]

151. If it weren't for the "whiners" Hillary would still be supporting Bush on Iraq

and you would still think that Saddam had WMD.

[bobbolink]

132. I have no trouble. I just won't do it.

And I think the Dems will be shocked to find out how many are at that point.

[marlakay]

136. Why am I against my party if I don't vote for her?

Who is my party these days? If she is the best my party can come up with than do I want to be a part of my party?

Think about it, if she wins we will have the republicans just hating her, you think some of us dislike her alot, the republicans hate her!

I have republican bosses who tell me she is evil and her and Bill have had people killed to hide secrets, they really believe this and are past owners of a large corporation and use to work in DC. these are not dumb people so why do they believe this?

Now I know they don't like the others running on the dem side but I have not heard them once say things about Obama or Edwards or any of them.

Do we want to have a president again that brings out so much hate?

So yes I won't be voting for her...funny your reason about Gore is my number one reason I dislike her alot...she and Bill with all their concentration on her winning in the senate, showing up for fund raisers meant for Gore and getting money for herself...that isn't the kind of leader I want.

Forgot to say I will be voting for all other people running in senate races straight dem ticket...

[totodeinhere]

137. You are not the only one

I would have trouble voting for her, but given the alternative I guess I'd have to hold my nose and vote for her since I could not vote for a Republican. And if Bloomberg runs I couldn't vote for him either because that would probably be tantamount to a vote for the Republican (just like a vote for Nader was really a vote for Bush.)

[mike_c]

140. no you're not-- I will NOT vote for Senator Clinton....

If she is the dem nominee then I will not be voting dem. I'm sorry to say it, but she does not represent me or my political interests, so she does not get my vote.

[VotesForWomen]

141. sorry, i don't see the 'dirty tricks.' Hil isn't getting any dirtier than Obama. nt

[kiranon]

143. Hold nose, think of Supreme Court Appointments

I will vote for any Democratic nominee because it matters when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. If I have to hold my nose while doing so, I will. So far, all the nominees are fine. I dismiss nine tenths of the charges each camp makes against the other. There is a higher goal - electing a Democrat.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

157. I agree with you - Supreme Court judges WILL be nominated and confirmed by the next President

And those judges will be around for a long time, past the term of whoever is the next President.

What I wonder is whether Hillary Clinton will even be faithful to her most ardent supporters. Will she honor the pledge to safeguard Roe v. Wade? And if she doesn't, are those who idolize her at present willing to march on Washington and give her hell? At this point, I'm not sure I could trust Hillary Clinton with anything anymore. I think the Clintons are into charting their own course in politics, despite whatever the base wants or expects. I never was a big fan of Bill Clinton. I remember hearing an interview of him by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. He was so arrogant and dismissive in that interview, as though he knew what was best for the people, despite what they wanted. He sounded like a giant a-hole and my eyes really opened to him after that. However, I see no other way to play this hand, as it's too big a gamble to entrust the Supreme Court to a Republican or third party candidate. So I'm with you on the judges as the main and perhaps only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but it won't be a pleasant moment for me.

[stillrockin]

144. nope.

[OhioChick]

147. I WON'T Vote For Her, Period.

And.....I'm in a swing state.

[Cha]

150. I don't think you're the only

one..hillary is my senator and I use to defend her all the time but after turning her backs on a lot of us in New York...I said no more hillary and it's just gotten worse over the years and now this. Which, when I look at it all encompassingly I should have expected and steeled myself rather than feeling more betrayal from the new disgusting lip service from her dailies.

[rhyden77]

152. Bridge to Nowhere

If you like John Edwards please go to this link on Youtube and hear a song I wrote called "Bridge to Nowhere". This explains our country's frustrations with this present administration. Don't miss it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw44-sFLuEw

Randy

[Qanisqineq]

153. IF her campaign is guilty of dirty tricks, she'll be ready to use those tactics against

the republican nominee. I'm not saying her campaign is or isn't guilty of this. I'm not against Hillary Clinton. I don't support anyone. I'm just saying the ability to play dirty will come in handy. No matter what, I'd vote for a democrat even if it was a fucking goat that got the nomination. I think a Huckabee presidency would be so unbelievably fucking damaging. More evangelical bullshit and Supreme Court nominees that scare me. Women's rights? Gone. I can't even imagine what else.

What I find sad is that the first primary ever won by a woman is being questioned as to whether or not it was rigged. That breaks my heart because I cried when she won there. Not because she is my favorite but because I am a woman and she won.

[dailykoff]

167. That would open the floodgates to eight-plus years of stolen elections.

At every level. How could we challenge any of them if the Clintons were guilty of the same sin? This is pure madness.

[Qanisqineq]

181. I wasn't saying we ignore stolen elections

I was just saying that it is sad that it COULD have been. That the first primary a woman won COULD have been rigged. That is what is sad. I, in no way, said it should be ignored. And I, in no way, meant that the "dirty tricks" that would be handy included rigging elections. That isn't a "dirty trick", that is on a whole different level.

[Imagevision]

158. Meanwhile the M$M keeps reminding people to 'look at the polls' - this is starting

to look like a bloody farce of an election. Who can slime the other candidate wins. only in America, other countries actually have recounts!

[fadedrose]

159. I'm with you now and to the end....

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

168. I don't have trouble...I simply won't vote her...EOM

[ZinZen]

169. No more Clintons/ No more Bushes

we are not a frickin Monarchy.

[Essene]

171. She crossed the line for me. The smears and race baiting... just too much

I hope she either losses or Bloomberg steps in.

Im disgusted and frankly if the Democrats put her forward after this, they deserve to crash as a party.

I'm disgusted to the core of my being by both Clintons, and i used to really like them.

[Infinite Hope]

176. I'd lean against her in the general election. n/t

[ileus]

177. In the end we'll all vote for Hillary...50 states remember.

[LWolf]

178. No trouble here. I simply won't do it. That goes for Obama, too. n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

179. Whatever you do, don't stay at home

Don't stay at home in order to avoid voting for Hillary. If you must, leave your ballot blank as far as the Presidential candidate is concerned. But DO go out and vote, as there is a lot more at stake than just Hillary or whoever the candidate might be. The full and complete recapture of both Houses of Congress is at stake.

[MrSlayer]

182. No. I will hate it with every fibre of my being but I will do it.

Because really, what am I going to do, vote for a Republican? She is my last choice and I'm firmly against a lot of what she stands for but as bad as she might be any of the Republicans will be far worse. I would just like to vote for someone for a change instead of just against someone.