Would you vote for HRC in the general election?

[AtomicKitten]

Poll question: Would you vote for HRC in the general election?

Regardless of whether or not you will support her in the
primary election, if Hillary Clinton gets the nod as the
Democratic nominee, will you vote for her in the general
election?

[PresidentObama]

1. Yes. At this point.

Team Hillary really pisses me off with their henchmen tactics. Hacking away at political opponents. Begala, Carville, and McAuliffe. All three are pieces of shit!!

I'm really not too thrilled about her running, and I don't think she'll win the nomination at all. And I know a lot of DU, and a lot of Democrats feel the same.

[TheDebbieDee]

2. Absolutely!

[billyoc]

3. I won't support DLC candidates

no matter what office they're running for.

[Rosco T.]

54. They you'll be supporting the Republican then?

cause anything but a vote for the Dem is a vote for the 'thug?

[billyoc]

64. Yes, if a DLC candidate manages to buy the nomination

I'll be voting(and campaigning) for the Republicans. I will not support a Democratic party that has been taken over by big business interests.

[Rosco T.]

68. But you'll support a Republican Party that has been taken over by murdering Nazi's?

brother.. you have a misplaced sense of right and wrong.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[billyoc]

76. Yes, I will.

The RNC and the DLC have the same financial backers and I will no longer accept a Democratic party that won't denounce them. I see no other option for true reform of the Democratic party than to terrify them with the loss of support of the labor movement, without which I don't believe they can win elections.

[LoZoccolo]

80. This is terrorism and I don't tolerate this shit.

See you in 2008.

You wanna see someone terrified, have someone take a picture of you after telling your union buddies that you'd like the anti minimum wage party in power.

[billyoc]

94. See you then. I'll post the picture ASAP,

it was my union buddies who convinced me to take this stance in the first place. I can't claim to have developed it myself.

Furthermore, I don't mind being labelled a terrorist.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

109. We have to have a grass roots movement to OUT the DLC...

Americans have to realize that DLC democrats are corporatist hawks.

[iconocrastic]

146. With so many jobs lost the labor movement is dwindling.

So maybe that's why the Democratic Partly aren't listening them much these days.

[Cascadian]

142. Republican or Republican Lite? WOW! Some choice!

:sarcasm:

I would seriously have to consider a resurrection of the Cascadian National Party if this happens. Our country is so in trouble if we continue to have choices like this.


John

[Cascadian]

139. You're joking right?

I would soon vote neither. The American people NEED to stop putting up with this petty garbage about voting for a candidate just because they simply have "D" or all because they are the lesser of two evils. I am sick of this and it is just destroying the political process. We ought to all send a message to the DLC and Neocon corporatists that this will no longer stand and we need to clean out the government of all this whoreing to the corporations. Remember it is suppose to be a government "Of the People, By The People, and For the People..." Not of, by, and for corporations!


John

[TankLV]

111. Oh, for pete's sake - don't even go there!

Respect someone's personal CHOICE to vote for WHOMEVER they WANT...

I am soo fucking tired of this bullshit...

[wyldwolf]

59. did you vote for Clinton or Spitzer last year?

[billyoc]

65. No, I didn't support Clinton or Spitzer. n/t

[mtnsnake]

63. So I guess you didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000, eh

Thanks to you we got 8 years of Bush. Congratulations!

[zann725]

71. Totally agreed. Interesting, past DNC leaderTerry McC is also clearly DLC,& close friend of Clintons

Or at least so he flauntingly appeared to be in his CSPAN-2 Booknotes appearance this weekend, talkingabout his new book "What a Party!"...in which he "Swiftboats" Kerry (like ONLY a Repug or DLC could do so well). All the while praising his "good friends, the Clintons," who he brags working "closely" with over the years on "numerous projects." "Projects?"(2004?)

The good news is McC came off SO unlikeable and downright mean in the interview, and so vindictive about Kerry AND the REAL Democratic Party, I question his "role" there as a Democrat at all.

Also, his clearly "timed" release of the book in the midst of candidates announcing their Prez "runs"....and particularly, hostilely attacking Kerry, while transparently smiling as he focused on ALL his "work" with good pals, Clintons.

The word "shill" came to mind...DEFINITELY.

[sabbat hunter]

166. Bill Clinton

was a member of the DLC and he was a damn good president, no?

[Pirate Smile]

4. I hope people considering "no" would remember the 2000 election.

It didn't matter because there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

13. They do; that is why they can aptly be titled "terrorists". n/t

[bread_and_roses]

15. So people who don't vote the way you like are "terrorists" ?

Sounds just like the miserable little puppet orc in the WH to me. Although maybe even HE hasn't gotten around yet to stating in public that people who don't vote for him are "terrorists."

This is a Democracy, remember?

[LoZoccolo]

18. No. People who use the threat of loss of life and property are. n/t

[bread_and_roses]

77. That makes sense exactly how?

Voting is "threatening the loss of life or property?" Seems to me calling people "terrorists" or, as someone below does, "traitors" for exercising their Constitutional right to vote for whom they choose is far more threatening.

[LoZoccolo]

78. Threatening to unleash the Republicans on the populace is terrorism plain and simple.

If you believe that people will suffer greatly under the Republicans, and do something to try to apply that suffering to people if demands are not met, well, that sounds like terrorism to me.

