Why you'll suck it up and vote for Hillary if she gets the nom:

[beachmom]

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/07/rudy_iran_behind_sept_11_attacks

Rudy Dumbass Guiliani doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites (and Persians and Arabs, for that matter).

Say what you will about Hillary, she's no dummy, and has a rudimentary understanding of the region.

That's how low our criteria for the next president will be against the GOPers -- do they understand ANYTHING about Islam and the Middle East? If we end up with one of those numbskills, I shudder at the thought.

I'm going to vote for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is.

Now as you were (eating a chocolate bunny, right?) . . .

(Edited to remove a command statement. I'm just making a prediction here.)

[wisteria]

1. Not necessarily. I am hoping not to have to be challenged on that matter. n/t

[beachmom]

2. Well, my point is you may be faced with that decision, and past

history (ALL of it, which we are all aware of) will pale in the comparison to having another incompetent GOPer in the WH. And yeah -- every single one of them would be a disaster.

Of course, this is not an order. Do what you want. But your non-vote WILL be a vote for the GOP -- Romney, McCain, Guiliani, or God knows who.

I'm voting the D. Even her.

[wisteria]

3. Thank you, I will vote for whom I think is the best candidate. the one that

will do right by our party and our country and right now, I don't see any promise in any of the front runners. Perhaps, it will make little difference if it is a Democrat or a Republican. Right now, none of them appeal to me. I am hoping for a dark horse and I will not even entertain the thought of Sen. Clinton as a choice right now.

[beachmom]

4. I'm talking about the General Election, not the primaries

"Perhaps, it will make little difference if it is a Democrat or a Republican."


That's why I published the Guiliani article. There IS a difference; all of our Dems know the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites, Persians and Arabs. The GOPers don't. This is about our national security -- we can't have someone so igonorant in the WH.

Admittedly, our political system sucks. We only have two choices in the General. But a lot of lefties didn't like Gore, didn't vote for him, and we ended up with Bush. That's my big warning here.

I'm with you that none of the candidates are as good as Kerry (or Gore, even). But our Dem field is FAR SUPERIOR to the GOP field.

[wisteria]

5. Maybe the differences don't matter as much to the Republicans.

And, knowing the differences as our Dem's do doesn't necessarily mean they will act upon what they do know. This is regardless of what they say now. During campaign seasons candidates say many things they hope will get them noticed. They may never have any intention of changing the status quo.

I want to look beneath the surface of all the candidates. Knowledge is one thing, using that knowledge and following through on promises are another thing entirely.

As I said, I hope to not have to vote for "her" at any time primary or general. The things the Clinton's did and could do again make me view them as no better than Republicans. They both make my blood run cold.

[beachmom]

8. I know what you're saying. But . . . the Clintons understand the

value of diplomacy, whereas that cannot be said about ANY of the GOPers. Don't forget Kerry himself in Davos (World Economic Summit) talking about how a bipartisan envoy be sent to the Middle East, and mentioned Bill Clinton as being one of them. Bill is loved throughout the world -- this, I can attest to from what my relatives in Germany say. They also are beholden to "the poll", something that can be highly annoying and infuriating, but if Americans REALLY want out of Iraq, I think they'll do it. The problems with them are concentrated more on the domestic side than foreign and the corruption BLM speaks about. I also am concerned that they roll back human rights abuses that became the norm under Bush. For me, foreign policy is my #1 issue and I know ALL of our Dems are miles ahead of the GOPers. Remember, Clinton never got involved in a military conflict unless he had at least NATO along. NATO will not support an attack on Iran.

But obviously, I'd rather see any of the other Dems over Hillary. I just understand that we can do FAR WORSE than her. Really.

[wisteria]

10. Well, rehiring Madaline Albright would certainly make me a little more positive. n/t

[sandnsea]

24. She's supporting Hillary

I think its just her sense of allegiance, but she is behind Hillary. I also think she'll support the Dem nominee, no matter who it is.

[wisteria]

69. I think she would support most of the Dem candidates. Like you said

though, she feels a loyalty to Hillary.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. Fortunately I will almost certainly be living in a "safe" blue state.

So if *GOD FORBID* it came down to Giuliani vs. Clinton, I could safely vote my conscience without worrying that I had delivered America up into the hands of the GOP. Although in all frankness on several issues that are important to me I think HRC is about as bad for the country as the GOP. Not only do I feel she would be cowed into being hawkish and pro-war in order to "prove" that she, as a woman, could wage the Global War on Terror* but I also think she'd be relentlessly pro-corporate and continue Bill's policy of selling out the middle and working class and solidfying the wealthy corporate stranglehold on our political system.

Fortunately, I will almost certainly be living in a state that will vote D no matter what.

*Global War on Terror (TM) copyright People for the New American Century, MMI

[beachmom]

9. What about the popular vote? I think this is what hurt Kerry with Ohio.

He had lost the popular vote nationwide, so had less to fight on against the shenanigans in Ohio.

Totally agree with you on the domestic side. On the foreign side, I'm not so sure Hillary would be all that hawkish in practice (she'll probably just do an air strike here and there), BASED ON the previous record. Bill didn't like going into places unilaterally -- I guess it all depends on how similar Hillary is to Bill. Or whether the GWOT changes them completely.

Obviously, if I'm still in Virginia, I will vote for the D, no matter who it is.

[emulatorloo]

22. (OT: I think BUSHCO padded the popular vote in Texas and California)

and elsewhere. If the truth ever comes out, I am betting that we will discover that Kerry may well have won the popular vote.

[MBS]

34. I've long suspected this could be case

all you need is a few "turned" votes, here and there, 10's to 100's at most per precinct, all over the country, barely noticeable in individual districts, but with cumulative national and statewide effects, to make a difference.
This administration has turned me into a conspiracy theorist. And the thing is, after 6 1/2 years of this crew, I'm so far gone that I suspect that even my own suspicions could well be just the tip of t he iceberg compared to what really happened. We'll find out eventually. The truth does come out.

[karynnj]

56. I am happy to hear you say this - because I feel the same

I hope at some point the truth will come out - and I suspect that people like the Clintons would be as unwilling as the Bush administration for it to come out. Think of what it would mean. Kerry who they want to disappear - would have had an incredible victory, in spite of half the official Democrats giving lukewarm support and with a blatantly hostile media. Sounds like a pretty charismatic rock star to me.

Imagine what he would have become in office.

[sandnsea]

13. Shame on you

We almost lost Oregon in 2000 because of that. Gave everybody the impression this is a swing state when it's solidly blue in Presidential elections. It matters psychologically. Not voting for Hillary if she's the nominee is no different than Lieberman not respecting the Dem choice in CT. I'll be sorely disappointed if Hillary is the nominee. I particularly don't understand Dean supporters going for Hillary this year. People are peculiar though. It'll just mean there's more work to do.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. Excuse me?