[bread_and_roses]

90. calling voting "terrorism" is demagoguery, pure and simple

It is the exact same tactic used by the mad little emporer-wannabe and his power-mad cohort. There's a real simple principle in a Democracy - you get to vote for the candidate you think best represents you. And it's up to the candidate to convince the voters that s/he is worth voting for. No one puts a candidate in office EXCEPT the voters who pull the lever for that candidate.

[LoZoccolo]

93. You can vote all you want.

But when you threaten life and property you are engaging in terrorism.

That's like calling shooting terrorism. It's not, until you use it to threaten to kill someone for political motives.

[bigluckyfeet]

42. If we Install DLC candidates

We may as well stay home.

[LoZoccolo]

79. Shit, pure shit.

See you in 2008.

[oasis]

97. Those who advocate staying home should stay away from Democratic discussion boards.

Who the hell would need any further advice from them?

[Dean Martin]

61. If enough voters on the fence had liked Gore in 2000....

third parties wouldn't have gotten votes. Same goes for Hillary. There are thousands and thousands out there who do not like her, and the Democratic National Party better think about that before she gets nominated. She's going to really have to do some extreme convincing to get me to even half way think about voting for her.

[saltpoint]

5. I can defend her best when the Right is ganging up on her.

And I think she may have very convincing executive talent -- certainly enough to be president.

I cool to her candidacy because I am more drawn to other Democrats.

If she's our nominee in 08 she gets my Democratic vote. In the primary, I'll go for someone else.

[motocicleta]

6. This poll makes me feel like Rummy

Would I vote for HRC? Of course.
Even though she creeps me out? Absolutely.
Even though she voted for the IWR and the Bankruptcy Bill? In a heartbeat.
Would I rather vote for Kucinich, Gore, or Clark, in that exact order? Gee whillickers, that'd make me so happy.
Wouldn't I rather people shut the h-e-double hockey sticks up about our candidates while commander gogo loonypants in chief is on the brink of provoking a war with Iran? Without question!

But then again, I voted in the poll and took the time to channel Rummy, so who am I to say?

[Pirate Smile]

30. LOL. You do a great Rummy.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. I wouldn't vote for her - no way, no how.

[DaveinMD]

8. the no voters

are endorsing another 4 years of the policies of George W. Bush, including the overturning of Roe v Wade.

[AJH032]

11. yep

and it's quite sad.

[enough already]

20. I won't be intimidated by this kind of rhetoric

Nobody who voted for this bullshit war is getting my support. Ever.

[DaveinMD]

22. that's great

tell that to all the people you are going to make suffer with at least another 4 years of this crap.

[LiberalFighter]

34. As was stated by a poster yesterday regarding a Democratic Congress & President

Democratic control does not mean lock-step as in the Republican Party. A Democrat in office, including Hillary would have the humanity to consider the options and what is best for the country.

A Republican is less likely than a Democrat to pursue goals contrary to Democratic values.

[Silent3]

45. No one's trying to intimidate you

They are trying to tell you that giving Republicans an advantage because of some crazily misplaced notion of integrity or purity is stupid, pig-headed, and to the detriment of the country, yes, that is being said -- but there's no intimidation. Deserved criticism is not intimidation.

[enough already]

67. Calling people 'stupid' and 'pig headed' for sticking to principle isn't intimidation?

Go ahead and support the war. Not me.

[Silent3]

70. I suggest you look up the definition of intimidation...

...it tends to involve, oh, you know, something like a threat of harm? All you're getting is harsh words for promoting stupidity.

First of all, I'm not "supporting the war". And if the best choices I get are:

1) Vote for a Republican who voted for the IWR.
2) Vote for a Democrat who voted the IWR, but who will do much better than the Republican when it comes to tax fairness, health care, picking Supreme Court justices, protecting the environment, etc, etc, etc.
3) Voting for a Nader type who can't win, and putting the Democrat who might have gotten your vote at a one vote disadvantage to the Republican.
4) Not voting at all, putting the Democrat who might have gotten your vote at a one vote disadvantage to the Republican.

I'm going with choice 2 all the way. Looking at someone who takes choice 2, and calling that "supporting the war"? Yes, I call that gross, enormous, flaming idiocy.

Thinking that choices 3 and 4 "send a message" of some sort, that will ever register clearly, or have anything like your desired anti-war effect -- that's at best extreme naivety, if not idiocy.

[Cascadian]

145. You're not being stupid. You're being rational.

I wished more would stop sticking their heads in the sand like ostriches and stand up for their principles. This country is in such big trouble all becuase people are willing to march in lockstep with the status quo and willing to sit and kneel at the commands of the corporate masters. It is just sickening and it has to stop.


Keep the faith!

John

[Rosco T.]

56. it ain't rhetoric... it's the damn truth.

and looks like the truth hurts.

[geek tragedy]

105. But you would support Mr. Escalation

by staying at home.

[BlueIris]

96. I agree they're being unrealistic, but even as a pro-choice voter, I am

profoundly uncomfortable voting for HRC. I actually don't think there's any guarantee that she will give us the SCOTUS nominees we will desperately need during her first term. Maybe if there was a less significant chance of so many retirements on the court in the first 18 months of her term, I wouldn't be so uncomfortable. In my view, she has shown so little conscience or integrity in her pursuit of the "DNC"'s nomination that my belief that she would be willing to nominate justices supportive of Roe if she must make nominations during the first term (when she will want only a second term and will be beholden to the anti-choice right's sick approval to get it) is minimal. And my trust that she would do so is non-existent. I cannot trust her to do any semblance of the "correct," sane, "right," or liberal thing anymore.

[DaveinMD]

106. the one thing

that Clinton did right was select court nominees that upheld Roe v Wade. We can trust her on this.

[RegimeChange2008]

112. And the "yes" voters

Are endorsing another 4 years of the policies of George W. Bush except for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. And if that's the only reason you're voting for Hillary, then forget about it, because - thanks to her and other DLC'ers in the Senate not doing their damn jobs in filibustering Chimpy's judicial nominations, the Supreme Court can already do that anytime they want.

[lastliberalintexas]

117. It's about time someone pointed out that fact

The anti-Roe people ALREADY have a majority on the Court thanks to the moderate go along to get along wing of the Dem party, they don't need to win in 08 for that. Indeed, it's one of the things I continue to point out to "pro-lifers" who will only support repubs, since they've had plenty of freaking time to overturn Roe- if they really wanted to, that is.


And before anyone starts any crap, I live in Texas. It's one of the few perks of living in such a hellhole- I can vote for whomever I darn well please because my vote DOES NOT COUNT. Down ballot I fall in line and become a Good Little Democrat.

[Cascadian]

140. B.S.!

People are fricking tired of the same old tired status quo from the DLC and their corporate masters. If more people finally stood up to the DLC and purged the party of these parasites then the Democratic Party will have a good chance of doing better. Hillary is the embodiment of the DLC and her nomination will kill off any gains the Democratic Party have made in the last year. It is just stupid to vote for somebody just because they have a "D" at the end of their name and because "it's the lesser of two evils." It is not freedom of choice and it makes our country's electoral system a joke. It has got to change and the people must change it and take it away from big business!

John

[stranger]

9. I dont think she can win, but I will support the nominee-regardless of who it is

I dont think Obama can win either.

But whats the alternative? another bush wannabee?
(remember that the repubs will only nominate a war monger)

Oh yeah, there's also Ralph Nader who told us in 2000 that
"Theres No differnece between Bush and Gore". (that lying pos)


Guiliani has no chance for the repub nomination.

(The angel Moroni told me its Romney for the GOP.) :)

and John "surge" McCain is no better thna romney.
hes a waffling, pusillanimous
psychotic weasel, who cracked up in Viet Nam.

Plus, he back stabbed his best "friend"
John Kerry and supported Bush-just so he could run in 2008.

what an ass hole! What an ass hole!

Did i mention Mccain is an asshole?

[thoughtcrime1984]

74. Just wondering why Obama can't win? Or Hil, for that matter?

Yeah, yeah- a black and a woman. It's either that or a continuation of the GOP reign of terror. Any Dem who gets the nomination (and made it through the Democratic battlefield of formidable opponents) absolutely has a chance and IS electable!

[Adelante]

10. Yes nt

[RegimeChange2008]

12. She has pandered so far to the right that I would have to say "No"

Even now, it seems she is still embracing the DLC viewpoint that declaring war on the entire Middle East is a "good" thing, they can just do it "better" than Chucklenuts and crew have.

That is completely unacceptable. It's time to get out of Iraq, since there is absolutely nothing we can do to help a country which, understandably, does not want us there.

Hillary refuses to condemn the obvious monkey plan to attack Iran and has bought into the whole delusion that Iran is a "threat", as has Edwards. Possibly Obama has as well, it seems though I heard him say something to that effect.

We have got to stop this insane, genocidal, imperialist, fascist foreign policy before it literally kills what is left of America.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Hillary won't win the Democratic nomination

and if G-d were a complete asshole and allowed her to become the Democratic nominee, she won't carry Pennsylvania or Ohio, and in Indiana she will get far less votes than Gore did in 2000 (a real bad year for Indiana progressives). Worse yet for Indiana Democrats, Hillary will hurt our Democratic candidates at a time when we are poised to take the governorship back and increase our numbers in the statehouse.

Those are the facts about a Hillary nomination that no DU poll, or DU rules, can change.

[PresidentObama]

17. Indeed.

I don't think she'll win the Democratic nomination.

No matter how many people her team hacks away at, and how many generic talking points she presents to the people of Iowa and New Hampshire.

I like Hillary, but she's not my kind of President.

[AJH032]

23. facts?

facts tend to be have strong foundations in the truth. Can you prove your assertions?

[PresidentObama]

24. Facts are...

Media hype and national polls a year out doesn't mean you'll be the nominee, does it? She isn't the frontrunner in Iowa right now.

I realize you were talking to the other poster, but still...

[AJH032]

25. Any

IG made several statements that Hillary cannot carry certain states, and asserts his claims to be facts. I'm just curious if he (or anyone) can prove them, if they are indeed facts.

[PresidentObama]

26. I don't think anyone knows if Hillary could FOR SURE.

I know she is seen as polarizing, and she really rallies the GOP base. And doesn't seem to energize a large portion of ours who seem to be turned off by her.

I have a tough time buying that she'd win a lot more states then Kerry did in 2004. But again, I don't know for sure.

[Clark2008]

160. Experience.

I know Hillary won't carry my state - because I live here.

I rather suspect that IG knows more about Indiana than someone not IN Indiana, don't you?

I think there are two candidates (neither currently running) who have a shot in my state - and they still may not win it, but they'd certainly give the Republican candidate a fight and cause the GOP to spend money here when they weren't planning on it.

But, Hillary? No shot at all. There have been no polls of my state (despite it's being early in the primaries) to back this up, but I know she won't win it. How? Because I live here.