Lieberman was elected by his party and constituents to serve them in a specific capacity, and when they spoke their will and voted for Lamont, he betrayed their trust. It's ludicrous to compare an American voter - who is under no obligation to support ANYone, and whose vote is private - to a public figure with a public trust like Lieberman. Politicians answer to voters, and political parties answer to voters. Not the other way around. I don't "owe" Hillary Clinton or the Democratic party anything. I *do* owe it to my country to pay very close attention to the people who are trying to convince me that they deserve to be POTUS and to make a decision accordingly - that is my duty as a citizen. And it is a duty I take very seriously.

And you know, my voting choice will, in the end, be private, and if I'm honestly torn over whether or not to vote for the Democratic candidate, I doubt I will say anything publicly about it one way or another, because I'm not interested in having my motives examined and re-examined and questioned by everyone. Ultimately, every voter has to make the choice that they feel is best for this country. If - IF - Hillary Clinton is the nominee (which I doubt, honestly), she'll have to make a hell of a case to get me to support her. She can't just take my vote or my support for granted because she's nominally a Democrat. If that's "shameful" then so be it.

[karynnj]

57. excellent comment -

I am also pretty suspicious of all the Hillarybots stating that we can't state anything about true baggage of the Clintons, because it will hurt when she is the nominee. Now is the time to examine what is known. As I have no private information damaging to the Clintons, anything I know the Republicans know - and it will be used. Also, these were the least loyal people in 2004.

Oddly, I may be buying their logic - they thought electing Kerry, would hurt their own goals. Well, I want for the country what Kerry offered.

[JI7]

7. focus on House, SEnate, Governor etc elections

is there a Senate candidate you really like that has a chance of winning but is in a competitive race ? focus on that.

[beachmom]

11. Well, I'm not sure who will be challenging Thelma Drake.

I'm hoping it's the Iraq War vet David Ashe. On the Senate side, John Warner is up for re-election. I don't know who's going to challenge him either, but that will be a very tough one to win, since Warner is well loved on a bipartisan basis.

[JI7]

12. i mean nationwide

like in 2006 many who were not from Virginia were focused on the Senate Race there and sending money. things like that.

it doesn't even have to be a candidate but people can get behind issues . California usually has propositions that would be voted on.

if Warner runs for re-election then he will win easily. and i wouldn't have any problem with that as i like him .

[rox63]

14. I will also vote for the Dem nominee in the General Election

But if it's HRC, I'll hold my nose while doing it.

[Island Blue]

15. If it should come to that, I'll have the luxury of not voting at all.

I have a better chance of sprouting wings and flying to the moon than Hillary has of winning the general election in North Carolina. Therefore, I will feel no need to sell my soul - I can stick to my principles and simply refrain from voting for a candidate for POTUS for the first time since I've been eligible to vote.

Finally! An advantage to living in a blood red state. Who knew?

[k j]

17. At this moment in time...

that is exactly my thinking as well, Island Blue. And I'm one of those who actually campaigned, hard, for Al Gore. I also campaigned, hard, for Bill Clinton in 1992, while living in Connecticut (he lost that primary to Jerry Brown) and for Mike Dukakis (and received a handwritten thank you from him for my efforts), so no lectures, please. ;-)

Both the Clinton's have sold their souls, in my opinion, and she doesn't have a chance in hell of taking Missouri.

[Blaukraut]

16. No

If all goes as planned and I am able to vote by 2008, X will not mark Senator Clinton's spot (should she get the nomination).
I will most likely write in John Kerry AND cast my vote for him as Senator. In Massachusetts I have the luxury of doing so - of exercising my voting rights as they exist in this country.
I will not feel compelled or pressured to cast a vote for the nominee of my preferred party if I do not like her or trust her to be the best woman for the job.

[_dynamicdems]

75. I've been a lifelong Democrat who has always voted a straight ticket, but...

I'm inclined to agree with you on this.

There are Democrats, real Democrats, and those who just play them on television.

[sandnsea]

18. Sad thread

I have the luxury of not believing any of ya'. You'll all vote for Hillary, if the time comes. The horror the Republicans put up will change your minds.

And if you don't want Hillary - better choose somebody else. Obama, Edwards, Dodd. Or work for all three. :)

Happy Easter!!

[k j]

19. "Now Is Not The Time To Try and Herd The Cats"

she said, in a deeping, booming voice. :tinfoilhat:

[sandnsea]

25. thhhh-wwhack!!!

That's me, herdin' them cats one way or another.

:rofl:

My little grandson had a great Easter morning. We thought he was so little he wouldn't really get it and we'd have time to come down. Well he got up and started seeing eggs hidden in the living room right away. She bought plastic eggs and put candy in them. Well that was it, he was on an egg hunt!! Then it was Happy Eatoh, all morning. Great fun. Hope you're able to spend some time with your family. There are some in Missouri, isn't that right??

[k j]

26. Why do you think I put the hardhat on?

I knew a thhhhh-whack was comin'! :hide:

Sad to say, I'm home, all alone. :nopity: JBK is over with his family for a few hours.
I have what I think is a third round of bronchitis since Christmas. Worked through the first two episodes with the help of four rounds of antibotics, I think this time there is also strep involved, at least, that's what my sore throat is croaking, so plan to take tomorrow morning off work to get in for a chest x-ray and throat culture and more meds.

BUT! Bought tickets yesterday for a visit to Indiana this summer. My niece from Maryland is coming with her baby girl, my niece from California coming with her newborn, and my niece in Indy with her three (two boys and a six month old girl). Plus my sisters and brother and other nieces and nephew. Babies, toddlers, laughter, and food, can't wait!

Happy Eatoh to you and your sweetheart(s). :)

[sandnsea]

29. rotflmao

Am I that predictable?? lol.

Sorry to hear you're sick.

:(

We've had a lot of peculiar illnesses going around here this year too. We had one where you got suddenly sick, threw up 2-3 times, and then felt fine the next day. It just went from kid to kid, primarily. Very weird. A lot of bronchitis too, more than normal.

Your summer sounds like fun. The older we get the more we really have to plan that sort of thing, don't you think? Sometimes I wish I was closer to my extended family so we could do more of that. *sigh* Oh well.

Anyway, hope you feel better soon.

[k j]

31. ha

well, I *thought* a twack might be coming. hehehee

All my siblings get sort of baby-drunk. When we get together, we're all on the floor with the kids and timing each other over who gets to hold which baby for how long, so I think that's why we're getting together when we can get together, before this next gen of kids is lost to the school system and its schedule. Yeah, arranging early is key. Someone figured out there was only one weekend all summer the majority of us could manage to be anywhere, so I bit the bullet and bought the first ticket (cheap!) and once there's a commitment, it's a done deal. It's happening, all who can show, show. Those who can't make get to view the pictures and vids!