[RegimeChange2008]

33. Only problem with that is that I don't think G-d is going to intervene....

Since He did allow Reagan to be elected twice, Poppy to be elected once, and Chimpy not to be elected at all, but occupy the office anyway, why would He act differently in '08?

They say He acts in mysterious ways, but I'll never understand that kind of shit. :(

[SaveElmer]

62. Why don't you answer the question?

Afraid you will break out in a rash?

And in fact, not only will Hillary carry Pennsylvania, she will carry Ohio or Florida...

A minimum of 297 electoral votes....

[SOS]

84. PA, OH and FL

PA:
1980 - Reagan
1984 - Reagan
1988 - Bush
1992 - Clinton with 45%
1996 - Clinton with 49%
2000 - Gore with 50%
2004 - Kerry 51-49%

OH:
1980 - Reagan
1984 - Reagan
1988 - Bush
1992 - Clinton with 40%
1996 - Clinton with 47%
2000 - Bush
2004 - Bush

FL:
1980 - Reagan
1984 - Reagan
1988 - Bush by 61-39%
1992 - Bush
1996 - Clinton with 48%
2000 - called for Bush by his Dad's friends.
2004 - Bush 52%-47%

The voting history of these three states does not support the assertion that Clinton will win them "in fact".

[SaveElmer]

85. Times have changed...

The 2006 elections make clear that these states, particularly PA, and OH are turning a deeper shade of blue...

Jimmy Carter won Alabama and Mississippi in 1976 too...a simple recitation of previous votes means little in these cases...and even so, Pennsylvania has gone Democratic 4 elections in a row...no reason t o think it won't again.

[SOS]

89. "a simple recitation of previous votes"

Also known as a history of election results.
Carter carried Ohio by 11,000 votes. Before that the last Dem to win Ohio was Johnson in 1964.
Carter was the last Dem to carry Ohio in a two way race, 31 years ago.
The margins in PA have been razor thin, around 1%. Clinton was below 50% in 92 and 96.
Forget Florida. Bush beat Kerry by 5 points just 2 years ago.

Just saying that the idea that Hillary Clinton will "in fact" win these three states is not supported by their voting history.

[Nedsdag]

153. You can add other swing states

like Michigan and Missouri to the list because they're not going to vote for her either.

Purple states such as Colorado and Arizona (if McCain is not the nominee) won't vote for her either.

[AZBlue]

16. Of course I will vote for the Dem candidate - anything else is tantamount to voting Rep

and that just won't ever happen.

[NastyRiffraff]

19. Amen!

Like it or not, we have a two-party system. Even if someone I like runs as an Indy, I'll vote for the Dem candidate. This country can't stand four more years of Republican rule.

[JohnnyLib2]

21. Yes. I have thought long and hard and cannot see any Republican

candidate, announced or not, having more to offer than HRC.

I'm open to suggestions on this.

[PresidentObama]

27. I think you're right.

I wouldn't be hugely excited or thrilled to vote for her, but if she gets the nod...I would!

Also, I probably wouldn't volunteer 350-400 hours for Hillary in 2008 like I did for John Kerry in 2004, but I'd respect my partys choice and realize she's loads better then the GOP's candidate.

But I don't she'll be the nominee, honestly!

[Zorra]

28. I'd gladly vote for her. She's been a pretty damn good Senator

so far.

She's not at the top of my list, but she's ok.

[More Than A Feeling]

29. A week ago, I would have said, "Yes, absolutely."

Now its more like, "I'll feel dirty and used the morning after, but...yes." Whether I'll do anything more than that, whether or not I'll give my honest opinion if people ask about her, those things are anyone's guess.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

31. deja vu

I am absolutely disgusted by everything she has done in since being elected senator, but she really bothers me the same way the republican ascent of W bothered me. They have earned nothing on their own merits - but were ordained the "front runner" because some backroom opperators with a dynastic fetish just look at the name.

I do however doubt her electability, the angry white dudes she has been pandering to WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER!

[Zero Division]

32. Yes. We must protect the Supreme Court.

It's a no-brainer. There's always the Supreme Court to consider. Letting the right wing take full control of the SC would be a disaster for this country unparalleled by the election of any bad president, even Bush, and it could last for decades. When one considers that a right wing controlled SC could simply strike down any environmental law as "unconstitutional", it could be a disaster for all of humanity because of its impact on environmental issues.

With that in mind, no matter where we stand on the spectrum from center to left or how we personally feel about the candidates, we should consider it our moral obligation to support and vote for the Democratic candidate for 2008. No third party candidate will have a snowball's chance in hell and none of the most likely nominees for our candidate in 2008 will let the right wing take control of the Supreme Court.

[LiberalFighter]

35. The question is can Hillary win the Presidency.

If she does get elected then she will be a good President.

She has about 18 months for people to know her better and obtain the nomination. An additional 2 months to win the general election.

On another note:
Could Eleanor Roosevelt win the Presidency shortly after her husband's terms in office?
Could she win in today's time?
Could FDR win in today's time?

[SunDrop23]

36. Here's a thought...

If she wins the states Kerry won, then picks up Ohio or Florida, wouldn't that giver her the electoral votes needed to win?

[LiberalFighter]

88. Of course it would

I'm thinking that since Blackwell is no longer Secretary of State and lost the race for Governor and the Governor and Secretary of State for Ohio are now Democrats Ohio will be easier to win.

Also, since Jeb Bush is no longer Governor of Ohio and there will not be a Republican candidate with the same ties that were present in 2000 and 2004 Florida could end up in the win column in 2008.

There may be other states that are winnable that were never thought possible in previous elections.