There were years when I didn't think we'd be like this. I guess it is the mellowness of age and a desire to laugh and make memories. Especially when you consider every single one of my siblings voted for GWB. So what they did last time was put a picture of him on my plate in the hope that I'll feel so sick I wouldn't eat much. HA HA HA. I told them no problem, I'd pray for old Georgie because he sure needed someone's prayers and please pass the potatoes!

Glad you saw your grandbaby today. Grandbabies and grandnieces and nephews are fantastic!

[Island Blue]

30. I've had one too many people tell me

what I "should do" or what I'm "gonna do" this week. (Not here on DU, but in real life.) The only thing that makes me do is the exact opposite - even if it is 19 months in the future.

[k j]

32. I'm the same way

tell me to do something, or that I'm gonna do something, and I'll do just the opposite. Just because. :rofl:

Plus, I refuse to believe Hillary is going to win the nomination. Something will happen to knock her out of the ring. She can't be what we end up with. The rise of the blogosphere, the left finally having a chance to communicate nationwide, and we get an establishment bonzo? Not going to happen. Nope. Can't!

[sandnsea]

33. But you know what

I know Kerry people well enough to know you're all gonna vote for the Dem. :)

:hug:

[karynnj]

20. That's why we need to work extremely hard between now and then

so that that is NOT the choice. I am not thrilled with any of the choices, but the reason for that is that they are not Kerry. In all other years, I looked for the best of the group and settled quickly for that. For all of us 2004 was different - it quickly became clear that Kerry was not just the choice of our team or the best of the group, but a leader who we could really be proud of.

At this point, I still consider each candidate in comparison to what I think of Kerry now. This is bad for two reasons - it's a far higher bar than what I thought of Kerry in 2003 and that is not the real choice.

My problem with Hillary is that I realized at several differnt times that I had blindly supported the Clintons - when they did things that were not supportable - because he was a Democratic President. This is what we criticize in Republicans when they are slow to break with Bush. Now, Bush is 1000s of times worse than Clinton.

I will support Hillary ONLY in arguing issues where she is better than the Republican. I can not in good conscience defend her character, personality, honesty or integrity. If there were a good moderate Republican running (of the type that rarely exist and can never get the nomination), this would be the time where I would cross party lines. So, the support I likely would give Hillary will be fuller than what the Clintoonistas gave Kerry - I will not give the Republicans ammo or support their criticisms. (What I resent is the premise that these issues can't be floated now - they are not secret - if I know about Indonesians banks and cattle futures, so do the Republicans.

I also am not impressed that neither Clinton seems to have spoken on the Pelosi smear. Hastert went overseas when Clinton was President - that's directly analagous. They should see that we need to fight back as they get stronger with each success. Kerry did a great job when the vets were smeared and had a strong response when he was hit (more controlled and dignified than the Clinton Wallace one) joining in on Kerry's side, listing all his pro-veteran/troops work could have been a big defeat for the RW echo chamber.

The strange thing is that they will expect us to all rally to Hillary's defense - we all know Kerry will be there (provided the charge is a lie), but they will not lift a finger for anyone else. Raising that selfishness in the pre-primary and primary season is fair.

[ElizabethDC]

21. The reason that the Clintons haven't spoken up on the Pelosi issue

is probably because they've been on vacation this week (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-dominican-clintons-visit,0,6454167.story). But, they could still issue a statement. Hopefully Hillary will say something this coming week.

I'm glad that Kerry has spoken up about it. I was in an airport terminal the other day where CNN was playing on the TVs and showing clips of Nancy overseas - there were some Republicans sitting next to me complaining to each other about how Pelosi's trip was inappropriate. I wanted to say something to them (about Hastert, etc.) but couldn't butt in - so I'm glad Kerry's out there setting the record straight!

[emulatorloo]

23. I will always vote for the Democratic Nominee. (will Hillary survive Iowa and NH?) EOM

[rox63]

27. Dan Rather and Tweety are now saying that Gore will jump into the race later this year

They say this partly because Gore is currently trying to lose 40 lbs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x602169

If he does (I'm still not convinced he will), he'd have my vote for certain. If I can't have Kerry in the WH, I'd love to have Gore there instead. :)

[Inuca]

28. I hope it is true

but I also find the whole weight argument ridiculous. I did not mean incorrect, I have no idea about that, just pathetically ridiculous. But yes, Richardson lost some significant weight (and put some back again, I think, and either way he still looks like a mischievous and slightly malicious teddy bear). And Gore IS overweight, not that I am in a position to criticize others about this, and health-wise, good for him if he looses some. But I digress... Gore in the race would be a wonderful development, and IMHO to the extent that things can be predicted will almost guarantee a democratic president in 09.

[karynnj]

58. I wonder if Kerry's comment on 2008 was to encourage him

He explicitly said that as of now no 2008 candiate was (good ?) on the environment yet.

[JI7]

81. then maybe he should run

seeing him i don't see anyone else who is as good as him. and he impresses me more all the time. it's amazing how he doesn't let all the attacks on him get him off of the work he wants to do.

i would want him to run even just to have him participate in the debates and influence the debate. even if he very little to no chance at winning the nomination.

[benny05]

80. I think Gore is waiting to see if Fred Thompson gets in

If Fred gets in, I believe Gore will not run. Gore cannot afford to lose his home state again, unless he decided to declare out of California, which if I were Gore, that's what I would do. I think Gore's a great guy, but I saw Fred on the Snooze, and I can see what the Rethugs may see about him. They're wondering if he has fire in the belly at this point.

Just as if Fred gets in, Newt won't run either.

Weird about these things, but Fred's potential announcement (yes or no) will affect a lot of dynamics in this race in both parties.

Kerry kicked Newt's butt in the debate. It was nice to see Kerry again doing such things and I look forward to reading his and Teresa's book.

As much as I like Dan Rather, he's been known to be wrong before.


:hi:

[Mass]

35. I agree - Even if I do not like her, she will be better than the alternative.

However, I will do what I can so that she (and somebody else I will not name) are not the nominee. But, if one of them is, I will support them, because the alternative would be a disaster.

[cadmium]

36. Pushed from complacency, I am going to work for Obama in MA and NH.

The title of this thread clarifies the choice for me.

[beachmom]

37. Good for you, Cadmium. I like Obama a lot, and that's great that

you're getting involved. I'm considering making donations to several candidates who are not her, since I'm still on the fence. It may be a process of elimination at this point. Basically, the two I have eliminated are Hillary and Kuccinich. The others I will consider, but some I like better than others.

[cadmium]

38. I had my doubts but I like B. O best

My best friend has been donating to his campaign for about 6 months. I sent a small donation just before the fundraising deadline. I figure if we just sit around H. C walks in.

[Firespirit]

40. Sorry...

Hillary has lost me for all time, unless she apologizes for her behavior against JK, and means it. But she'll never do that.

I will do what I can to prevent being faced with that choice, but if all the best efforts fail, I will not "suck it up." For me, "sucking it up" would be a betrayal of basic honor. It would be rewarding backstabbing and the sliming of a good person.

I am not registered as a Democrat, I never have been, and I doubt I ever will. I owe the party nominee nothing.

None of this particular group are worth anything, but if a reasonable Republican like NYC mayor Bloomberg entered the field, I wouldn't rule out voting R if it were a choice between that and Hillary.

As for the Middle East -- screw it. I care about our own shores and specifically the Gulf Coast, as should be beyond evident from my posts over the past couple of months.

[beachmom]

41. We don't live in a world where you can "screw the Middle East"

Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons (unknown reasons), but he has started a fire there that WILL impact us, if not with additional terror attacks, than for sky high gas prices which will have a disproportionate impact on the poor. I want us to get off the fossil fuels, but you know that will take a long time to make that transition. So I am completely puzzled by your remarks which you have to know to be untrue.

And I suppose the Iraqi people, most who are poor, don't concern you either, even though they WORKED for us, and now are refugees with no place to go and facing certain death at home. So as to repenting for the sins of George Bush, your answer is "screw the Middle East". That is very sad.

I didn't realize that personal grudges trump everything else, but apparently they do. Given that Jim Webb said that one would have to question Kerry's loyalty to his country when he spoke out in 1971 (and he wrote this in 2004), in addition to countless writings that were very ugly about Senator Kerry in particular, and anti-war protesters in general, not to mention his refusal to shake Sen. Kerry's hand for 30 years, you will understand why emotional outbursts about past transgressions and slights don't dissuade me of the pragmatism of weighing one's vote carefully, as it is for Senator Kerry who endorsed, raised money for, and now works with Sen. Webb.

[Firespirit]

54. In a word -- yes.

I cannot work up sympathy for "the Iraqi people" when I see my OWN people three hours away in dire straits. This is a very common thing I see among the left, more concern for people in other countries than here in the USA, and I have never been able to understand it. Iraq is finished. It's game over. The next president WILL get us out, and the only question is when. That too is becoming irrelevant; that hellhole is out of our control no matter when we get out. The bumper sticker that says "Screw/forget/f--- Iraq, rebuild the Coast" sums up my feelings in five words.

Same for alternate fuels. We WILL change over; the question is when. Global warming is also game over; I don't think it can be stopped anymore. The best thing we can do is prepare for the environmental horrors we have unleashed.

When it really and truly does not matter whether a corporatist D or a corporatist R takes the reins, I let my personal honor make the decision for me.

[karynnj]

59. That pessimism will lead to exactly what you are saying

On global warming, I think the thing that distinguished Kerry in 2004 and now is that he is an optimist in that he sees science as a positive force - if it is channeled properly. What he spoke of was that there were possible ways to avoid going where the world is now going. He spoke of inventing our way out of the problem. This was not pie in the sky happy talk, but the result of actively engaging the scientific community. The sad thing is that the media refused to propagate that message.

I love the energy and the enthusiasm Kerry had on a few recent shows where he spoke of a MA company (whose name the very good home state Senator gave) that had a lithium car battery that could enable a hybrid car to get 150 miles a gallon. (I know that there is energy used in recharging the battery - but that energy will be from an energy source which can be forced to be cleaner.) Kerry spoke of encouraging these types of efforts with incentives. In NJ, at least some stores are selling very discounted CF light bulbs - that a store owner explained were subsidized by the state. The idea is that people will use them because they save money long term.

Global warming is sobering, but the best sales pitch to do something was Kerry's. In fighting global warming, we also get cleaner air and water, less dependence on the Middle East, good jobs inventing, producing and selling products based on new technology and we move away from the predicted global warming disasters. Science and technology have often changed a dour economic projection. Although it was always hard to get anyone else to believe it, the most consistently engaged enthusiastic people I have ever met are scientists "playing" with ideas that interest them. These people are seriously fun to work with as I found out when I was lucky enough to work in the research and development arm of a major company. These are the people that need to take on this challenge and it is big enough that you need the type of funding Kerry spoke of in 2004.

Throwing our hands up in the air and declaring the world is doomed never works. What I wonder is why the media has not shamed the powers that be to undertaking the massive effort that should have been undertaken in 2005 after Katrina. It is great that college students whether with Jimmy Carter or John Edwards, or their colleges are trying to help - but something is wrong when this is happening a year and a half after Katrina. Kids, mostly unskilled but eager to help, working a week is incredibly commendable - but not the concerted effort that was required. The comments of Senators like Landrieau and Kerry are hard to read as describing the US (not a third world country) a year or so after a hurricane.

[Firespirit]

61. That's very easy to say

However, we are already seeing the effects of global warming. The life cycle of Katrina when it was at sea reflected what would be expected with the relocation of moisture away from Africa and the East Atlantic, and into the West Atlantic and Gulf. It's happening as we speak. Sure we need to wean ourselves from oil, and polluting technologies, but at this point it would only slow down the inevitable. As soon as the CO2 and methane in the tundra sublimate and get into the atmosphere, there is nothing that can be done to stave it off.

On the economic front, unless something MAJOR is done to rein in the raping and pillaging by multinationals, the U.S. will sink into a deep depression within a few decades. The system cannot sustain itself. Hillary is part of the political structure that encourages rampant free trade and wage slavery, a crisis which -- when combined with global warming and the end of oil -- dwarfs whatever bickering goes on in the ME. We're seriously looking at worldwide recession, famine, and the rise of totalitarian governments all over the place if the economic system we have is allowed to reach its natural end. Ask WEL about it; she's the real expert on this.

The boomers may or may not be dealing with the fallout from all this. But those of us who are under, say, 35 -- Gen-X and younger -- will be living with it unless we elect a real progressive populist and continue to do so for some time. We had a lot invested in JK, and now hope that BHO and/or JRE is aware of it and intends to do something about it.

[TayTay]

68. I hope some day that you find someone you can work for

who shares your concerns and goals. It is really wonderful to be able to work for someone that you wholeheartedly agree with and who is in tune with your aspirations. I hope you find that.

What are you doing in the meantime to further the goals that you have stated?

[Firespirit]

71. I'm not unhappy where I am

If I were, if I didn't believe in the mission at all, I would've moved on.