[primative1]

37. Is this a trick question?

Umm, like maybe I would stay home and just wonder if Huckabee or some other fool gets to rule the world?

[AtomicKitten]

38. bump

for collection of data

please vote if you have not, thanks!

[jgraz]

39. Only if she's in danger of losing California

If my state is safe for her, I'm voting for a 3rd party.

[n2doc]

40. ABR

Anbody But Republicans. Enough said.

[Dogmudgeon]

41. I'd vote for a yeller dawg before I'd vote for a 'Publican

Even if she is a satanist (Falwell) or a neo-Nazi (Cockburn).

--p!

[sendero]

43. I am not impressed with anything ..

... about HRC other than her ability to stand for nothing. Nonetheless, I'm not going to waste my vote on a third party nor will I fail to exercise my civic obligation.

[Greyhound]

44. It depends on the options, but I will look very hard for an alternative. n/t

[Allyoop]

46. It depends

on who runs as a Republican or Independent against her. The world is a very dangerous place at this time and I hope someone who has the sense to figure out how to use diplomacy to end and/or avoid war and lesson these dangers will be elected. I am not convinced that person is Hillary. If the Republicans elect someone who fills the bill (fat chance) or an Independent steps in - that's how I'll vote. I'm so sick of voting for the "least worst"!

[frebrd]

47. I don't think I'll have to, but...

if she gets nominated I'll hold my nose and vote for her. She's at least marginally better than a Repugnican.

:-(

[snowbear]

48. If she wound up with the nomination I would... but...

... it would be tough.

If she has a Clinton/Clark ticket.. ..that would be easier to swallow too.

[hijinx87]

49. this is actually better than I thought it would be

only around 30% of DUers (at the moment I voted "yes", at any
rate) would fail to support her in the general.

it would be interesting to know if those that would NOT support her
would just stay home, vote for 3rd party candidates, or do the unthinkable.

[elizm]

51. Depends on who she's running against. n'/t

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Either 3rd Party, Skip the presidential box OR

if Lincoln Chafee was the GOP candidate, I would vote for him, but that is about the only Republican I could see voting for.

If Hillary (god forbid) becomes the democratic nominee, there absolutely will emerge a viable 3rd party.. UNLESS, the GOP nominates a REAL moderate, like Chafee, but that ain't gonna happen.

Hillary vs Right wing wacko GOPer will = enough voter disconent to force a viable person to come forward (much like Perot did in 92 when everyone was frustrated with both candidates..) Hopefully, if it comes to that, this time the candidate won't be insane.

[LoZoccolo]

87. I will be checking three boxes.

- Block Private Message
- Ignore Threads
- Ignore Replies

See you in 2008.

:hi: :nuke:

[Milo_Bloom]

91. Good strategy

Hiding your head in the sand, it has always worked before.

[zulchzulu]

50. Talking to a progressive about the recent election and voting for governor

I was talking back when the election 2006 was about to happen to someone who I feel usually votes third party if and when at all possible. The governor, Jim Doyle, was running for re-election in Wisconsin and I was curious if he was going to vote for the Green candidate.

He said that it was too much of a risk to vote Green this time due to the election probably being very close and so much on the line with women's and gay rights, stem cell research and just the fear of a Republican governor with a Republican House.

He devised a pin that was a clothespin with "Re-Elect Doyle" printed on it. It was the old hold-your-nose and vote for the "enemy" you know versus the Real Enemy.

I think that's what would happen.

I think that IF Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination (I personally don't think she will), when it gets down to near Election Day and on Election Day, most Democrats would vote for her considering the alternative...whom all look pretty insane at this point.

[femmocrat]

52. Yes, if she is the candidate. But I wouldn't work for her.

She simply does not inspire me.

[Pushed To The Left]

53. Yes! I will vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008 whether it's Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich,

Barack Obama, John Edwards, Al Gore, etc. I want to defeat the right wing, and the best way to do so is to keep the right wing out of power!

[Placebo]

55. Anyone who votes "no" is a goddamn traitor to their country.

Just saying.

Hillary is my candidate in the primaries, but dammit, I'll support whoever comes out on top on the Democratic side.

Why?

BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY CAN'T SURVIVE 4-8 MORE YEARS OF A REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE!

Idiots.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. In a word: Yes.

[Unvanguard]

58. Against a Republican, in a state where my vote would matter?

Yes.

[sandrakae]

60. If she wins the nomination she gets my vote.

I could not vote vote for a Republican without barfing. Hilary is very close to a Republican, but if she wins the nomination. I have no choice. I would reluctantly vote for her.

[against all enemies]

66. 29% say no? Probably the same 30% Democrats that voted for Lieberman.

[Cameron27]

73. Yes, of course ..

[RiverStone]

75. Only as a last resort...

She may wish there were do-ers in life - but 23 Senators voted NO, 133 Reps voted NO, and millions of people around the world NEW Shrub was going to start a huge fucked up war if they voted YES on the IWR!

Why did not she?

Yet ultimately, I'm loyal to our bug blue party and would hold my nose and vote for her over any rethug - I'd just LOVE that vote to be for Al Gore, Wes Clark, or Barack Obama!!!

[Rowdyboy]

81. I've voted Democratic since McGovern in 1972. Of course I'll vote for Hillary if she wins

the nomination. Proudly.

[DancingBear]

82. Not a prayer in hell

I would have two years ago, however.

Since then, I have watched this place turn into DemocraticStatusQuo, and I have watched people here REPEATEDLY use the same "logic" in defending Democratic candidates ("they're not Republicans") that they condemn in others ("they'll vote for anyone was long as he is a Republican").

I will vote for someone who represents MY views - someone who will end this war NOW and who actually knows what it means to do what is right vs. what is safe. If that person is a Democrat, so much the better.

It is MY vote. I OWN it.

Maybe if a few more of you had the balls to do it, instead of falling back on the same two-party bullshit we've been hearing forever then maybe - just maybe - the word "progressive" would stand for something again.

Don't worry, though - I'm sure you'll find some way to blame me (or anyone else handy) if your candidate doesn't win. After all, if I had only voted for her/him...

The fact that I found him/her to be without merit will be lost on you, for in your minds it was my duty not to vote my conscience and vote for a candidate, but to carry your conventional water and vote against one.

Underground, my ass.

[LoZoccolo]

86. It is MY ignore list. I OWN it.

See you in 2008.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[mnhtnbb]

83. YES, but, I'll require a dose of anti-vomit medicine first.

[rinsd]

95. This bodes well for Hillary.

This may be the place outside of FR and the rw blogosphere where you will see a huge amount of anti-Hillary posts and she is still able to count on the ballot support of 70%.

[AJH032]

103. my thoughts too

70% is pretty good for the DU crowd.

[NoSheep]

98. I'm afraid I'd have to. I'm even starting to like her for some reason.

Getting used to the idea I guess.

[LittleClarkie]

99. If she passes the sniff test once I give her the "Kerry" treatment

maybe.

The Kerry treatment is me checking out all the books and articles I can in order to make friends with the nominee. It sure worked for Kerry.

[Tellurian]

155. I've heard rumors Kerry is swinging his support to the Clintons..

Very smart move if he would enjoy a Cabinet position...I say!

[Larry in KC]

100. Yes, but then I'd steel myself for four more years...

...of a Republican in the White House.

[hopein08]

101. No, if she's the nominee in the general election I won't vote at all, unless

...for example the Republican is Tancredo or Brownback...then I would vote for HRC.

But if the Republican is Hagel or (probably) McCain...I won't vote at all.

I know I'm hedging my bets, but you've got be somewhat flexible.

[LoZoccolo]

108. hopein08?

You'll get off my ignore list in '08.

:hi: :nuke:

[hopein08]

134. You probably won't read this (as you've chosen to be slightly childish), but I'll explain anyway...

"hopein08" was a screen name I chose with the full intention of it being hope for John Edwards to win in '08. Its a sort of play on his mantra "Hope is on the Way". Remember that? Anyway, it also has to do with hope in '08 for who I think would be the best president. And I'm sorry, but that is not HRC.

But if you want to put me on your ignore list because of who I chose to vote, or not vote, for...fine. I don't really care. I would never have thought of doing that to anyone. The OP asked a question, I answered. What about doing that causes me to get on your ignore list? I would honestly, really like to know.

I won't stoop to your level. I won't put you on my ignore list for this.

[Cascadian]

151. Might as well add me to the list, LoZoccolo!

No way in hell I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. My state leans Democratic anyway so it won't make a difference who my vote goes to. If Hillary gets it, I am voting third party or write-in a candidate.


John

[paulk]

102. I'm kind of looking forward to the post primary DU

when all the assholes who voted "no" get kicked off this board.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

104. 30% are DINO's--fuck 'em.

They can go home and masturbate to pictures of president-elect John McCain then.

Purists suck.

[blondeatlast]

107. Yes. And if she's the nominee, I'll walk the sidewalks and make the calls.

I'm a Democrat, and if she is the nominee, she will get my support--and then I'll bitch about her like crazy.

[TankLV]

110. Yep. No regrets either.

And the icing on the cake would be all the bacckwash puking day in and day out with their heads spinning like the exorcist...

[wisteria]

113. Nope! Not a chance.n/t

[SaveElmer]

114. 83 Non-Democrats on a Democratic board...

And they probably think they are the "base"

:rofl:

[DancingBear]

116. No, just 84 people who refuse to play a rigged game

and who actually want an honest human being to represent them.

Oh, and for those who think Hillary is actually a Democrat - :rofl:

And for those who think she is actually honest - :rofl: :rofl:

And for those who think she isn't tied at the hip to corporate interests - :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Carry on.

[SaveElmer]

118. If you do not vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election...

You are not a Democrat...it is that simple...

No different than Joe Lieberman in my book...

[wisteria]

120. Yes, I am a good Democrat. I want my party to represent the people,Clinton and the DLC

are more concerned with corporate money and personal power. I won't vote for her because I want the genuine Democratic party back.

Remember what the Repubs did last election to wake up their party, well sometimes you have to get tough and lose to make it better in the future.

Oh, and I don't care what you think. A Lieberman I am not. Actually, I did a lot to try to rid the party of him.

[SaveElmer]

124. ...

A. You assertions about Hillary are incorrect, and typical of left-wing boilerplate criticism that has become the norm on DU..

B. My comment stands, if you do not vote for the nominee of your party in the general election, you are not a Democrat...

C. Let me guess...you consider yourself part of the base I bet!

[wisteria]

131. My opinion of Ms Clinton stands also. We need less of the Clinton's not more. n/t

[SaveElmer]

132. As does mine...we need committed Democrats...like Hillary...

And as of this morning 85 of our fellows have declared they will cease being Democrats if she wins the Democratic nomination...