JK's legacy, however, is not likely to be related to the current mess in Iraq. That has been co-opted by Harry Reid. I suspect he will be instrumental in solving the greater crises that exist -- if they do get solved. When all is said and done, Iraq's civil war is too small and provincial to be The Issue for the likes of John Kerry. That's my prediction anyway. He may not have as much power as he could have had otherwise, but he'll still be thinking big, looking at the biggest issues, and will need as much support as he can have.

I'm not too worried about my own future, but that of others who don't have my resources. Longer term, 2009 onward let's say, I have several options that I am considering for myself.

[TayTay]

73. We have a severe difference of opinion in outlook

Greatness, such as it ever is, is a judgment of history and is not for real live people doing a real live job. Public servants exist to serve the public trust, not the other way around. Any individual person is a means to an end, they are supported or not supported based on what they do and what they believe. The greatest of all people understand that the job is about the people, not about them. Crappy public servants, like Joe Lieberman, believe that their own greatness and myopic vision makes them superior to the people who elected them. This is a travesty of democracy and against every Constitutional value that we as a people have. Lieberman is not a public servant anymore, he is a believer in his own greatness. That's why so many dislike him so much. With Joe, it's all about Joe, not the people who voted for him.

You wrote: When all is said and done, Iraq's civil war is too small and provincial to be The Issue for the likes of John Kerry.

Tell that to the 2 families in Massachusetts who had sons killed in Iraq last week. I bet they think that it's the damn job of a US Senator to make sure that a sacrifice like this is necessary and unavoidable or else it doesn't happen. Those families might just think that the most important thing their US Senators can do is make absolutely sure that no soldier dies or gets crippled or maimed in a war that is unnecessary or immoral. Those families might tell you that John Kerry will never do anything on this earth more necessary or honorable than serve the people of Massachusetts by making sure that our troops don't die in a useless war in Iraq. Maybe these families aren't the most prominent or the greatest or the most vocal of citizens, but they would appreciate it very much if their Senator does his utmost best to make sure their loved ones get the hell out of Iraq in one piece. There is no nobler, greater or more necessary thing that John Kerry can ever do on this earth than that. It is the base line of his job as a US Senator, to serve the people who elected you in whatever their needs are. Nothing takes precedence over that.

John Kerry was, in part, elected to the Senate because he knows what it's like to fight in a war that looked like a good idea on paper but was a colossal screw-up in it's actual operation. Kerry has spent a lifetime trying to make sure that young American kids don't die in wars for the glory of old men and lost causes. That may not be the flashiest thing to do in this day and age, but it is the greatest and best use of his considerable talents and skills. And it matters to the parents, spouses, children, etc of the people who are currently serving. They need the John Kerrys of this world to serve them, to make sure that everything that can be done to ensure their safety is being done and that someone in Washington actually gives a damn about the people who are doing the fighting. It matters to them and I'm dead-sure it matters to Sen. Kerry.

[rox63]

74. JK is concentrating on two big topics - Iraq war and the environment

He sees how incredibly important both of these issues are. It's not an either-or choice for him. Both situations are quickly degenerating into disaster.

[beachmom]

77. Iraq has hit Virginia Beach again this week.

Someone close to my circle of friends was shot in Iraq this past week. Another soldier in the unit was killed. I just found out today. That's RIGHT HERE IN VIRGINIA BEACH. This will shatter families forever. I don't think these families would appreciate the sentiment of "Screw Iraq", when their sons and husbands have paid the ultimate price for it. A little sensitivity goes a long way.

[Firespirit]

79. Look at the statistics

The deep south has the highest per capita of military in Iraq, as well as the highest per capita of deaths. Most weeks there is a brief segment on the news about a local serviceman or woman who died in Iraq. I assure you it isn't something that this part of the country doesn't partake of while everyone else pays the price. But the outlook is apparently different. My post a little ways down about the two Southerners on the plane, who were enraged about the war because of the resources it took away from our own shores, sums up what I've been hearing.

The people here, even those with family members in that place, have given up on the idea of there being something worth fighting for. They don't care about bringing democracy to Iraq and making their sons' deaths "count for something"; they have given up on that and to them it's a bunch of "towel heads" fighting each other. (I do not endorse that term; it's just what the guy on the plane said and I suspect what most southerners think in private.) They have been paying the price in blood since day one, have paid in blood more than any other region of the country, and now are sick of it and just want it to end. The cost of the war to the deep south is that the Coast Guard and National Guard weren't there when they were needed, in August and September of 2005.

[TayTay]

82. They should vote that way then

And begin to raise up a generation of politicians who believe in what was said here.

The theory of American government is that each region sends people to Congress to represent the beliefs and goals of that region. The people in the areas that have been hit hard by Katrina are still voting for the same old, same old.

If they want change they should begin to vote that way. People from other states are supposed to vote in the self-interest of those states, if they don't they won't be in Congress for very much longer.

Why can't this region of the country raise up some champions to fight for what it wants? Why coast on the conservative beliefs of some and then expect people from other states to provide a means to bail out from the choices made. This makes no sense. Other regions of the country have problems, including poverty, lack on education funds, need to provide infrastructure for growth and so forth. Elected officials, under a federal system, have to look after those things or they won't be in Congress. A President looks after all of the country, a Senator or Rep is supposed to look after the State that sent them and then do national problems. One State is not supposed to supply representation for another region. That region is supposed to do that. If there is a failure of representation, then that region has to fix it. You can't have it both ways, it is harmful to both and harmful to the federal theory of government. Everybody loses under that belief.

[Firespirit]

85. Basically what you're saying is,

the good representatives are all yours ("yours" in the general sense) and if they want to share, they will suffer for it at the polls.

Corollary, if the Gulf Coast wants to get back on its feet, well it's up to itself to do it. All those representatives who actually care should just stay out unless they represent that region.

I do not and cannot agree with this philosophy. The system of "every region/state for itself" was discarded along with the Articles of Confederation. I don't advocate leaving the red areas to fend for themselves while the blue areas progress, and I've been in disputes in GD about this recently. In any red area, there are Blues who suffer the same. Not all of them can, or are willing to move, nor should they be required to move to a different region of the country to receive those intangibles that they are guaranteed as Americans under the Constitution.

Ideally the President should take care of everyone, but this one has forsaken his duty.

In fact, from what I hear, Kerry's poor poll numbers at "home" are that way because of this exact mindset. People who resent the fact that he has tried to be a good liberal and take care of the country and be one of America's senators.

[TayTay]

86. That is part of the reason

The people of Massachusetts want a full-time Senator. That is their right under the Constitution. They want to know that Sen. Kerry will be there for them first, again, as is their right. This Senator spent the first two years of his current term running for President. The next two years were viewed uncertainly, and people didn't know if he was running for Pres again or not. Now they know.