[paulk]

167. "well sometimes you have to get tough and lose"

How anyone can say that after the last six years under the Bush regime is not something I can understand.

IMG]

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

138. My world view tells me...

That the only true hope for righting the ship after the last 6 years is to make sure Democrats are in control in all three branches of Government...

There is not a Democrat being remotely considered as a candidate that I would not vote for...

The fact remains, if you do not vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008, you are no longer a Democrat...you may be an independent, you may turn green, or you may take your ball and go home...that is certainly your right...however, it would be false to consider yourself a Democrat...

[northquest]

115. I WANT GORE NOT HILLARY

I want someone who has a plan and the heart to move us in the right direction.I don't see Hillary as that person, but I won't vote for a republican and she does come with Bill.Please Al Gore Run, Please! ! !

[Tellurian]

128. Yeah, I want them both..

Bush is about ready to declare himself a dictator. Do we really have time for a President in training program?
GORE/HILLARY is the most prudent move for the circumstance we are now in..

It's really not a matter of choice...It's a matter of survival!

[johnnyrocket]

119. 30% no!?!? What the hell is wrong with you 'democrats'!?

She'd be lightyears better than any GOP running the executive to the ground again!

C'mon folks! I'd never vote for her in a primary match up, but if she's all we've got, I'll take it.

[wisteria]

121. She also represents everything that is wrong with our party. We need change-

real change. I would vote against her for the sake of our party- the party of the people. The Clinton's and the DLC are more interested in corporate and personal power.

[LoZoccolo]

127. I need change as well.

I need to increment the ignore list by one!

[Tellurian]

129. Ah,......

hahahahahahaha!

:rofl:

[wisteria]

133. Thats it real democratic, ignore those with an opposing point of view.

Just because she is a Democrat doesn't mean she is better than another candidate. I vote the conscious of my country. I vote the person who IMO, would be best for this country.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[koopie57]

130. not only that but

if she is the nominee she is our first step towards getting a better candidate in the future. It we stuck together for a one election, we can have a better candidate in the future.

But really, it is a long time from now and many good candidates running that is seems a little early to start nitpicking and argueing about who to vote for.

I don't know, sounds a little arrogant and pig-headed, but that is just MHO.

[PhilipShore]

122. No...

The DLC has to much contempt for liberals, and it was liberals -- that got the powers that be to allow her as a women to be a senator.

[LoZoccolo]

125. Really? I have to much contempt for people wasting my time.

:hi:

[Tellurian]

152. Philip...Come again?

can you elaborate on that statement?

I have no idea what it means.

[Tellurian]

126. I voted yes..

and a kick is in order!

:kick:

[Zero Division]

135. Don't vote 3rd party or stay home, unless you want to lose the Supreme Court.

If you want a right wing controlled Supreme Court that will overturn women's reproductive rights, overrule important environmental legislation, and negate or prevent legislation to help those who aren't wealthy, then go ahead and vote against the Democratic nominee or don't vote at all. If a Republican wins in '08 and the Democrats lose control of congress at any point in that term, then we are that much closer to losing nearly everything that's ever been accomplished for the good of ALL Americans.

Don't like feeling forced to vote for the Democratic nominee by realities like this? Then work to change the system, first (work to change the winner-take-all voting system used in presidential elections, for example). Life confronts us with situations in which an ideal choice is often impossible. It does not make one an immoral person to recognize this and make rational choices based upon this realization.

In 2008 I will be voting my conscience, by voting for the Democratic nominee, because I'm certain the consequences of a Republican win will be worse for more Americans and more human beings, period.

[Milo_Bloom]

149. What difference does it make?

If Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry among others can be "terrorized" by the GOP or by "polls" to vote for the death of 100's of thousands of Iraqi citizens and thousands of American soldiers why would you be the least bit confident that they wouldn't bend and put in some "centrist" SC justice????

What, you don't think the GOP can come up with some angle to try and make them seem like traitors if they don't put in a "centrist" justice?

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, I regret the latter.

What I find the most interesting is the fact that losing in 2000 and 2004 was probably the best thing that ever happened to the democratic party and in the long term, possibly for the country. Sometimes things have to get much worse, before they get better.

Thanks to losing, the democrats actually found their guts. The candidates who stood up against bush the strongest in 2006... they got in... and in areas no one ever expected them to win. Turnout was HUGE, I believe because voters finally had a reason to vote FOR someone, instead of just against someone else.

Putting someone like Hillary, Edwards or any of the other "I voted for the war, while speaking out against it" crowd would be a giant step backwards for the democratic party and for America.

Look what losing in 2000 did for Al Gore... Losing gave him the courage to really dig down deep, speak his mind and look what it has got him... He's popular, he's more respected then ever and people are really willing to listen to him.

Ultimately, losing in 2000 is what finally exposed the right wing wacko party and, if we keep up the momentum, will put them down for a long time to come.

I don't remember which book it was (Maybe Stupid White Men)... Well, rather than guess, I went and grabbed my copy... if you have it, please grab it and turn to chapter 10... You can read a list of accomplishments and then the summary that "Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents we've ever had".

Now, let's get to reality, the reason bush has been able to get away with so much, isn't just 9/11, it was because the "bar" was moved so far to the right before he even took office, that his special brand of lunacy was simply seen as just "the other side of the coin" instead of the radical insanity it was. We don't need more of that. We need to reset the bar where it belongs and that is either done by putting a real progressive in office OR by allowing the GOP to cause more damage. Putting a weak willed democrat in office, who is easilly spooked by polls and/or GOP tricks is like taking aspirin to releive the pain of a broken leg... it may feel a tiny bit better for a short time, but until you set the bone and stop trying to walk on it, it is just going to get worse and worse.

[Zero Division]

164. No Democrat, except a true right winger like Zell, would appoint a SC...

justice that would allow abortion to be banned or any of the kinds of drastic changes the right wing wants to see come out of the Supreme Court. It would literally be the end of his/her career as a Democratic politician. Voting for a third party candidate accomplishes nothing with the system as it is now. A small fraction of votes going to a spoiler does not "send an important message" to anyone.

May I remind you that the Democratic losses we've endured since 2000 are the very things that allowed the Iraq War, the Katrina debacle, the appointment of 2 conservative SC justices, and a host of legislation and decisions that have done immeasurable harm to this country and other countries to occur?
And yet, you're certain that all that has transpired was worth it because "the democrats actually found their guts"?

I don't want to end up voting for someone who doesn't live up to my ideals, either, but I realize that it makes no sense to vote for a third party candidate or refuse to vote when I look at the probable consequences of doing so. Work to ensure that the best candidates are nominated, work to change the system of voting and campaign financing that causes these kinds of choices to need to be considered in the first place. That makes sense to me. Throwing away my vote in the general election doesn't. What has voting third party or staying home ever accomplished? Nothing. What will it likely accomplish? Nothing.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[booley]

141. You forgot the third otopn.."don't know"

Right now I am inclined to say no .

But I haven't made up my mind for certain. especially without knowing who she is running against.

[Nedsdag]

156. A third option would be:

"Ask me the same question in August of 2008 (Democratic convention time)."

[ShortnFiery]

143. OK, is anyone signing onto different computers just to vote "yes"? n/t

[MessiahRp]

144. The best way to avoid this is to unify our vote against Hillary in the primaries

That will end the civil war in our party over her once and for all.

Rp

[Cascadian]

147. Yes. Agreed there.

It makes my blood boil that it has come to this and I fear something like this will rip the party apart. I can sense the tension and only somebody like Al Gore will be able to unify all of us. Choosing Hillary will spell the death of the Democratic Party.


John

[Cascadian]

148. dupe

remove please.

[Cascadian]

150. It's the lack of choices is the big problem.

The more I think about it, the more it angers me that we could be given another lack of choice between the Corporate Democrats and Corporate Republicans. Not a hell of a lot between them. Isn't anybody sick of this crap? I expect the Republicans to shill out to the corporations but Democrats? What is wrong with this picture? The DLC are doing a heck of a job in dividing the party and what is sad are people are willing to accept this garbage! Some people have no clue and we are paying dearly for it. We ought to have more choices in our system. You know there was once a time when America did have a multiparty system but sadly that died off but now I think it is starting to happen again whether like it or not. Now, the laws must change so we can have an equal playing field for all third parties. Give the people more choice. Unless the Democrats get rid of the DLCers, this is where we are headed.


John

[AtomicKitten]

154. ** POLLING DATA ENDING **

I think this poll has remained pretty static over the last 24 hours, so I am submitting this data to a colleague and writer who requested it.

I posted this without personal comment and asked a straightforward question. Beside the point and having nothing to so with the poll, I will reiterate because of the charming recriminations lobbed at me via PM, I have stated many, many times my preferences are Gore, Obama, and possibly Clark, and no one in the primary that voted 'yes' on the IWR. Again this is irrelevant to the collection of this data, but I offer it here to those that have taken it upon themselves to extrapolate and assign motive.

It's rather sad, bordering on pathetic, that people stoop to personal attacks because of differences of political opinion. I work with folks that are interested in data, in this case a simple yes/no answer to a straightforward question.

On edit: Thanks to all that voted.

[Tellurian]

158. By my pidly calculations, Hillary has 71% of the Vote @DU!

Thats a pretty good number.

[AtomicKitten]

159. What I find fascinating is

how this relates to the anti-HRC sentiment here. One would think, taking these statistics into consideration, that folks would temper their rhetoric just a teensy bit in case she does get the nod, and one can only assume that the most caustic rhetoric comes from a minority of folks that are LOUD and PERSISTENT in their campaign to annihilate her. Interesting stuff, really.

[Tellurian]

163. Just an affirmation...

You can NEVER convince the Far Left and Green Retreads for doing anything for the betterment of the country.

In their distorted thinking, their 'cause' supersedes any present pressing critical issues to the detriment of us who will be most affected..They are responsible for Bush's appointment the first time around because of their Third Party Lunacy. You don't see them winning any political offices in municipal or state elections. Why? They are ideologues akin to the Christian Right... sadly, their voices are heard in a derogatory manner only on message boards, their virtual 'church' existing solely in cyberspace. <sigh>

[Clark2008]

157. I doubt it.

My little one vote wouldn't make up the 20 percent deficit she'd lose by in my state, so I might as well vote for the person I think could have either taken my state or made it so competititve that the Republicans would have to spend money here instead of somewhere else.

See - voting "no" isn't terrorism. My vote wouldn't matter at all if it was for her - or for a write-in. If she's the nominee, she'll lose my state in a landslide. My one vote won't matter, in this case.

[Cascadian]

162. 71% support the DLC agenda.

John

[Tellurian]

165. John Kerry is DLC. He thinks it's ok.. If he didn't, he'd resign!

[UCLA Dem]

168. I'm a Democrat and I will vote Democratic.

[Moderator]

169. Locking

Sadly, this has turned into a flamewar.