That Senate seat belongs to the people of Massachusetts. It is most honorably and ably filled by John Kerry. People know that. People want a smart, capable, honest and dedicated public servant in that seat. They also want whoever fills that seat to know that the seat belongs to the people of the Commonwealth and they will fill it with someone else at need. (Isn't this what happened to former Senators Allen, Santorum, Talent and so forth? The people of those States fired the folks who were not representing them and sent new people to carry out the will of the electorate.)

Is there a mixed message here? Yup. Massachusetts is very proud of it's tradition of sending great people to the US Senate who are strong-minded and gifted legislators. It is expected that such people will be good for the nation and advocate for the whole country as well as for the Commonwealth. But, the baseline of all politics, no matter how high-minded you are, is that you have to get elected first. In the case of this Senator, the people back home want to know if this Senator is there in DC for them or for another purpose. That may not sound fair, but it is true. (The tide in opinion is turning anyway. Those poll numbers will go up, because this question has been answered positively and definitively.)

Look at this the voter's way for a second. They want the very gifted and talented John Kerry to be there for them. (Ah, again, that is the bottom line of electoral politics isn't it?) They also want this talented man to live up to his vast potential for the good of the nation. They want both. This is their right.

[Island Blue]

83. Fire, I hope you don't mind if I offer a bit of advice.

You are obviously a highly intelligent young woman, and are very passionate about what has happened to the US Gulf Coast and her people. My advice - don't spend one moment doing something in life that you do not truly believe in. For some people, having a job "just to make ends meet" might be okay, I don't see that being the case for you.

"Be the change that you want to see" as Gandhi said. Go home, roll your sleeves up and find some way to work for somebody (or some agency) dedicated to making things right in your beloved Gulf Coast region. The good folks there deserve someone with your fighting spirit!

Now that I'm 40-something, I realize that there are so many things that I wish I would have done differently in my career. I just don't want to see you (or any young person) make the same mistakes. Follow your heart. It's the only thing that matters.

:hug:

[Firespirit]

78. I am a "big picture" sort of person

As unpleasant as it sounds, I think Bush was actually right when he said that the Iraq civil war is "a comma in history." He was right for the wrong reasons, but if what I fear comes to pass, this statement will be on the tiny list of things he's said that were accurate.

Any disaster, no matter how bad, has the potential to be dwarfed by a worse one. In 1886 a Category 5 hurricane wiped out Indianola, TX and killed several hundred people. It was horrifying at the time. But 14 years later a hurricane killed 10,000 people in Galveston, and that's the disaster that is remembered. Katrina too could be "a comma in history" if global warming-induced disasters cause millions of deaths. Unlike Bush, most people would mean no disrespect to those who were impacted by these specific disasters, but comparing the current Iraqi Civil War to the possibility of global economic collapse and worldwide environmental devastation is like comparing, say, a bad car accident to the Iraqi Civil War. It's devastating for those involved, but in the tides of history it just isn't that important.

[TayTay]

84. Using this line or reasoning

Nothing matters. No goal is possible, no cause worth taking up and no person worth caring about. AFter all, we will all die someday and the rest is just commentary.

I don't believe this. I think democracy begins to die and tyranny begins to reign when we forget the value of a single human life and begin to rationalize the deaths of other, lesser mortals simply because they are too small or insignificant to care about. This is profoundly wrong. Every death matters because every person matters.

I would actively work to oppose and replace any politician in my home state who espoused such awful and digusting beliefs. Thank God, I don't have to make that choice and that the people I support understand that each life matters.

Whoever destroys a single life is as guilty as though he had destroyed the entire world; and whoever rescues a single life earns as much merit as though he had rescued the entire world.
The Talmud

[karynnj]

70. It is true that you and your generation is more impacted

by the future, because you hopefully have more of it. :) But that is all the more reason to insist that we not sit on our hands and do nothing. The science is clear as to what happens if we do nothing.

The alternative is to admit this the most important long term issue there is. We need to fund parallel research into multiple ways of getting alternative fuels and finding ways to conserve energy. I do believe that science can contribute to the solution.

I can imagine how hard the damage of Katrina hit you - and how hard it was on the region. I am mystified as to how the federal government, state government and local governments all failed. But, the same spirit that we need a "Manhattan Project" on global warming would dictate that a real leader would organize calls up the type of people and materials needed.

[k j]

72. Thanks, Firespirit...

you've passionately and succinctly stated my distaste and distrust of ClintonInc. (A subsidy of BushInc.) in your second paragraph.
And you're quite correct, it is doubtful boomers (I am one) will have much influence over the coming (and it's coming) fallout in the next couple of decades.

My great fear is the office of the presidency is now nearly hopelessly corporate, and all that is left to "We the People" is the legislative branch.
One of out three branches. (Yes, that's pessimistic.)

[beachmom]

65. Delete -- I don't feel like arguing anymore. n/t

[Firespirit]

67. Snapshot

I flew South last week and on the last leg of my flight, sat next to a woman who had recently been in New Orleans. I asked her what things were like there, and immediately was treated to a tirade about money being "thrown away in Iraq" while our own shores were, in her words, "ignored." The man across the aisle then chipped in with the statement that we should "just get out ASAP and let the <epithet for Arabs> over there sort their own mess out."

The conversation continued for most of the flight. She mentioned a friend of hers from Texas whose employer had been contracted in the rebuilding, and when this young man came to the coast to work, he felt ashamed that his firm (Halliburton? I didn't ask) had gotten the contract rather than a local business.

The woman later said that many people who had lived on the MS coast were actually welcoming the dire predictions for hurricane season '07 in the hope that the pillaging of their area would be stopped by mother nature. That is horribly sad to me, but it also makes me furious. They have given up on their government to stop the profiteering and now root for a natural disaster to do it.

And yes, since that evening I have seen that bumper sticker. I don't have one myself; I kinda have to support what JK is advocating, and as I don't have an objection to his war effort, this isn't an issue. But I agree with the sentiment. And it's very real. For that part of the country at least, The Issue is not Iraq, but Katrina.

[beachmom]

42. Just wanted to comment on the thread in general.

I respect that many of you, under no circumstances, will vote for Hillary. But what my OP alludes to is the fact that IF Clinton got the nomination, and liberals across the land, refused to vote for her (and this seems to be a big possibility), then we will end up with somebody as dumb and inept as Bush. I can't in good conscience let that happen, so I will reluctantly vote for her, if I was faced with that choice. And this isn't a remote scenario. Hillary still seems to be the frontrunner, by every poll I've seen.

[k j]

43. FWIW

Beachmom,

I understand what you're saying because I've held your position, most recently in the Gore v Nader battles. So, to find myself in the position where I'm contemplating not voting for the Dem nominee, if that nominee is Hillary Clinton, comes as a great surprise, as I'm a practical person by nature.

Others have said above that this thread has prompted them to define their choice(s), and I think that's great. What this thread has clarified for me is just how great my hope is that Al Gore will run. Al Gore and John Kerry are now truly "outsiders" and I love outsiders. It's part of the whole '60's "Don't trust the establishment, man" meme that is hard-wired in some of us.

But, in the absence of a last-minute Hail Mary by Al, the choices are clear: Hillary, Obama, Edwards. It's still early. While Hillary has the big donors in her pocket, I don't discount the massive beast that is the blogosphere and somehow, to me anyway, the blogosphere is the legacy of the hope of the '60s.

Roger Fox on dKos posted these great videos yesterday. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/8/12238/02644
My husband and I both watched them and were instantly transported back to what it felt like to be young in those days. We started talking about what happened to the hope, did we all sell out? Where was that energy today? I think it's on the blogosphere. It's no longer a certain age-group of people, the blogosphere is so diverse, it's mostly anarchy. Which is actually sort of cool, ;-) The beast that is the blogosphere can not and will not be controlled. Talk about not being able to herd cats!

We have time, we'll all come to a decision sooner or later. The beast will weigh in. It will go Edwards or Obama or Gore. I just flat refuse to believe the blogosphere will let Hillary get that nomination. We're not there yet.

[fedupinBushcountry]

44. Beachmom

Please stop taking the polls now as proof that HRC is going to win. During '03 JK was down in the polls throughout, and Dean was the front runner, now should I have said to myself well Dean is the poll leader therefore I should just vote for him? No, instead I worked even harder for JK and I hope that is what is happening with other candidate supporters too.

As far as who I will vote for in the primaries, as of now I will write in JK and that is my CHOICE. There was a reason I supported JK in early '03 and I did research on all the candidates and it came down to my gut and heart feeling and who inspired and would really be a president "of the people" who would best give my kids and grandkids hope for the future, and to this day I know I found the best candidate this country had to offer in many, many years.

Right now I am luke warm to only one candidate and that is Dodd, but then again he is never hardly mentioned by the MSM, you would think he wasn't even running. I will not let the MSM choose my candidate. My vote is my conscience and I will have no problem IF HRC becomes the nominee in NOT voting for her. Also it isn't just about what she did to JK last year, that was just the final reason for me to not want her as our nominee.

This primary is far from over, so please just relax a bit and see what comes of it, there is still plenty of time for someone else to jump in and change the outcome.

Just my $.02

[k j]

45. Hey fedup!

Good morning! :-)
Yes, you remember well when there were "only 12" Kerry supporters being hooted at and hounded on the blog by the Deanies. LOL Remember when he mortgaged his house? Omg, the derision for the that decision. Kerry's numbers were lower than Al Sharton's but none of us gave up and went to any other candidate. We stayed put and had his back. I will never forget that time. It taught me so much about staying fast and true to what and who I believed in, despite all evidence (at the time) that Kerry was probably going to go down in a mound of debt and orange ski hats. I remember writing out puny $25 dollar checks to the campaign, checks I couldn't afford to send, but at the same time, couldn't afford NOT to send. I feel the same way about 2008. Nothing is set in stone. I'm not ready to declare a candidate, but I know it isn't Hillary.

If you have time, go check out this thread on dKos. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/8/12238/02644
Roger Fox (don't know him from Adam) found these awesome YouTube videos of young Joni Mitchell singing "We Are Stardust" and young Bob Dylan singing "Shelter From The Storm." Really threw me right back to those times. Just beautiful. So, so young!

[fedupinBushcountry]

47. Hey {{{{KJ}}}}

How are you ? I will never forget those days and the joining of a great community, heck I didn't even know what a blog was at that time. LOL We never gave up.

Yeah, I remember making sure I signed up for the monthly contribution, that way I could afford the little I could give, but then I would always find that little extra when it was needed most. It was so well worth it and I had never given to any candidate in my lifetime.

OMG, I so remember our discussions on the music and the Kennedy's, and that time period. ;-) Hopefully some day we will get an opportunity to meet up with each other, that would be awesome.

Going to go listen now. :hug:

[k j]

49. It would would be so wonderful to meet up

and could still happen, you know. :hug: Someday, at a Bloggers Ball.

You kept us all tuned to C-Span's schedule and I was flying around so much with two jobs, working days and nights, without you, I would have missed so much! I remember when KarenB gave her phone to JK so he could talk to you, that was such a lovely gesture and you so deserved it. You've not once jumped around and said how great you are or how hard you worked, you've just stayed steady and worked your ass off and never, ever, EVER gave up. I admire and respect you to no end, Fedup. Hope you LOVE those YouTube vids! (And your son, too!)
:patriot:

[whometense]

46. I love your post,

and I feel pretty much exactly the same way, down the line.

The only candidate I've donated to at this point is Dodd - and that was because of the way he stepped up to get JK's back on the Sam Fox appointment.

Surely I'm not the only one who has noticed that in all his recent media appearances Kerry has gone out of his way to mention Dodd and Biden by name. I don't think that's an accident.

[rox63]

48. He's been friends with both of them for a long time

They've worked together on the SFRC for decades. Dodd and Biden are the ones he knows best.

Personally, I find Biden's need to talk about himself (and go and on and on...) annoying. I like Dodd a lot, but I don't know if he's got any chance at all. Obama seems fine, but he's still so green when it comes to national politics. I agree with Edwards on quite a few things, but I don't like what transpired between JK and JE during the 2004 campaign. HRC is a total non-starter for me. I will not vote for her in the primaries, and would vote for her in the general election only to keep the WH out of rethug hands.

[whometense]

50. Agree - they have been friends for a long time.

But I'm inclined to think it's more than that. I think he's doing what he can to keep their names in the mix, and to remind people that for a v-e-r-y long time in the last campaign he was given up for dead.

My guess is that he would be delighted to get a chance to endorse either of them over a certain other someone.

I feel the same about Biden - but I still prefer him to some others out there. Obama seems like a smart guy, but he is just way too green for me to get excited about. But then, I'm kind of a contrarian by nature. Even if JK hadn't been in the mix last election I still would have cast a cold eye on the Dean hysteria. Don't like hysteria. I think presidential politics should be viewed with a cold clear eye, and we should try to keep emotion out of the equation as much as possible.

[ProSense]

62. Best post!

I think these "You will vote for Hillary if" queries are stifling the debate. Why should I, or anyone, have to validate Hillary at this stage of the game when I still have concerns. Let's deal with the primary until the time comes to deal with the general election.

[sandnsea]

53. Meh

Despite what the folks in the thread say, I have a hard time believing they won't be on board in 2008. Especially the ones I've known b4IA. I understand the animosity towards Hillary, I don't think anybody is more repulsed by her and her politics than I am. But I really do know how the close call in Oregon in 2000 was portrayed, and I think the folks in this thread are just too smart to let that happen in their states.

I don't think Hillary is going to win anyway. Obama is giving people the hope for something different. They will start thinking. Then looking and listening some more. The more that happens, the less chance Hillary has. We've got a long way to go. I'm not worried about it. Democrats are smart people.

[karynnj]

55. What I wonder is whether or not we really know Obama

Of the top three, I have always said I prefer Obama - the reasons are he is not Hillary or Edwrads. In a way, this is starnge because in one way or another, I was for the other two. Hillary as first lady, when we were sold the idea that she was more liberal and more honest than Bill - yet neither show in recent independent actions. Edwards when he was the VP choice, that I was not that enthusiastice about, but didn't care because Kerry would be President.

I have asked myself if my reservations on these two are the function of subtle negative press that all Democrats now get. (I say subtle, because I know that I reject the blatant negative press. The more subtle negative press may almost do more damage because it sneaks into your consciousness. Think of the times we have pointed out negative framing that others see as innocent for Kerry.) I've asked myself if it isn't that we are all looking much closer than we ever have - and that close, the flaws show. (Though on Kerry, it is the virtues that are more illuminated on close inspection - and many supposed flaws debunked.)

What I begin to wonder is whether Edwards and Obama were "allowed" to remain because the Clintons could not see them as long term threats. Edwards never did as well as expected beyond Iowa. Obama has not even had a tough state wide race. Were pressures put on Gore not to enter - as well as Kerry, Warner (whose dropping out was abrupt), and Bayh. It simply feels that Hillary has been jammed down our throats. She has been pushed for years. I simply don't see the diplomacy and skill as a Senator that MSM, like the NYT have credited her with.

I understand what you are saying about Oregon, but I am not a yellow dog Democrat. Hillary is lucky that there is no acceptable Republican candidate - if there were I would vote for her or him and I have never voted for a Republican for President. If I feel this way, there are likely people to the right of me who will find some of the Republicans more tolerable.

[sandnsea]

63. I'd vote Nader before a Republican

Bush is a Republican. Period. The blatant press that sneaks into your consciousness is that there is such a thing as good Republican policy. There isn't. As much as I like Olympia Snowe, I'd vote for Hillary over Snowe because Republicanism doesn't work. End of story.

[karynnj]

64. If it were Snowe and Hillary, I would listen to both

From what I've seen of Snowe on the Small Business Committee, her solutions are often easily merged with Kerry's. She is also the sponsor with him of his global warming bill. I suspect that on economic issues, she may be more "main street" than corporations. The question I would have is could Senator Snowe become the best "Democratic" president the Republicans ever had - the mirror image of Bill Clinton.

On social issues, I know she is brave enough to be a pro-choice Republican - though in the last several years she has voted with her party too often.

This is really a moot issue though as she is not remotely likely to get the Republican nomination.

[sandnsea]

66. Voting Records

Snowe voted yes for Healthy Forests, Hillary didn't. Snowe voted for Medicare bill, Hillary didn't. She doesn't have anywhere near a good record on labor rights and minimum wage. Even between Hillary & Snowe, there are differences and the differences. Snowe leans business, Hillary leans labor. It would be better if Hillary leaned to labor a bit further, but that doesn't have anything to do with where Snowe is. And then one wants to compare the results of the Republican we will get to Hillary?? No comparison. There is a difference between even the Clintons and Republicans and it's enough to be happy about voting on, even if it's not going to make the kind of visionary changes a Kerry presidency would.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H1630103

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

[Inuca]

51. My 2 cents

I find Hillary more unacceptable with each passing day. To my amazement, I realize that I may feel more comfortable to vote for a principled republican than for her. Honorable (wo)men will not do horrible things, even if they happen to believe in things I disagree with. I am very tolerant by nature, and life has made me even more so. On the other hand, I hate opportunists and people blinded by ambition. And I do not have much more respect for arrogance and ... I am not even sure what to call it, lack of consideration for others, being driven by one's impulses without thought of the implications, but as I think back with the perspective of time to what Bill C did (the Monica thing) I find it even more shocking than I did at the time. You cannot blame Hillary for what he did (maybe indirectly :-), sorry I am being catty here), but my guess is that they share the same lack of consideration for anything or anyone that may bar them from they want, be it cheap sex or power. On the other hand, the chances that the elusive honorable republican I alluded to at the beginning will actually get the nomination is extremely slim, in which case I will probably do the "hold your nose" thing, or maybe as WEL suggested just skip the whole thing.

[TayTay]

52. I will do this

I am a life-long Dem and I will vote for the Dem nominee. I will also have some really critical Senatorial races in states very near me. I will vote for the Dem ticket and work and give money to and for specific Democrats that I like.

Right now, I have a very hard time justifying a vote for either Hillary or Edwards because of past things they have either done or failed to do. However, any actual votes don't occur for a long, long time, and much can and will happen in that course of time. We shall see what happens.

Just my .02 cents worth.

[sandrakae]

60. I will vote for the Dem that wins the nomination.

Neither of these candidates are my choice, but no matter what I dod not want a Rupukin in that Whitehouse.

[_dynamicdems]

76. The answer to this used to be a given: I'd vote for the Democrat nominee no matter who it was. Now,

it is not so clear cut.

I'm not saying that I won't vote for HRC under any circumstance. There are a couple of worse-case scenarios where it may be necessary. For the first time in my life, however, I may not vote for the nominee should it be Hillary Clinton. That decision will be difficult, but I'll do what I believe best for my party and for our country.

Part of the dilemma is that I'm concerned for the Democratic Party. We need to fight tooth and nail to keep our party from becoming just like the opposition. I don't believe we need to abandon the Democratic Party, but I think we need to take an active role in shaping it. IF Hillary Clinton no longer represents the traditional VALUES of the Democratic Party, then it is imperative for loyal Democrats to send a loud and clear message.

I'll be fighting tooth and nail to make certain that the nominee we choose represents the values I've always associated with being a Democrat. But I can't say for certain that I will vote for the nominee no matter what. As I said, that is a first for me and I'm not thrilled (to say the least) that it has come to this.

The Democratic Party is the real hope for our country. We need to keep electing Democrats in EVERY office around the country. If we lose sight of the goal, the short-term gain we achieve may not be sufficient. I'm more terrified of irreversible corruption from within than I am of any threat from the other side.

This is not going to be an easy decision to make.